An argumentative essay written by Roseanna Wang, discussing whether elite universities should prioritize merit or racial equity in admissions decisions – and which choice would lead to a fairer society.
When faced between the decision of helping underprivileged students’ access to higher education, or supporting equal treatment under uniform standards, which choice would lead to a fairer society? Universities face this dilemma every admissions cycle: should they emphasize equity or equality, race or merit? However, increasing numbers of universities are saying that neither race nor merit should be the commanding voice in elite university admissions. Merit should be prioritised, but it cannot be fully understood without considering race as contextual information that helps evaluate a student holistically. A fairer society emerges when racial equity does not replace merit but refines it, ensuring that achievement is assessed in context rather than isolation.
How Race-Based Decisions Aggravate Stereotypes
Imagine education as a marathon to the universities – yet each person belongs to a different ‘race’, with different starting points. Some begin miles behind; their race has been formed by historical inequities and unequal access to resources. For African American students in nineteenth century America, Jim Crow laws dictated segregation, and Plessy v. Ferguson justified underfunded and inferior schooling. Although legal segregation has ended, it leaves long-lasting marks: today, Black students are 3.5 times more likely than White students to attend perpetually underfinanced school districts. History has taught us that past inequality shapes access to equal education in modern times.
Race based admissions acknowledge these varied beginnings by operating on the assumption that certain racial groups must overcome greater obstacles to attain similar accomplishment. This reasoning has led institutions to adopt quotas, or treat race as the decisive factor in applications. With this approach, the doors of elite universities open to all groups, and campuses become enriched with colorful voices and dialogue. Yet, there is a fundamental flaw in this solution: they are contingent on assumptions of hardships. Not all members of a group share the same journeys, and using race as a determinant soon escalates into the assignment of stereotypes and labels to racial groups. This system creates a presumptive society that turns away equally qualified applicants for stereotypical advantage, instead of considering everyone individually.
Why Meritocracy Does Not Guarantee An Equal Chance
On the surface, putting all students in the same system – with procedural equality, uniform criteria, and identical rules – will give students a fair playing ground. Merit is measured in quantifiable achievements such as AP scores, SAT scores, GPA’s, and awards. This approach supports the narrative that as long as students worked hard, putting effort in, they could reach their goal, regardless of how they were born. But when two students write the same test, under the same rules, and same clock – but one is armed with years of dedicated tutoring and premier resources, while the other comes from understaffed classrooms – it’s clear that equality at the moment of assessment can’t compare to years of unequal preparation and different starting points. More crucially, this narrative erroneously implies that effort equals success, when success realistically depends on the opportunities you were given. The second student did not have the opportunity of a top-tier institution’s support, where teachers were happy to teach, libraries were full of books, technology was abundant, and resources were ample. When a purely meritocratic approach is taken, many capable students may never consider applying to these schools, as they have already internalized the belief that such universities are inaccessible and unreachable for them. This self-validation narrows the application pool, and in turn, decreases the diversity of perspectives in campuses. Equality at the point of assessment, while systematically fair, is inadequate in comparison to years of unequal preparation. Thus, when merit is considered in isolation, historical inequality is exacerbated instead of creating the neutral admissions pathway that was intended.
The Middleground
It is possible for equality and equity to work hand-in-hand in creating a just society through university admissions – the solution already exists. The critical need for this answer has become more urgent over the years, as more legal cases come forward. In 1978, Bakke v. Regents of the University of California was brought forth, concerning the case of an academically proficient man being rejected twice from University of California Medical School at Davis. The Supreme Court’s decision was ultimately to rescind firm quotas for racial groups, while still pursuing affirmative action through using race as a ‘plus’ factor – but only if it was part of a holistic, individualized review. The issue surfaced again in 2003, with Grutter v. Bollinger – this ruling reaffirmed the need for individualized admissions, continued seeing race as an additional factor, and rejected rigid quotas – yet Justice O’Conner declared that race affirmative policies were time sensitive, and should not be needed in 25 years. More recently, the Harvard v. Students for Fair Admissions decision overruled race-based decisions altogether, but highlighted that universities were free to use race as context to an individual’s identity as part of an individualized holistic review.
While the ‘holistic review’ framework was already existent, the idea gained popularity during Supreme Court cases about affirmative action. The concept is simple: universities would review students as more than the sum of their parts – putting equal consideration into how their identity, extracurricular activities, academic performance, and experiences contributed to their personal story. If students did not have national awards or AP classes, they would not be automatically eliminated. Instead academic achievement would be measured relative to the resources and opportunities they were given. The holistic review process paves the way for universities to see students as more than their transcript, and as their whole identity – by learning about how their unique experiences and identity has shaped them, by understanding how they leveraged their passions to impact their community, and by reading about personal growth through essays.
A Solution that Benefits All
This approach not only broadens access to higher education by addressing different foundations, but also creates a student body rich in diversity of thought, ideas, experiences, and passions – far exceeding race or merit. Furthermore, contextual admissions provide meaningful equity beyond just applying fair standards during assessments. This makes a major stride in repairing historical disparities in education, since potential is measured instead of unrealistic academic accomplishment. In this society, equality and equity walk hand in hand, and human potential, justice, and inclusion reinforce one another. Identities are celebrated and students have an equal chance of getting in for being who they are. Where such diverse opinions coexist, cooperation over shared passion allows ideas to be exchanged and challenged, transforming difference into intellectual strength.
Thanks for reading! This article is written by Roseanna Wang.