Are college applications still merit-based?

Maybe they never were

As college decisions for incoming first-years and transfers come out this spring, prospective students are experiencing the inevitable mixed emotions that arise from receiving application results. TikToks of elated high-schoolers reacting to their acceptance letters are far outnumbered by the swaths of disappointed students rejected from their top choices. It seems like now more than ever, institutions once considered “safety schools” are overwhelmed with applications, leading them to reject even the most qualified candidates.

I’ve heard numerous anecdotes from recent college applicants expressing their frustration towards the admissions system. Many are convinced that the current process seems more like a “luck of the draw” than a merit-based system.

With the recent pushback against Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, I’ve noticed a puzzling split in attitudes towards college admissions. One side seems confused by the arbitrary and subjective nature of the admissions process, critical of the opacity created by higher learning institutions struggling to accommodate a growing application pool. Conversely, the other side is pushing for academic institutions to capitulate to orders to rescind DEI, convinced that minority applicants have possessed unfair advantages in the admissions process.

While vastly different in origin, both sides are indicative of a universal growing discontent towards higher education institutions — a frustration that threatens to erode our trust in greater academia. But are academic institutions entirely to blame, or is this disillusionment simply a magnification of wider social trends?

In an era where more Americans are graduating from high school than ever before, people don’t seem to want to pursue higher education. In fact, college attendance is exhibiting a slow decline after it reached a peak in the 2010s. The widespread notion that college is essential to future success and stability has long been ingrained in the American educational system and within most family units.

Despite the well-established narrative of college as the primary route to success, attitudes towards higher education underwent radical change during the COVID-19 pandemic; schools went fully online, giving students the opportunity to explore other, non-academic pathways. In addition to the disruption caused by the pandemic, tuition fees have continued to rise, discouraging a substantial proportion of the population from applying after high school graduation.

In addition to alternative paths and increased costs, there is a growing discontent with the college application process as the demographic of graduates has become more diverse than ever before. There exists a stark partisan, racial and gender divide in attitudes towards institutions of higher education, which has been further widened by the current administration’s mission to misconstrue the meaning of DEI. It seems that as top institutions have become more diverse (and thus more competitive), white men in particular are struggling to keep up. As the gender gap increases, men feeling alienated by modern academia are quick to dismiss the legitimacy of the institutions they are unable to attend.

The perceived inability to access higher education has left men vulnerable to the far-reaching tendrils of the alt-right. The movement thrives on anti-intellectualism, which appeals to those resentful of the higher education system. The alt-right rhetoric affirms their victimhood and stokes their anger towards the “undeserving” minorities accused of robbing them of their rightful positions within academic institutions.

Much of this frustration with higher education thrives in conjunction with the desire to return to what many presume was a “merit-based system.” Disgruntled attitudes about the perceived inequality of opportunity is indicative of a wider social trend: young men with misplaced anger who are struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Instead of criticizing the elitism long ingrained within academia, these men are being used as pawns to deepen the partisan wedge in the country by powerful political actors.

As far-right technocrats and billionaires become more brazen with wielding political power, many DEI initiatives are being overturned and defunded in an attempt to force colleges to capitulate to wider policy. Ironically, cancelling DEI initiatives has had the unintended effect of also hurting male applicants — the very same demographic the far-right claims has been unfairly treated by the natural consequences of a growing application pool.

The desire to recreate a “pure meritocracy” conveniently ignores the reality that men were the only demographic admitted into mainstream academic institutions until the mid-1900s. As women and people of color entered the applicant pool, the general population applying to college increased and made college admissions considerably more competitive (especially for those at the bottom of the bell curve).

Furthermore, the illusion of a once objective meritocracy is a myth perpetuated by the ultra-wealthy who held a monopoly over college admissions for most of United States history. They were the only socioeconomic group privileged enough to easily afford university and access the advantages of elite generational legacies. Those critical of diversity in higher education routinely ignore the implications of a “historically accurate meritocracy,” beyond its benefit to white men. In reality, this illusion of meritocracy conveniently ignores the unique struggles faced by disabled people, army veterans and underprivileged socioeconomic classes.

What remains clear is that the modern college application process has left students unsatisfied and disillusioned with higher education. A growing number of prospective students seem to agree that, to some extent, the college admissions process feels like a “luckocracy” — shaped by a few objective factors but still subject to high levels of unpredictability. In theory, the strength of a college application should be determined by a range of measurable factors like high school grades and extracurricular activities, but the oversaturation of applicants has disenfranchised even the most qualified candidates.

In an attempt to allocate a scarce number of spots to thousands of applicants, the admissions process has become more rejective. Consequently, students have adapted by casting a wider net by applying to more colleges — further upping the number of applicants at great personal expense. The cutthroat nature of the application process provides an opportunity for those with ulterior motives to sow division among young people. Instead of making higher education more accessible, the elite would rather convince men that minorities are the source of their disenfranchisement.

To those still blindly wishing to return to a “meritocracy,” I ask: Is it a merit-based admission if your grandfather’s name is on an Ivy League building? Or are you simply yearning for a time when you were in competition with fewer students?

Written by: Anjali Iyer — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.