I think there are multiple different dimensions of "selectivity" that are sort of run together here. One is "we have to ensure that people can do the work", which is a binding constraint for many even flagship state universities, although not for Princeton or Swarthmore. Another is "we have to maintain our sense of exclusiveness", which is very important in some places and not at all in others. A third, and I think the most important at the top, is "we want as many US Senators/CEOs/etc as possible to be associated with us", which can't grow any faster than the Senate itself does.
Each of these leads to different approaches generally and for the specific issues around affirmative action. The first two are very compatible with a cutoff/lottery style system, which I think would be better for most places, but the third very much is not. Changing what we take to be fixed curricular standards helps with the first, but not with the others.
I think there are multiple different dimensions of "selectivity" that are sort of run together here. One is "we have to ensure that people can do the work", which is a binding constraint for many even flagship state universities, although not for Princeton or Swarthmore. Another is "we have to maintain our sense of exclusiveness", which is very important in some places and not at all in others. A third, and I think the most important at the top, is "we want as many US Senators/CEOs/etc as possible to be associated with us", which can't grow any faster than the Senate itself does.
Each of these leads to different approaches generally and for the specific issues around affirmative action. The first two are very compatible with a cutoff/lottery style system, which I think would be better for most places, but the third very much is not. Changing what we take to be fixed curricular standards helps with the first, but not with the others.
Wow. Now that the horse is out of the barn, we do have to figure out how to ride it.