I think we need some sort of system like this. The concept of equitable opportunity helps explain why. If we take a generic rich kid and a generic poor kid, who is going to have more and better opportunities as they grow up? Definitely the rich kid. If the poor kid goes to a run of the mill shitty public school, and the rich kid to a college preparatory academy, but they end up having the exact same academic performance – who is more deserving of a seat at a coveted university?

This is what affirmative action was trying to unsuccessfully address. We can’t just take into account the final state, we need to also consider the initial state. The poor kid in my example started a lot lower but got to the same final state. They “grew” more than the rich kid. But what if the rich kid is also capable of that? They could be capable of the same growth, but it doesn’t show because they started out better positioned. So who do we pick?

There really isn’t a fair answer, and there’s multiple different philosophies you could use. In light of there being no good answer, I think instead we have to improve the admissions system itself. We need it so that these two kids don’t have to compete against each other. And, that whoever gets the seat doesn’t have significantly different outcomes than the one who does.

Easier said than done, I know. Maybe this looks like requiring schools to make 33-50% of their admissions for a particular major come from blind picks. If you meet a certain baseline performance, you’ll be entered into the pool. Direct applications would still be possible, but the random admissions would help equalize things. High performers can still apply and bypass that lottery.

And it’s important to keep in mind – cream rises to the top. I was devastated when I didn’t get into MIT or Stanford for engineering. I thought it was a major blow. Now though? I’m glad I didn’t get in. I wouldn’t change my experience at the University of Illinois for anything. I suspect if I had gone to Minnesota instead, I’d be saying the same about them too. The concept of a perfect university is heavily overblown to high schoolers, because of course, the ivy league stands to benefit from it. Above a certain baseline quality of education, a good student will do well no matter where they go. They’ll still get jobs at Fortune 500 companies and the big names.

(And frankly, a state school experience could be just what a high flier needs to become grounded and grow into an adult. They need to learn that education isn’t their whole life. I’m totally speaking from personal experience.)

Anyway, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk haha – sorry for the ramble!