[throwawaymath]

I think that a lottery without a qualification threshold would contradict meritocracy. In contrast, I don't think a threshold-based lottery contradicts meritocracy. Rather it can be interpreted as a claim that meritocracy cannot be properly quantified beyond a certain precision (which in this case is the threshold). Even if you disagree with that premise, it's substantially different than the rejection of meritocracy altogether.

I also don't think it presupposes anything about what colleges want. What colleges want isn't relevant to a claim about what would be more fair. The paper this article is based on doesn't make an argument for how to force or persuade colleges to espouse the system. It only argues that this system is closer to a platonic ideal of admission fairness.

[dannykwells]

I think the point is too subtle to be broadly appreciated. Any crack in the dam of meritocracy is likely to become a flood. The illusion must be preserved.

wrt to point 2: I guess it's about perspective. It's fine to propose systems that in theory would be nice but without an eye towards what could actually work, what's the point?

[throwawaymath]

Why is any "crack" in the "dam" of meritocracy likely to become a flood? I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see any specific evidence justifying that claim.

Hypothetically a threshold-based admission lottery would cast more sunlight on the admissions process since:

1. you'd cease having nonpublic, ill-defined measures for admission above the baseline; and

2. you'd have to publish the threshold in any realistically accountable system.

We can argue about whether or not such a system would be (willingly) embraced by universities, but I don't see how the system itself destroys meritocracy. It seems more accurate to say it simply denies meritocracy can be meaningfully measured above a certain baseline of qualification. That only obliviates meritocratic differences above your defined baseline.

Is your contention that the baseline itself would simply shift the uncertainty "downwards" to maintain the status quo?

[sly010]

A good example of the crack/flood analogy is the current H1B visa system. You do have to be qualified to apply, but if enough people qualify a year, they distribute the spots randomly. Eventually the general public started referring to it as "H1B lottery" and assume it's all a matter of luck.

[dcole2929]

I mean because at that point it is a matter of luck. You can pretend it's not but when everyone is qualified there stops being a real difference between candidates. I think a lottery for higher education works the same. At joe blow public school that may not be true but at an institution like Harvard, they receive so many qualified applicants they could probably choose and entire class full of any one special interest group and still leave out qualified candidates. The difference between student A and B don't really matter when they are both exceptional

[max76]

Not everything has to have direct practical implications in order to be valuable to read.

[jihadjihad]

But how is that threshold itself determined? Seems like it's completely arbitrary and at the discretion of the institution.

[throwawaymath]

Good question! I think you can come up with different models for how to define a threshold, and I'm not done reading the paper the article is based on. But implicit in any discussion of a threshold is the idea that the threshold has to be explicit. You can't realistically hold a lottery for ostensible fairness maximization without publicly defining your baseline for lottery eligibility.

[trowawee]

It would also probably dramatically worsen the grade inflation that's already rampant at a lot of the elite feeder high schools that pump people into the Ivies (and rampant at Harvard itself[1], fwiw).

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/...

[nine_k]

An institution can make a threshold high enough that a sample task from the admission exam is considered hard and selective enough. It can still have it sufficiently low that the number of applicants passing it is 10-30-100 times higher than the number of admissions, so that the lottery effect is not lost.