[stupac2]

But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs.

Very good post that did a better job describing this than I would have. I do want to reiterate that a large chunk of my affection for this idea is this point right here, that I think this is basically what's already happening, we're just all lying to ourselves about it. There's just no way that the last student in and the first student out are all that different, and, frankly, I'd be surprised if the 1000th student in and the 10,000th student out were really all that different either. The pool of qualified applicants is just enormous and you have to winnow it down somehow, in many respects admitting that it's an impossible task and doing it by lottery is the fairest way to do it. Of course without knowing the details of how admissions really works it's difficult to say how far off the process is.

Anyway, one of my core beliefs is that I'm not all that special, and my admission to Stanford was a combination of what few natural talents I have and big helping luck. I'm a big fan of articles like this one: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2...-privilege. YMMV, but I think the thesis that we need to take luck more seriously as a brobdingnagian determinant of outcomes is quite sound, and would radically reshape our society. The above admissions idea is just a part of it, if one knew that part of the reason one got into an elite school was simple dumb luck, then perhaps one would be more inclined to look at all the other ways luck has shaped one's life, and think about what that means for everyone else.

[stupac2]

But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs.

Very good post that did a better job describing this than I would have. I do want to reiterate that a large chunk of my affection for this idea is this point right here, that I think this is basically what's already happening, we're just all lying to ourselves about it. There's just no way that the last student in and the first student out are all that different, and, frankly, I'd be surprised if the 1000th student in and the 10,000th student out were really all that different either. The pool of qualified applicants is just enormous and you have to winnow it down somehow, in many respects admitting that it's an impossible task and doing it by lottery is the fairest way to do it. Of course without knowing the details of how admissions really works it's difficult to say how far off the process is.

Anyway, one of my core beliefs is that I'm not all that special, and my admission to Stanford was a combination of what few natural talents I have and big helping luck. I'm a big fan of articles like this one: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2...-privilege. YMMV, but I think the thesis that we need to take luck more seriously as a brobdingnagian determinant of outcomes is quite sound, and would radically reshape our society. The above admissions idea is just a part of it, if one knew that part of the reason one got into an elite school was simple dumb luck, then perhaps one would be more inclined to look at all the other ways luck has shaped one's life, and think about what that means for everyone else.