To elite universities: What would you say you do here?

The elite (and expensive) band plays "Pomp and Circumstance."  The elite (and expensive) dean hands diplomas to the new graduates.  Then the graduates look forward to a charmed life of influence and power within elite (and expensive) companies and industries.  The lay perspective is that the elite (and expensive) diploma is the entry ticket into an elite world of leadership. 

The observant lay perspective is that the majority (say, mean of 60% and a standard deviation of +/- 5%) of the elite students share certain physical characteristics.  Not wishing to perpetuate the judgment trap of ordinality - Group A is 1st and best, Group B is 2nd best, etc - let us name this group X.  The observant layperson could with reason claim that Group X has the coveted entry ticket.  Genetics being what it is, Group X's progeny also fit the Group X moniker.  If Group X is a stable factor in the university (say, 60% mean with a standard deviation of +/- 5%) then the university admissions perpetuates the membership of Group X.  People with sufficiently different physical characteristics - say Group Y - tend not to be members in the elite university, and therefore do not get the entry ticket, and therefore perpetuate the non-membership of Group Y. 

The activist lay perspective basically seeks to address this issue by enforcing (if publicly funded) or shaming (if privately funded) universities into reserving student seats for people with Group Y physical characteristics.  So far so good.  Economically speaking, this means universities now offer 2 separate products with different supply lines: Product X and Product Y.  Demand for Product Y exceeds the inelastic (reserved) supply.  Economically speaking, the price for Product Y rises - either more tuition ($$$; e.g. foreign students tend to pay more) or higher requirements (e.g. need higher SAT or GRE scores - here and here).      

In these cases, the universities imply - or at least actively encourage the inference - that both Products X and Y offer equal skills training - science and technology, or engineering and math, or medicine and law, or business and leadership.  That Products X and Y both provide the full 100/100 skills points that constitute the entry ticket. In short, that Products X and Y make students smart.  To state otherwise rejects as false the layperson's perspective - that universities provide equal skills training to anyone and everyone buying a seat. 

A research report by Stemler (2012) on a reading of university mission statements concludes that schools' "primary audience… is their students, their primary function is student development."  It adds that universities attempt to "…develop skills that will help [students] enjoy satisfying careers upon graduation."  While the default for success is grades, the report suggests expanding the psychometric testing to tease out additional factors such as ethical reasoning and cultural competence.

The sticking point then becomes the amount of subjective leeway necessary in non-quantitative measures.  The ongoing legal case in my neighborhood involves grounds for systemic discrimination at a local elite unversity with a history of discrimination.  In the 1920's, the university focused on blocking Catholics and Jews from membership.  In the 2010's, the allegations run they are blocking east EurAsians.

The method: a personality test interview.  The university's own internal investigation showed that students with east EurAsian physical characteristics tended to disproportionately suffer penalties on scores such as "likeability", "integrity", and "courage."  Assuming the admissions staff follow the same distribution (e.g. Group X with 60% mean and +/-5% standard deviation) the most charitable explanation is that the students did not get along with the admissions staff.  The least charitable echoes Jim Crow laws.  A Group Y member finding justice in a Group X court has as much chance as World Peace.

The outraged layperson's next solution is to undo the activist one - remove Affirmative Action and remove subjective personality tests.  Force elite universities to set membership solely on objective quantitative tests.  An IQ test of sorts.

Only the IQ test itself is highly subjective.  Briefly put, the standard Stanford-Binet IQ test derives from the socialization of EurAsian children in a tumultuous, nationalistic scene.  The IQ test was not a test of intelligence - how could it be when no such agreed upon definition exists?  It was a test of fitting in an education institution.  As an example, consider this elementary school puzzle: which does not belong?

Group X answer: (b) hexagon.  Only it has 6 sides.

Group Y answer: (c) low left triangle.  It is unbalanced.

The scientific question: By even asking which "does not belong?" do we bias the student to seek out and exclude outsiders from the group?  Would that be useful for security in a tumultuous, nationalistic environment?

The scientific answer: These forms of questions constitute a large portion of logic scores.  Different answers indicate not linear "more correct or less accurate" but rather membership of which form of logic.  Ergo, logic is not absolute. Matching to the subjective answer indicates not accuracy but belonging.  But it falls into a recursive trap:  getting it "right" indicates belonging; but it takes belonging to get it "right."  Understanding this point is key.

Kuh (2003) found that students are more likely to be involved in active and collaborative learning when they are exposed to greater diversity.  Kalkstein, et al., (2016) found that diversity "…promotes higher level (abstract) learning than does learning based on one's direct experience…" and that students develop at a "higher level when learning from a distant model…" as opposed to a proximal, or similar model from within their own comfort zone or group.

In other words, the forms of logic are not only highly subjective, they constitute different foreign languages of their own right.  The ones who can speak multiple forms have the world in their hands.  As they say in French, "L'homme qui sai deux langues en vaux deux" - the one who knows two languages is worth two.

Armed with this in-depth perspective, the role of elite universities and admissions staff becomes clear.  They are teachers, surrogate parents, babysitters.  They are above all running a business.  They teach by selecting playmates for our children.  They run the business by selecting playmates consistent with how we parents would.  Typically, parents pay the bills.  Ergo, the parents are the customers.

If it is stylish to go to an elite party and say we have been to Paris, then that elite university better organize student trips to Paris.  If it enhances our fitness by talking about a safari to Kenya, then those deans better put up a farm in the Ngong Valley.  If it shows our strength to talk about Shakespeare and Goethe then turn around and talk Harlem Jive to our peers, there better be some Shakespeare and Goethe books in the library and Harlem Jive speakers of student peer age on university grounds.  The customer is always right.  Who wants to be the dean who doomed the university business's future cash flow?

In this perspective, an elite university is not and cannot be racist.  They do not exclude Group Y to be racist.  They do not manipulate the tests to justify excluding Group Y to be racist.  They exclude Group Y because they must cater to the majority Group X customers who do not want their children mixing and associating with Group Y.

When said elite university then reserves some Product Y for Group Y, this is not charity.  No business can run on charity.  They do it because the majority Group X customers now want their children to mix with (certain types) of Group Y. 

In bluntly business terms, Group Y would be there as part of core competency Product X. 

In clear learning terms, the elite university would take Group Y as a type of walking exhibit.  Group Y would be there as a type of teacher for the other students X.  From sociocultural learning theory to Montessori learning, students learn from each other, from being playmates.  What better way to learn from the world without the risks of going there than to bring some of the world here?

It could also make sense to reduce or waive the price for Group Y, increasing the university's expense, albeit as a cost-effective one that nets repeat paying customers.  As with social media: if you are not paying for the product, it means you are the product. 

This would lead to the conclusion then that the current lawsuit against elite universities on alleged racism is groundless.  There can be no merit because the lawsuit is misdirected.  The Group X customers know about it.  The Group X customers want it.  The elite universities simply cater to it.

Rather, if the plaintiffs truly do wish to press on with a lawsuit, they might be better served by borrowing a page from the cigarette industry lawsuit.  That the elite universities present false advertising.  That the university falsely gives the impression of a linear meritocracy.  That being a member of an elite university student body signifies the student is good or smart or remarkable.  That may be true in their own ways, but what membership indicates is that the member is living alongside Group X in this place.  Location, location, location.  Oh, and now plus some Group Y, too.