No, it would get applicants from populations of people who could afford to go to it, and are interested in the technical degree, and who have enough social capital to apply with a real chance to go.
All you are offering up is that it might be more representative, not that it is.
Those grants don't counter and remove the influences of class differences and social preference, I can promise you that. And even then, your argument covers applicants not acceptance.
Even if the process were purely meritocratic, there's no reason it must match IQ distribution. I mean, IQ doesn't even necessarily correspond with Ivy League attendance.
The University of Montana mostly gets applicants and students from Montana.
MIT is an elite school that gets applicants from all over the country. It would obviously be more representative of the national population.
No, it would get applicants from populations of people who could afford to go to it, and are interested in the technical degree, and who have enough social capital to apply with a real chance to go.
From all over the country.
And grants and scholarships are available to "disadvantaged" or "marginalized" students that are unavailable to poor white kids.
It would still be much more representative of the national population than University of Montana.
All you are offering up is that it might be more representative, not that it is.
Those grants don't counter and remove the influences of class differences and social preference, I can promise you that. And even then, your argument covers applicants not acceptance.
Even if the process were purely meritocratic, there's no reason it must match IQ distribution. I mean, IQ doesn't even necessarily correspond with Ivy League attendance.
And you're splitting hairs and comparing it to the University of Montana as if that has any meaning. I guess we'll call it even.
I think it's likely to be more representative, and I guess you don't. Whatever.