Earlier quoted context omitted.
the charge is that the school management knows damn well that a full third won't do the work, and admit them anyway, getting their monies and putting them into debt. the issue is that public money is being used for this scheme, not that there's anything wrong with taking money from idiots in general.
Statistically you're correct, but objectively you can't identify which students won't do the work - ergo, you can't discriminate who to enroll (heavy on the consequences of involving the word "discriminate"). The government would come down hard on any school which says "you pass all the enrollment criteria, but we have a nagging feeling you won't complete the degree so we're not letting you in." Hence the argument th…
No it wouldn't. Admission to selective schools isn't based on criteria, it's competitive among the other applicants in the pool for a limited number of slots. Counselors routinely state that the vast majority of their applicants are academically qualified; students are selected based on interestingness (communicated through essays & recommendations), extracurricular talents, race, gender, and other factors. Sometimes even virtuosos are rejected because there are already enough virtuosos with that particular talent in the university.
As far as I know, it is only very low-end schools in the US that run admission solely off of standards.