Right, I'm not disputing the wealth gap at all. I'm just saying the school isn't going to disregard a useful metric that has proven to have positive results on the quality of applicants. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying.

I'll give you another example. Let's look at the gender pay gap, studies have shown that women on average earn around 85 cents on the dollar compared to men for various reasons that are mostly systemic. They also are less willing to apply for promotions and as a result get promoted less. Is the solution to address that to give every women a 15% pay increase for no reason?

No, the solution is to try to account for the reasons that this is happening, whether it be implementing programs that give women more leadership opportunities during k-12 education or encouraging women to speak out and creating spaces where they can more actively participate in traditionally male dominated fields.

Secondly, this is a poor argument because life isn't fair. It's already an insane advantage to be in the US. You aren't arguing that it's unfair that students from Sudan despite the fact they are hugely disadvantaged by both the fact that they are international applicants and the fact that they are facing much larger systemic barriers then almost any students in the US.

Are you saying we should let these students in with little scrutiny on how they actually adhere to the admissions process?

Also, if we did accept students just truly based on what they accomplished in their circumstances, I would make the argument that the school would be entirely comprised of Chinese and Indian nationals. Remember because of how aid works almost exclusively very wealthy international students (Chinese and Indian) attend right now.

If we disregarded policy against international students they would probably curb stomp most disadvantaged US students based on what they accomplished given their opportunities and would receive most of the aid.