每一个申请者都没有期待学校会平等和包容：
学校是那么高高在上的审视着申请者，所以没有平等；
学校录取本身是一个筛选的过程，恰恰是包容的反义词。
学校的问题不在于不平等和不包容，在于ta“装”。当然这么说可能有欠妥帖，我们用的好听点的表达吧，学校的问题在于“ta把对于美好自我的期待当成了既成事实”，ta们可能真的想对社会做些好贡献，但目前ta们在做的事情，显然和这个目标有很大差距。
一个最近的例子是关于标准化考试，从SAT，到 LSAT，到GRE 学校都在看的比较淡
In 2021, the University of California system ditched the use of all standardized testing for undergraduate admissions. California State University followed suit last spring, and in November, the American Bar Association voted to abandon the LSAT requirement for admission to any of the nation’s law schools beginning in 2025. Many other schools have lately reached the same conclusion. Science magazine reports that among a sample of 50 U.S. universities, only 3 percent of Ph.D. science programs currently require applicants to submit GRE scores, compared with 84 percent four years ago. And colleges that dropped their testing requirements or made them optional in response to the pandemic are now feeling torn about whether to bring that testing back.
但目前实际关于标准化考试有两个不同观点的讨论
观点1: 这个考试带来了不公平，因为出身差的学生考不好 （这个点也是大多数学校取消成绩要求时候宣传的观点）
... standardized tests are biased against low-income students and students of color, and should not be used.
观点2: 和观点1 恰恰相反，这个观点觉得标准化考试给出身差的考生带来了希望，因为参加一次考试去获得个好成绩的难度，还是比通过社交资源，参加一个好的社会实践的难度会低很多。
Schools have been able to identify talented low-income students and students of color and give them transformative educational experiences, they argue, precisely because those students are tested.
这两个观点看上去矛盾，但实际并不是，这两个观点只是证明了，考试数据是客观的，对于关于客观数据会不会带来歧视的解读是人为的。
所以问题不是考试，是招生机构（学校）对于这些数据的解读。
We often forget an important lesson about standardized tests: They, or at least their outputs, take the form of data; and data can be interpreted—and acted upon—in multiple ways.
所以学校要做的不是让考试背锅，而去掉考试这个客观数据，只会让录取过程变得更为不透明。学校如果真的要促进公平正义，那可以做的是
1. 如果要解决有的高中生没有机会考试的问题，可以让考试走进学校，成为学校课程的一部分，这样来自不同家庭背景的孩子都可以低成本的获得考试成绩
For example, research has found that when states implement universal testing policies in high schools, and make testing part of the regular curriculum rather than an add-on that students and parents must provide for themselves, more disadvantaged students enter college and the income gap narrows.
2. 提高高中教育质量，让高中生在课内就可以学到高质量的内容
If students’ scores indicate a need for more support in particular areas, universities might invest more educational resources into those areas. They could hire more instructors or support staff to work with low-scoring students. And if schools notice alarming patterns in the data—consistent areas where students have been insufficiently prepared—they could respond not with disgruntlement, but with leadership. They could advocate for the state to provide K–12 schools with better resources.
所以考试本身只是反映出来了教育资源的分配不公平，它不是导致不公平的原因。
而如果学校录取要解决不公正这个问题，从考试下手是最说不通的，因为文书，课外活动等带来的不公平是更大的。
Which is to say, the tests themselves are not the problem. Most components of admissions portfolios suffer from the same biases. In terms of favoring the rich, admissions essays are even worse than standardized tests; the same goes for participation in extracurricular activities and legacy admissions.
另外一个学校彰显自己要促进社会正义的行为是退出 US News ranking
但这里面最大的bug 是 US News 在给这些学校排名的时候，用的数据大多数是公开的数据，不需要学校方面来提供（也是为什么Columbia 没提供数据，但2023的College Ranking 里还有Columbia 的原因）
... most of the data used to determine the rankings can be derived from publicly available information, or surveys conducted by U.S. News itself.
更讽刺的是，学校不提供数据，可能可以让榜单变得更为客观些（还是Columbia 的例子，学校提供的数据就有问题）
There is a case to be made that the less the schools contribute, the more objective the rankings might become, in some respects.
所以学校如果还把自己看成是社会精英的守门人（gatekeeper），它们的录取原则不会改变，因为拥有权力者没有动机也没有意愿去削弱自己的权力。所以如果你是申请者，不管学校是取消要求考试成绩要求了，还是有其他的一些改变了，你要想方设法证明的一直都是
1. 你的学习能力很好
2. 你的社会资源很好
你可以思考下哪些变量可以帮助你证明以上两点。
【竞赛报名/项目咨询请加微信：mollywei007】
