To the contrary based on our current methods of evaluation of merit they are more meritorious. All that I am trying to say is that perhaps they have a systemic advantage that contributes to this. One would think that the son of a gardner is just as likely to excel in college and on standardized tests as a the son of business magnate, but thats not what happens.
Oh I do think there's an impact on performance. I have no doubt that the +1.5 avg MCAT you get from moving from the middle to the top is statistically significant. But look at the magnitudes we're talking about.
looking at the chart an just eyeballing it, there is a ~17.5% of EO5 above 37.4 vs 37.4 being 2 full SD's above the eo1 group. Couple this with GPA differences and you have a pretty substantial difference in the population receiving merit based aid. Perhaps adjusting merit based aid based on being above the normal distribution in SES might solve your concerns. In that case sure throw lots of money at the EO5 above 40. Thinking about it, IMHO it seems like a regressive tax like the mortgage deduction.
What are you eyeballing? 17.5% being top percentile doesn't sound right. By definition only 1% of the entire pool can be top percentile, and 17.5% of the top 20% would alone constitute a 3.5% chunk, even if we pretended only rich kids scored that high.
I don't think it's just his view, the authors of the original paper must feel similarly. Merit aid isn't really merit aid if wealth buys you high grades and high scores. Question is how true that statement is. It does seem the majority of high scores come from wealthy backgrounds, but at the same time the vast majority that come from wealthy backgrounds do not have merit-level scores.
I am not trying to take away from the achievements of high SES individuals. But do we seriously think that the achievement gap in scores between lower ses individuals and higher SES individuals is due to lower ses individuals being lazier and dumber? To give an example of how it really is a zero sum game, Even though I am classified as an EO1 I was only offered merit scholarships based on my scores compared to any needs based scholarships. I am happy to be in medical school and have the ability to pursue what I have wanted and ultimately increase the SES level of my children.
Frankly, I dont care about the paper. I am just pointing out that there is an element of regressiveness in the way merit scholarships are awarded. we would all like to think that we live in an ayn rand novel where individuals lift themselves up by sheer willpower and innate ability , but reality is way more complicated than that. I dont know how large single donors would respond to "we would like to stratify the awards based on achievement in SES cohort". The schools where I was awarded merit aid did not have large donors and was coming out of some discretionary funding.
The reference to Lake Tahoe reminds me of the first time I tried pronouncing Greenwich, CT in front of a bunch of college friends (wealthy East Coasters). Figured it was phonetic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts from people working on Adcoms on this very thread suggest that only some are coming from private donors and destined for merit. And even if those were the majority of merit-based aid, a claim which nobody seems to have the data to confirm or falsify, it's still fair to say that if the system that distributes scholarship funding does so in a way that benefits those who already come from a better financial position it's indirectly hurting those who end up receiving inadequate or nonexistent financial aid. If this is the shortcoming of a medical institution or the shortcoming of a private donor or donors, it's still worth mentioning. As already pointed out, it's one of the less noble necessities adcoms feel the need to address for stats.
