Studies often portray elite students as self-interested adolescents who justify educational selection systems that favor them. However, this perspective neglects critiques of the college admissions system on the part of the elite, who often have no other option than to support it as fulfilling the ideals of fairness. This study examines academic elite students’ perceptions of college admissions systems when they are given choices as to which system to use. Data for this study come from surveys, interviews, and participant observation in Taiwan, where students are selected through two systems: exam-based selections and application-based selections. The findings show that students in elite high schools perceive whichever system that benefits them to be the fairest. By narrowly defining fairness as family influence on admission outcomes, these students downplay the institutional advantages they enjoy and present themselves as deserving candidates. Using the example of elite Taiwanese students, this study highlights that elites justify privilege based on self-interest and strategically navigate admissions systems to accrue advantages.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BourdieuPPasseronJC (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture (Sage Studies in Social and Educational Change). London: SAGE.
4.
ChangY-CLinT-H (2015) Taiwan de gaodeng jiaoyu kuozhang yu jieji fuzhi: Hunhe xiaoying weixu de bupingdeng [How does the expansion of higher education reproduce class inequality? The case of Taiwan]. Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education15(2): 85–129.
5.
ChiangY-L (2018) When things don’t go as planned: Contingencies, cultural capital, and parental involvement for elite university admission in China. Comparative Education Review62(4): 503–521.
6.
ChouCP (2003) The Great Experiment of Taiwanese Education (1987-2003). Taipei: Psychological Publishing (in Chinese).
7.
ClarkDDel BonoE (2016) The long-run effects of attending an elite school: Evidence from the United Kingdom. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics8(1): 150–176.
8.
CooksonPPersellCH (1985) Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Schools. New York: Basic Books.
9.
DomhoffW (1997) Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
EspenshadeTHaleLChungC (2005) The frog pond revisited: High school academic context, class rank, and elite college admission. Sociology of Education78(4): 269–293.
11.
FurnhamAChamorro-PremuzicT (2010) Consensual beliefs about the fairness and accuracy of selection methods at university. International Journal of Selection and Assessment18(4): 417–424.
12.
FurutaJSchoferEWickS (2016) The effects of high stakes testing on educational outcomes, 1960–2006. In: Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, 20–23 August.
13.
Gaztambide-FernándezR (2009) The Best of the Best: Becoming Elite at an American Boarding School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
GolannJW (2015) The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education88(2): 103–119.
15.
González CanchéMS (2019) Repurposing standardized testing for educational equity: Can geographical bias and adversity scores expand true college access?Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences6(2): 225–235.
16.
GuoY-CTaoH-L (2011) Gaozhongzhi duoyuan ruxue guandao xuanze yu jiating beijing ji xuexi biaoxian zhi guanxi: Jianlun duoyuan ruxue de gongping yu xiaolu [The relationship between the high school application system, family background, and school performance: The fairness and efficiency of diversified admission systems]. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy25(3): 421–456.
HenryBMoffittTECaspiA, et al. (1994) On the “remembrance of things past”: A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method. Psychological Assessment6(2): 92–101.
19.
HoPT (1962) The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368–1911. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
HongY-LChiouC-HShihW-F (2015) Reflections on the educational reform. Taiwan Educational Review4(1): 165–167 (in Chinese).
21.
HowardA (2010) Elite visions: Privileged perceptions of self and others. Teachers College Record112: 1971–1992.
22.
HuangY-R (2009) Better learning experiences at prestigious high schools than ordinary ones? Investigating classroom teaching methods, cram education participation and extracurricular reading. Journal of Educational Practice and Research22(1): 113–138 (in Chinese).
23.
JackAA (2016) (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education89(1): 1–19.
24.
JanmaatJG (2013) Subjective inequality: A review of international comparative studies on people’s views about inequality. European Journal of Sociology54(3): 357–389.
25.
JaoJ-CMcKeeverM (2006) Ethnic inequalities and educational attainment in Taiwan. Sociology of Education79(2): 131–152.
26.
KaiH-Y (2007) Multiple entrance programs and the equality of educational opportunity. Journal of Education Research161: 114–126 (in Chinese).
27.
KarabelJ (2005) The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
28.
KhanSR (2011) Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
KipnisA (2011) Governing Educational Desire: Culture, Politics, and Schooling in China. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
30.
