I wonder if part of the bias towards admitting people from a higher economic class is simply that that's the group that provides most of the big endowments.
That hypothesis is stated in both the article and the source material. However, even if financial considerations are a part of it, they can't explain the full extent of the discrimination though - that 4H & Future Farmers of America count against an applicant while all other extracurriculars help.
This wasn't a double-blind study where for applications where all else was equal, 4H hurts applicants.
This was a statement about the populations. The population that is in 4H is less likely to get in (or likely to even apply) to top schools than the population that is in, say, debate. That's not really controversial, although it's worth theorizing about ways to improve the situation.
Yeah, they're just playing the game that's laid out for them. They can get money for scholarships for disadvantaged kids, and they can get money from big donor alumni in exchange for the implicit promise to let in their kids. So they do both of those.
Can't blame the colleges. I still think Pat Buchanan is a boob - established cats like him represent a much bigger chunk of the "pre-allocated" admissions spots at colleges, and whining about the few minorities who get in reeks of white entitlement.
It was new to me, and It was interesting to read. But I'm very interested in interpretations since I actually found it hard to understand the tone and pov of the author.
