You’re phrasing this as though it’s rebutting some remark I made; if so, I’m not sure what remark that is. I know that admissions offices are admitting students according to an intentional system.
The phrase “Robbers don’t need to rob people” is generally accurate.
But saying “Robbers don’t need to rob people,” and writing a long argument in support of that, makes it seem like you might be confused about the thought processes of robbers.
If robbers had a lot of cultural cachet and there were widely-disseminated arguments implying that robbers need to rob people, I think there would be a lot of value in a piece narrowly arguing that robbers don’t need to rob people, regardless of your views on their thought processes.
This is about your top line claim, and your framing.
If you try to say that if you exclude the reason a system is competitive, it does not need to be competitive, this is obvious.
The system you propose does not fufill the top line purposes of the admissions system.
there isn’t a huge oversupply of talent at all for these spots,
Misses the fact that the complexity of the admissions process does not come from competition over talent (universities would be willing to accept most people on their waitlist if they had more slots, and slots are limited by other factors), but from highly multidimensional preference frontiers which require complicated information about applicants to get good distributions of students.
Basically, the argument about talent is wrong directioned for talking about admission systems.
At the start of the post I describe an argument I often hear:
But many people are under the misconception that the resulting “rat race”—the highly competitive and strenuous admissions ordeal—is the inevitable result of the limited class sizes among top schools and the strong talent in the applicant pools, and that it isn’t merely because of the reasons listed in (2). Some even go so far as to suggest that a better system would be to run a lottery for any applicant who meets a minimum “qualification” standard—under the assumption that there would be many such qualified students.
This is the argument that I’m responding to and refuting.
You are wrong. The article does not refute that argument because (2) is about exactly the large dimensions of types of talent demanded. (Since universities want a variety of things)
You are assuming the consequent that there is not a large variety of things a university wants.
Saying if you relax a problem, it is easier, is not an argument that it can be relaxed. That is your fundamental misunderstanding. For the university, they do really find value in the things they select for with 2, so they have a lot of valuable candidates, and so picking a mixture of valuable candidates with a large supply of hard to compare offerings is in fact difficult, and will leave any one metric too weak for their preferences.
You’re phrasing this as though it’s rebutting some remark I made; if so, I’m not sure what remark that is. I know that admissions offices are admitting students according to an intentional system.
The phrase “Robbers don’t need to rob people” is generally accurate.
But saying “Robbers don’t need to rob people,” and writing a long argument in support of that, makes it seem like you might be confused about the thought processes of robbers.
If robbers had a lot of cultural cachet and there were widely-disseminated arguments implying that robbers need to rob people, I think there would be a lot of value in a piece narrowly arguing that robbers don’t need to rob people, regardless of your views on their thought processes.
This is about your top line claim, and your framing.
If you try to say that if you exclude the reason a system is competitive, it does not need to be competitive, this is obvious.
The system you propose does not fufill the top line purposes of the admissions system.
there isn’t a huge oversupply of talent at all for these spots,
Misses the fact that the complexity of the admissions process does not come from competition over talent (universities would be willing to accept most people on their waitlist if they had more slots, and slots are limited by other factors), but from highly multidimensional preference frontiers which require complicated information about applicants to get good distributions of students.
Basically, the argument about talent is wrong directioned for talking about admission systems.
At the start of the post I describe an argument I often hear:
This is the argument that I’m responding to and refuting.
You are wrong. The article does not refute that argument because (2) is about exactly the large dimensions of types of talent demanded. (Since universities want a variety of things)
You are assuming the consequent that there is not a large variety of things a university wants.
Saying if you relax a problem, it is easier, is not an argument that it can be relaxed. That is your fundamental misunderstanding. For the university, they do really find value in the things they select for with 2, so they have a lot of valuable candidates, and so picking a mixture of valuable candidates with a large supply of hard to compare offerings is in fact difficult, and will leave any one metric too weak for their preferences.