The admissions process is out of whack. Just ask the heartbroken applicant, rejected by her dream school. Ask high school counselors, who complain that colleges don’t reward promising students for their creativity, determination or service to others. Even the gatekeepers at some famous institutions acknowledge, quietly, that the selection system is broken. Ask five people how to fix it, though, and they’ll give five different answers. Sure, you might think colleges put too much stock in the SAT, but your neighbor’s kid with the near-perfect score thinks it should matter a lot. More than half of Americans say colleges shouldn’t give children of alumni a leg up, according to a recent Gallup poll; yet nearly half say parental connections should be at least a “minor factor.” The debate about who gets into the nation’s competitive colleges, and why, keeps boiling over. The Justice Department has confirmed that it’s looking into a complaint, filed in 2015 by a coalition of 64 Asian-American associations, charging discrimination against high-achieving Asian-American college applicants. Also, students for Fair Admissions, which opposes affirmative action policies, has filed discrimination lawsuits against Harvard, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Texas at Austin. Although the Supreme Court affirmed last year that admissions officers may consider an applicant’s race among other factors, polls show that a majority of Americans disagree with that decision. Critics of affirmative action see plenty of room for future legal challenges. Whatever happens, age-old questions about fairness in admissions will surely endure. For one thing, the nation can’t come to terms with a tricky five-letter word: merit. Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined the pejorative term “meritocracy” over a half-century ago to describe a future in which standardized intelligence tests would crown a new elite. Yet as Rebecca Zwick explains in her new book “Who Gets In?” the meaning has shifted. The word “merit,” she writes, has come to mean “academic excellence, narrowly defined” as grades and test scores. But that’s just one way to think of an applicant’s worthiness. Dr. Zwick, professor emeritus at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has long been a researcher at the Educational Testing Service, which develops and administers the SAT. She disputes the notion that testing prowess — or any other attribute, for that matter — entitles a student to a spot at his chosen college. “There is, in fact, no absolute definition of merit,” she writes. That brings us to you, the anxious applicant, the frazzled parent, the confused citizen, all wondering what colleges want. It’s worth taking a deep breath and noting that only 13 percent of four-year colleges accept fewer than half of their applicants. That said, colleges where seats are scarce stir up the nation’s emotions. Each year, the world-famous institutions reject thousands and thousands of students who could thrive there.

参考答案:     大学招生过程已经乱了套。只需去问问被梦想中的学校拒绝的心碎的申请人。问问高中辅导员们,他们抱怨那些因为有创造力、毅力或乐于助人而前途远大的学生,并不能得到大学的赏识。即使是一些著名学府的招生者也悄悄承认,筛选体系非常糟糕。
然而,若是去问五个人该如何解决这个问题,他们会给出五个不同的答案。当然,你可能认为大学太过看重SAT考试,但是你邻居孩子的SAT成绩接近完美,所以他认为这个分数应该很重要。根据最近的一次盖洛普(Gallup)民意调查,超过一半的美国人认为大学不应该给予校友子女优先入学待遇;然而也有近一半的人认为招生时,父母的关系至少应该充当一个“次要因素”。
    究竟什么人可以进入这个国家最优秀的大学,为什么?这一直是个热门话题。司法部已经确认,它正在审查一个由64家亚裔美国人协会组成的联盟于2015年提起的申诉,他们指控大学在招生过程中对成绩优秀的亚裔美国申请人存在歧视。此外,反对平权措施政策的“公平招生”(Fair Admissions)协会中的学生也向哈佛大学、北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)和德州大学奥斯汀分校(University of Texas at Austin)提起了歧视诉讼。
    尽管最高法院于去年裁定,招生负责人可以把申请人的种族纳入考虑,但民意调查显示,多数美国人不同意这一决定。平权措施的批评者认为,未来它在法律上还有很多可以质疑之处。
    不管怎样,关于招生公平的古老问题一定会持续下去。别的不说,国家首先无法就“merit”(大意为优点、才能、价值——译注)这个棘手的词达成一致。半个世纪之前,英国社会学家迈克尔·扬(Michael Young)创造了贬义词“唯才是用”(meritocracy),用来形容未来社会通过标准化智力测验筛选来新的精英。然而,正如芮贝卡·兹维克(Rebecca Zwick)在她的新著《谁进去了?》(Who Gets In?)中解释的那样,这个词的意义已经发生了变化。她写道,“merit”这个词已经成了“学习成绩优秀”的意思,“被狭隘地定义为”评级和考分。
    但这只是衡量申请人价值的一个方面。兹维克是加州大学圣巴巴拉分校(University of California at Santa Barbara)荣休教授,长期以来,她一直在负责开发和管理SAT考试的教育考试服务中心(Educational Testing Service)担任研究员。她不认为一个学生能否进入自己选择的大学,应该由应试能力或这方面的其他能力来决定。她说:“事实上,关于才能,没有一个绝对的定义。
    因此我们明白,你们——焦虑不安的申请人、心力交瘁的父母、一头雾水的公民——都想知道大学究竟想要的是什么。我们有必要静下心来想一想,在四年制大学中,入学率低于五成的仅占13%。话虽如此,牵动国人情绪的是那些竞争激烈的学校。世界诸多著名学府每年都会拒绝本可在那里茁壮成长的莘莘学子。
解题思路: >>>立即刷题