In her new book Place, Not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America​, Georgetown law professor Sheryll Cashin argues that existing race-based admissions policies provide only “optical diversity” and don’t do much to level the playing field for genuinely underprivileged or disadvantaged students. She maintains that society is stratified and that, for many people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, the outlook for advancement is dismal. To help eliminate those structural barriers, Cashin proposes, prestigious schools should open their doors to low-income individuals who appear to be “strivers.”

George Leef rebuts Cashin’s arguments – and their underlying assumptions – in today’s Pope Center Clarion Call. “How well people do in this country has little to do with their origins and everything to do with how good they are at producing what others value. No one is prevented from developing talents and profiting from them,” he writes.

Even if we assume that the roadblocks for low-income individuals are so numerous that “something must be done,” does it necessarily follow that their attending top schools will prepare them for career and life success? Leef notes that “prestige schools can be far from ideal learning environments. The faculty is often too immersed in research to work much with undergrads. The curriculum is often a giant smorgasbord of courses, some useful, many doubtful, and little guidance to help students make good selections.”

“America will be much better off when we abandon the idea that ‘elite’ colleges are so special that which students they admit is a matter of importance,” concludes Leef.