By Irene Garcia Gutierrez ’22
Imagine that you have a flute. You can give the flute to Anne, who knows how to play it, Bob, who has no toys, or Carla, who made the flute. This is the Parable of the Flute, a case that we discussed in my Peace & Justice class a few weeks ago. The discussion was intense. Some argued that Carla, as the maker of the flute, should not be obligated to hand over her creation; others held that the giving the flute to Anne would be most practical, as she was the only child who could actually use the flute for its intended purpose. And a number of students believed that Bob, having no toys, should be given the flute because he had nothing else to play with. Our class could not come to a consensus.
We later learned that the answers that we each defended were likely influenced by our backgrounds. To whom you chose to give the flute would be affected by the environment you were raised in. My class is composed of a diverse group of students, of differing nationalities, socioeconomic statuses, races, values, and educational backgrounds. It was this diversity that ignited such a polarizing discussion.
As in the recent court case Students for Fair Admissions v. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, which criticized Harvard University for allegedly discriminating against Asian-Americans in their admission process, schools are often condemned for considering class diversity over academics or personal accomplishments. However, a diverse environment benefits students in many ways, just as the diverse environment here at Choate has expanded my own perspectives.
By learning from the different perspectives of my classmates, my own viewpoint has been broadened: in Choate’s diverse environment, I am constantly exposed to new ways of thinking. And this diversity is preparing me to be an aware global citizen. The world has a wide range of ethnicities, races, genders, and religions. Knowing how to accept differences while nurturing connections is key to navigating this diverse world, and should be a mission of education everywhere.
By Calvin Walker ’21
Recent media frenzy surrounding lawsuits like Students for Fair Admissions v. The President and Fellows of Harvard College have brought attention to an important controversy: whether or not socioeconomic and racial diversity should play into college admissions processes. I believe that race and socioeconomic status should remain a factor in admissions, and that these identifiers should be used mainly to contextualize a student’s academic and extracurricular achievements.
Students who face less adversity and are raised in families in higher-income brackets are more likely to succeed academically — the statistics prove it. A 2014 study by the Washington Post found that students whose parents earn more than $200,000 per year score nearly 400 points higher on the SAT on average than their peers whose parents earn less than $20,000. By contextualizing students’ scores with their backgrounds, academic institutions can view the bigger picture, considering what may have contributed to or inhibited a student’s academic success. Those that come from disadvantaged backgrounds often do not have the tools to succeed in the way that their wealthier peers do.
Those who argue for full meritocracy in admissions — in which standardized test scores, GPA, and other academic or extracurricular achievements are the only factors in the decision process — are, in fact, arguing for a less fair system on a wider level. Admissions committees would be wise to take into account the challenges often faced by minority groups.
Academic institutions should admit a person who will benefit their community both inside and outside of the classroom, as well as after graduation, which is not always a person with a perfect SAT score. Contextualizing students’ applications by considering their background should remain an important part of admissions processes for higher education.
