I would say this is an unrealistic view of how elite college admissions work.
These days, having perfect SAT scores, good grades in AP/IB classes, and ordinary involvement in extracurriculars is a weak approach to getting into an elite university. It takes some extra-ordinary achievement in some extracurricular to make you stand out from the mass.
That kind of extra-ordinary achievement is easily gamed by people with privilege but much more difficult for the rest of us in the 99% (well, the 90%).
All students with perfect SAT scores could fit comfortably into the entering class of just one of the eight Ivy League colleges, with none left over for MIT, Stanford, Caltech, or any of the other seven Ivy League colleges.
The mathematical consequence of this (by the pigeonhole principle) is that all elite colleges, without exception, admit many students who missed questions on the SAT. Caltech is almost the only college with a small enough entering class to have a possible chance of having a majority of enrolled students with literally perfect SAT scores. The interquartile score ranges reported for the most recent first-year class at Caltech
show that even Caltech has to enroll a majority of new students who missed questions on the SAT.
I am of course fully agreed that a strong application to colleges that selective includes not only high test scores and high grades in challenging subjects, but also involvement in some meaningful extracurricular activity.
Well, yes, meaning that elite colleges use other discriminators to choose their students now, once you've gotten a good-enough score. It'd actually be more egalitarian and meritocratic to use scores, though, especially if there were a revised test to differentiate the almost-perfect-and-perfect crowd from one another.
Those other filters--the meaningful extracurricular activities--often enough amount to "let's let in the girl who got a paper published in high school through a special internship or the guy who climbed Mt. Everest" that they're sort of a joke, in that people with special resources and parental connections have an automatic edge over equally qualified people who don't.
I wasn't talking about college admissions, I was talking about a university professor extending help to a high school student with a science fair project.
The OP wrote:
"These high school placements into university labs are a classic example of how privilege plays out, converting socio economic status into plausible credentials."
And I don't believe that is how this high school student connected with the lab she worked in (some sort of privilege connection) and I don't believe it is how the majority of kids who are participating in the ISEF and other competitions 'get into' university labs to do their work.
If you're working on an ISEF project or other high profile science fair organization project, and you are a good student who can communicate what you are working on, you don't need wealth or privilege to get a university professor in the same area of research to read your email and respond.
I reacted emotionally to the author's implication that only 'rich connected kids' even have the opportunity to do well in these science competitions because their social status gives them connections and resources that are not available to others, and so the work they can do will always be more impressive than what other kids can do.
These days, having perfect SAT scores, good grades in AP/IB classes, and ordinary involvement in extracurriculars is a weak approach to getting into an elite university. It takes some extra-ordinary achievement in some extracurricular to make you stand out from the mass.
That kind of extra-ordinary achievement is easily gamed by people with privilege but much more difficult for the rest of us in the 99% (well, the 90%).