https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/14/meritocracy-myth-rich-college-admissions?fbclid=IwAR15Oui3sIKM10KysHZfj8nXEgxWs7Sa6ZU5Gp1D2O2buJM8lHueV-gR53g

Meritocracy is a myth invented by the rich

Nathan Robinson

The elite college admissions scandal in the US is a reminder that wealth, not talent, is what determines the opportunities you have in life

Thu 14 Mar 2019 08.20 EDT Last modified on Thu 14 Mar 2019 14.40 EDT

The US college admissions scandal is fascinating, if not surprising. Over 30 wealthy parents have been criminally charged over a scheme in which they allegedly paid a company large sums of money to get their children into top universities. The duplicity involved was extreme: everything from paying off university officials to inventing learning disabilities to facilitate cheating on standardized tests. One father even faked a photo of his son pole vaulting in order to convince admissions officers that the boy was a star athlete.

It’s no secret that wealthy people will do nearly anything to get their kids into good schools. But this scandal only begins to reveal the lies that sustain the American idea of meritocracy. William “Rick” Singer, who admitted to orchestrating the scam, explained that there are three ways in which a student can get into the college of their choice: “There is a front door which is you get in on your own. The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door.” The “side door” he’s referring to is outright crime, literally paying bribes and faking test scores. It’s impossible to know how common that is, but there’s reason to suspect it’s comparatively rare. Why? Because for the most part, the wealthy don’t need to pay illegal bribes. They can already pay perfectly legal ones.

It’s not just corruption. Entrance into elite US colleges is rigged in every way

In his 2006 book The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges, Daniel Golden exposes the way that the top schools favor donors and the children of alumni. A Duke admissions officer recalls being given being given a box of applications she had intended to reject, but which were returned to her for “special” reconsideration. In cases where parents are expected to give very large donations upon a student’s admission, the applicant may be described as an “institutional development” candidate – letting them in would help develop the institution. Everyone by now is familiar with the way the Kushner family bought little Jared a place at Harvard. It only took $2.5m to convince the school that Kushner was Harvard material.

The inequality goes so much deeper than that, though. It’s not just donations that put the wealthy ahead. Children of the top 1% (and the top 5%, and the top 20%) have spent their entire lives accumulating advantages over their counterparts at the bottom. Even in first grade the differences can be stark: compare the learning environment at one of Detroit’s crumbling public elementary schools to that at a private elementary school that costs tens of thousands of dollars a year. There are high schools, such as Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, that have billion-dollar endowments. Around the country, the level of education you receive depend on how much money your parents have.

Even if we equalized public school funding, and abolished private schools, some children would be far more equal than others. Two and a half million children in the United States go through homelessness every year in this country. The chaotic living situation that comes with poverty makes it much, much harder to succeed. This means that even those who go through Singer’s “front door” have not “gotten in on their own”. They’ve gotten in partly because they’ve had the good fortune to have a home life conducive to their success.

People often speak about “equality of opportunity” as the American aspiration. But having anything close to equal opportunity would require a radical re-engineering of society from top to bottom. As long as there are large wealth inequalities, there will be colossal differences in the opportunities that children have. No matter what admissions criteria are set, wealthy children will have the advantage. If admissions officers focus on test scores, parents will pay for extra tutoring and test prep courses. If officers focus instead on “holistic” qualities, pare. It’s simple: wealth always confers greater capacity to give your children the edge over other people’s children. If we wanted anything resembling a “meritocracy”, we would probably have to start by instituting full egalitarian communism.

In reality, there can be never be such thing as a meritocracy, because there’s never going to be fully equal opportunity. The main function of the concept is to assure elites that they deserve their position in life. It eases the “anxiety of affluence”, that nagging feeling that they might be the beneficiaries of the arbitrary “birth lottery” rather than the products of their own individual ingenuity and hard work.

There’s something perverse about the whole competitive college system. But we can imagine a different world. If everyone was guaranteed free, high-quality public university education, and a public school education matched the quality of a private school education, there wouldn’t be anything to compete for.

Instead of the farce of the admissions process, by which students have to jump through a series of needless hoops in order to prove themselves worthy of being given a good education, just admit everyone who meets a clearly-established threshold for what it takes to do the coursework. It’s not as if the current system is selecting for intelligence or merit. The school you went to mostly tells us what economic class your parents were in. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Nathan Robinson is the editor of Current Affairs

So…I will start.

The central feature is Donald Trump, with his hands folded in a reverent fashion, eyes closed. At his feet is a doll. Or baby. But I think it’s a doll. Appears to be Caucasian. He is wearing a jacket that has three patches on it that I do not recognize, but which appear sort of commander-in-chiefish. He has apparently urinated himself.

Trump is accompanied by the founder of the massage parlor Orchid Whatever that Bob Kraft was busted for attending. This is the woman who started the business of what appears to be sex slavery a few minutes away from Mar a Lago, and that apparently served people of means. Her purse says Trump on it prominently. Her left hand is somewhere. Not sure. Her expression is one of devilish glee. It appears to me that neither one of these people is looking at the doll on the ground.

Behind Trump and whasssername, there is a sign that reads “Caution.” Also there are two people standing on an American flag. One person is a black male. He is holding blue fabric, possibly a flag, with script that might be Hebrew, but I can’t tell. In front of him stands a white woman with red fabric/flag with script that looks Singhalese to me, but that would make no sense, so it is something else.

There is a slight gully to Trump’s left, a geographical division between the left half of the painting, and the right half. In the upper quadrant on that side, there is an indistinguishable mass of humans. They are holding a flag, a flag which I think belongs to Honduras. It might be El Salvador, but it is probably Honduras….There are storm clouds.

Okay. The easy stuff. The storm clouds are storm clouds. We are in disturbed times. Okay. The people with the Honduran flag are indistinguishable, a mass, immigrants, and separated physically.

Trump is sanctimoniously wearing a commander outfit while ignoring the infant at his feet. The symbol of infancy. I have no idea what the people behind him recognize. The woman represents Trump’s sexual malfeasance, his alliance with criminals. His wet pants may be a reference to the alleged golden showers, though that would be a stretch, or maybe a reflection of his cowardice…though I don’t think that is an important characteristic of Trump, and not one worthy of development in a subtle way. So I dunno.