My Thoughts On College Admissions (3/27/2021)

 Student A vs Student B: Who deserves it more?

Lets say that there are students, and we will call them student A and student B. 

Student A has a higher socioeconomic background, and had a better education. They did well enough in school, but they never stood out to become the best.

Student B comes from a lower socioeconomic background, and also had a worse education. They, however, happened to an outstanding student in their school.

It comes time to apply for college, and a top tier college is now considering both of these student's academics. Which one should they admit?

To illustrate this example better, lets try using the image of a staircase as an example of education. The first staircase goes up all the way to the highest level of (lets say ten story) education building. The second staircase maybe only goes up five floors, but it is very, very slippery, making it hard to climb.

Lets look at student A and student B again. Suppose student A was only able to climb up to five floors on the easier staircase, while student B somehow also managed to climb their way up to the fifth floor on the slippery staircase. When comparing these two students, it seems pretty clear that student B was the harder worker.

But what if student A managed to climb all the way up to the eighth floor? Compared to student B, who is still on the fifth floor, which one worked harder? Now it starts to get hard to tell. Student B had to suffer through all the slippery stairs, and while student A did not have to go through the same troubles, they managed to take advantage of their higher staircase to climb to a higher level in the same amount of time. If student A and B were to switch places, maybe student A wouldn't have been able to find the footing within the slippery stairs to climb all to the fifth level. However, the same could be said for student B, because student B might not have had the stamina, endurance, or speed in order to make it to the eighth level.

Now what if student A was actually able to reach all the way to the top of the education building, or the tenth level? Which student is as accomplished now?

There are compelling arguments for A and B to be seen as deserving (in the second or third case, of course). While arguing for both A and B, I'll use the second case as the basis for my arguments.

For student A:

Colleges are institutes of higher education. They want students who will succeed in their courses. From this standpoint, it can be argued that student A, who was able to reach a higher level of education, is more likely to succeed. Colleges won't have to spend time boosting these students up to par (in other words, providing the three extra floors of knowledge to the student Bs of the world). Also, when student A actually reaches college, they will be able to handle the heavy course load, because they have done similar things in the past. 

If student B were to make it over student A, student A would feel slighted, because student B never reached the same level of education that student A did. Student B has to adjust to the higher coursework, not to mention needing to somehow cover those three floors of education that student A already has under their belt.

Student A also thinks that they worked harder than student B. Those stairs from floors 5-8 were especially steep, and student A doesn't think that student B would have been able to handle the climb. As slippery as the stairs were on the second staircase, student B only had to make it to the fifth floor. Student A thinks that them being able to make it to the eighth staircase is already an accomplishment.

For Student B:

Student B had a harder time working their way up, due to the slippery stairs. Despite this, they still made the best out of their environment, and they were still able to exceed when compared to everyone else in their environment. Colleges want students who will succeed, and student B is confident that they will succeed, and they know this because they had already succeeded by being one of the best in their environment. They are hard and smart workers.

If student A were to make it over student B, student B would feel slighted, because student A was privileged from the start. Student A had tons of help along the way while they were climbing the staircase, and they had an advantage because they were able to make it farther on the staircase than student B ever could.

Student B also thinks that they worked harder than student A. It's been said before, but those stairs were very slippery. Student A never had to deal with those slippery stairs, and student B thinks that student A would not have been able to find the right footing to advance like they did. Student B was able to excel in their environment, and there isn't a reason to think that if they went on the same staircase as student A then they wouldn't still excel.

To be clear, I have argued both sides to various people. My parents, being successful Asians, who succeeded in a very competitive Asian environment to move to the United States, think that of course student A should be more deserving. These students made use of their resources, and reached a higher level of education and knowledge than student B. They are "smarter" because they know more.

People on the UCI server mostly seem to think that student B is more deserving. Student A had a bunch of resources, and student A should also be excelling in order to be just as deserving as student B. Student B in this case is "smarter" because they were able to stand out more amongst others in similar situations.

Personally, I don't know which one is more deserving. As such, I don't think any of these people are more deserving than the other. Each side is deserving in their own right. I have noticed that people generally seem to argue for which side is more favorable to them only, and I feel like these people don't see the big picture. Speaking as a student A, a lot of people would argue for student B, only to realize that they are actually the student A in the example, and start to argue for the student A instead. Personally, I also have bias, because as a student A who did not stand out in his school, I want to think that I deserve a spot at whichever college I got into. I do actually think that there is a tier of colleges that I deserved to get into. But, that does not also mean that I am entitled to a spot at any of those colleges, because there are a ton of other students out there that are also deserving, depending on what you value. Feeling entitled to a college is bad because you are not acknowledging that there are many, many other students out there that are just as deserving as you.

There will only be a limited amount of spots available for all the top colleges. No matter who these colleges choose, someone will always be angry. I think this is why college admissions seem so random. Colleges try their best to choose those that they think are the most deserving, and what they think is most deserving is not the same as what you think is deserving. I know people who I thought should have definitely gotten into certain schools. I also know people who I thought should not have gotten into certain schools. But, that is also just my opinion, and it's not like I am even qualified to make these decisions anyways.

In an ideal world, student B's staircase would not be slippery, and it would go all the way to the top. But that is not exactly possible, and so we keep comparing apples to oranges here, when both situations are vastly different. Personally, I think that each side should acknowledge each other more, and give credit where credit is due. Determining who actually deserves something more than someone else is can be a nigh-impossible task.

Extra notes: After getting into college, I have found the experience to be mostly disappointing, and this is not just because it is online. This was a point that I was too afraid to make because I had seen a similar confession with this take get absolutely ripped to pieces in confession replies, but since coming to UCI, I have been a little disappointed with the academics. On one hand, it is nice having to not spend as much effort as I did in high school to achieve similar grades. On the other hand, as someone who only barely got into UCI from the waitlist, it is off-putting to see other students come in who are not as prepared as I was, and do tons worse than me. I have a lot of friends who go to other high-tier colleges, and most of them seem to be challenged at a high level. I'm glad that I'm at UCI, but some part of me feels as if I'm not being challenged enough, and maybe UCI has not been worth my time. (This also might just be due to me maybe just taking easier classes or something though, I've heard that things only really start to get interesting/challenging in upper division classes, so idk). This experience has led me to adopt more of a bias towards student A's example, because I feel that all the student A's in the world should still be able to go to colleges that add onto their education.