With the university affirmative action debate dividing our nation, it is surprising that so few questions are asked about the justice or the need for limited admissions. As universities, like any other business, spend piles of cash on advertising and charge ever increasing and unaffordable tuition rates, they simultaneously lay claim to the outrageous notion of education as a limited commodity to be provided to only a chosen few. The claim turns particularly ugly when considered in light of publicly-funded universities denying service to the very people that pay for their existence, and questionable processes which select students based on the donations made by the family from which they come or other factors that speak nothing of the student’s ability.

With the university affirmative action debate dividing our nation, it is surprising that so few questions are asked about the justice or the need for limited admissions. As universities, like any other business, spend piles of cash on advertising and charge ever increasing and unaffordable tuition rates, they simultaneously lay claim to the outrageous notion of education as a limited commodity to be provided to only a chosen few. The claim turns particularly ugly when considered in light of publicly-funded universities denying service to the very people that pay for their existence, and questionable processes which select students based on the donations made by the family from which they come or other factors that speak nothing of the student’s ability.

With the question of the right of private institutions to select students within legal limits set aside, the idea of respectable quasi-public (tax dollar funded) universities such as University of Michigan swallowing up tax dollars while denying admissions without reasonable justification is atrocious. The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based school receives just over a third of its funding through the state budget, and charges an average in-state undergraduate student an additional $4000 per year in tuition alone.

Education is best viewed on two levels – as a paid service not different from any other paid service, and on the other level as a service which society has a strong interest in offering as widely as possible. Although the notion of education as a basic human right can very well be made, like any other “right” the basis for such may be hard to prove, other than from the interest of society as a whole. However such an argument would be no tougher to make than that for any other basic human “right.”

Education is a paid service to be controlled by the normal supply, demand, and competitive market forces — a concept very few institutions seem to grasp, although it is most crucial to the quality of the services provided. The claim often sounded by the government and admissions critters is that there is simply not enough money available to provide for admission of all who desire, especially at the higher-ranking schools. However, this is simply not true: as an example University of Michigan charges an average student $160 per credit. A section of basic introductory-level course consisting of 600 students brings in revenues of roughly $96,000, with a single professor likely to be reading at least several sections of the course during a semester. That number doesn’t include the public funds which easily cover the facilities and miscellaneous costs beyond the actual cost of instructor time.

The other oft-sounded claim against less selective admissions, most commonly made by the faculty who refuse to be held accountable for their actual ability to teach, is the supposed need to lower standards. Yet a properly managed institution would not rely on its admissions office for its reputation. Admissions have the obvious effect of shifting the school reputation burden from the quality of instruction to the quality of the student’s prior preparation. A true institution of higher learning ought to pride itself on being able to take an individual that is willing to put in the effort and providing them with whatever skills, knowledge, and liberal education that they need to succeed in life and become a true asset to the society. The claim of the supposed need for lowering standards fails to consider the option of adding remedial pre-requisite courses, which can both prepare and screen students with a lower preparation level.

Most important in considering public institutions is the burden of proof which lies upon the schools to demonstrate a strong reason for failing to expand the student body as demanded, given the enormous wealth provided each year. Highly skilled educators are readily available, particularly from other English-speaking countries, and so are funds. Why the public institutions are not doing more to bring the two together can only be answered by a lack of public pressure. There is little proof to demonstrate the need for selective admissions beyond maintaining a false reputation for the institution – reputation based upon the quality of the entering student body, rather than the quality of the educational services provided to the students.

On the level of considering education as a public service and a basic human right, the arguments become a little murkier. From the viewpoint of a reasonable individual, the principles of utility from which one might want their government to act, undeniably dictate that a better educated society is something to be desired. The argument, however, is widely open to debate, as evidenced by our government spending on the building of fighter jets taking drastic priority over providing basic schooling. It is likely best to simply follow successful human and civil rights movements which have claimed certain rights as a given, and simply add education to the list. Rights within our society, or at least their initial acceptance, tend to rarely be those which are simply agreed by the society for good cause, but rather those fought for. It is unlikely that the right to education would be, at least initially, greeted with any less skepticism than that which greeted the right to equality of people of color.

What would a fair intake system look like, one that would demand equal responsibility from students and faculty, without lowering standards? A scheme that would use screening to assure fair distribution of truly limited public funding rather than limiting access would likely be quite successful. There is no reason why introductory classes which now seat six hundred can’t easily seat six thousand, and there is no other truly fair way to screen candidates for their ability than allowing them to try. Public funding of students ought to be distributed based on availability and prioritized based results from testing.

A high school student would choose a public university and take tests that would be used along with past performance to be placed into the proper level introductory courses. Based upon the success on those courses, they would either be required to retake them, which would likely have to be done on their own penny, unless the financial situation is extreme, or otherwise become fully admitted to the institution. There is simply no other way to fairly judge a student’s ability, as no record of past performance or testing can possibly fairly judge ability rather than failures by institutions which prepared the student and circumstances.

If public funding is not available, which is undoubtedly an even greater concern than unfair admissions, there is no reason why the students cannot be asked to fully pay for the introductory courses if their financial situation allows. Since public funding is limited, arguably due to our misguided lawmakers prioritizing the bombing of tents in Afghanistan over educating our youths, there is good reason to provide public grants and loans based upon need, but the distribution need not be blind to academic achievement, and prioritizing the funding of students most likely to succeed over the less probable candidates. However, at the present rate of $96,000 per introductory course, there is absolutely no reason to refuse to allow a student to attempt to succeed – there is simply no other just route.

Limited admissions shift the burden of school reputation from the quality of instruction to the quality of the student’s prior preparation. A true institution of higher learning should pride itself on being able to take an individual that is willing to put in the effort and providing them with whatever skills, knowledge, and liberal education that they need to succeed in life and become a true asset to the society.

The time to act is now. Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case on affirmative action, uncertain as of time of writing, our future as a coherent, vibrant society desperately depends on a stable, openly accessible, responsible educational system available to all.