LareauA (2011) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31.
LiuR-F (2020) Pathways to college admissions: Student strategies and class variations in activating cultural knowledge in Taiwan. International Studies in Sociology of Education. Epub ahead of print 4December. DOI: 10.1080/09620214.2020.1852882.
32.
LuohM-C (2002) Sheishi Taida xuesheng? Xinbie, Shengji yu Chengxiang Chayi [Who are NTU students? Differences across ethnic and gender groups and urban/rural discrepancy]. Taiwan Economic Review30(1): 113–147.
33.
LuohM-C (2018) Sheishi Taida xuesheng? Duoyuan ruxue de yingxiang, 2001-2014 [Who are NTU students? The impact of, 2001-2014 multiple-admission systems]. Taiwan Economic Review46(1): 47–95.
34.
McCallL (2013) The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MettsSSprecherSCupachWR, et al. (1991) Retrospective Self-reports. In: MontgomeryBMDuckS (Ed.). Studying Interpersonal Interaction. New York: Guilford Press.
36.
MijsJ (2018) Inequality is a problem of inference: How people solve the social puzzle of unequal outcomes. Societies8(3): 64.
37.
Ministry of Education (1998) Gaozhong ji gaozhi duoyuan ruxue fangan [Academic and vocational high school multiple admissions plan]. Laws and Regulations Retrieving System, Ministry of Education. Available at: https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL008733 (accessed 8 January 2020).
NiessenASMRMeijerJNTendeiro (2017) Applying organizational justice theory to admission into higher education: Admission from a student perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment25(1): 72–84.
41.
PosseltJR (2016) Inside Graduate Admissions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
RiveraLA (2016) Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
SET News Channel (2018) Too many and complicated admissions pathways prompt over 90% to agree returning to the entrance exam system: This is the fairest. Available at: https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=381719 (accessed 10 October 2021).
44.
SchmittNOswaldFKimB, et al. (2004) The impact of justice and self-serving bias explanations of the perceived fairness of different types of selection tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment12(1-2): 160–171.
45.
ShavitYBlossfeldH (1993) Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries (Social Inequality Series). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
46.
ShepardLABleimCL (1995) Parents’ thinking about standardized tests and performance assessments. Educational Researcher24(8): 25–32.
47.
ShermanR (2017) Uneasy Street: The Anxieties of Affluence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
SongX (2018) The fairness of a graduate school admission test in China: Voices from administrators, teachers, and test-takers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher27(2): 79–89.
49.
StevensM (2007) Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
SupovitzJABrennanRT (1997) Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest test of all? An examination of the equitability of portfolio assessment relative to standardized tests. Harvard Educational Review67(3): 472–506.
51.
TangC-M (2003) A review and improvement of the multiple enrollment system for academic and vocational high schools. Theory and Policy16(4): 89–107 (in Chinese).
52.
TienF-HFuT-T (2009) Daxue duoyuan ruxue zhidu: Xuesheng jiating shejing beijing yu xueye chengjiu zhi bijiao [Multi-channel college entrance system: Relationship between family background, academic achievement and entrance channels]. Journal of Research in Education Sciences54(1): 209–233.
53.
Von HippelPT (2007) Regression with missing Ys: An improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociological Methodology37(1): 83–117.
54.
WangC-C (2019) Schooling youth (sub)cultures in East Asian education: The case of high school rock in Taiwan. Journal of Youth Studies22(7): 981–999.
55.
WangY-HChenC-Y (2012) Elite production of the multiple enrollment program: Nobility practice in an elite private school. Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education12(2): 85–122 (in Chinese).
56.
WarikooNK (2016) The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions, and Meritocracy at Elite Universities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
57.
WarikooNKFuhrC (2014) Legitimating status: Perceptions of meritocracy and inequality among undergraduates at an elite British university. British Educational Research Journal40(4): 699–717.
58.
YeH (2015) Key-point schools and entry into tertiary education in China. Chinese Sociological Review47(2): 128–153.
59.
YiC-CWuC-I (2004) Teenagers in Taiwan. In: SalterJ (ed.) Teens around the World. New York: SAGE, pp. 223–241.
60.
ZimdarsA (2010) Fairness and undergraduate admission: A qualitative exploration of admissions choices at the University of Oxford. Oxford Review of Education36(3): 307–323.
