It varies by discipline, but IIRC for most degrees there was no significant correlation between the previous achievements of the student and their eventual degree grade, suggesting that actually it doesn't really matter for most degrees. Or at least that if it matters it's outweighed by other factors you're not mesuring via prior attainment.
So in that case within reason the output is independent of input, and the decision of who to admit to limited places is a matter of larger societal policy. Admittance on "merit" in this case would actually be bullshit in effect.
My employer is also the institution where I got my degree many years ago (I like this city and after coming here I never left) when they taught me, the requirement for Computer Science was 24 points, with Maths. Today the requirement is at least 3 As, one in Maths (which is approximately 30 points by the old system). Do they need better students? No. They need fewer students, they are over-subscribed, and higher requirements deter applicants and some will miss the higher requirement, meaning they teach maybe 500 students (in my day it'd be maybe 80). They still can't find big enough lecture theatres, next year's course will require overflow video relays. As I said, there's no correlation, but the goal isn't to find "the best" it's to reduce the sheer numbers without expensive in-person interviews of every candidate.
The result isn't better graduates, it's about the same, because you could teach (within reason) anyone. Some populations might lead to more pastoral problems†, but the degree to which excellent pastoral care is delivered is independent of actual teaching.
†Somebody's dog dies, they're distraught, don't go to class for a few weeks because they're so upset, next thing they know it's exams and they don't know anything. It doesn't have to be their dog dying, it can be mum got cancer, the family home burned down, their home country has a civil war, or even just the guy next door plays loud music 24/7 and they can't sleep properly. Non-academic stuff happens, you can wipe out somebody's potential by not addressing it.
tialaramex|2 years ago
So in that case within reason the output is independent of input, and the decision of who to admit to limited places is a matter of larger societal policy. Admittance on "merit" in this case would actually be bullshit in effect.
My employer is also the institution where I got my degree many years ago (I like this city and after coming here I never left) when they taught me, the requirement for Computer Science was 24 points, with Maths. Today the requirement is at least 3 As, one in Maths (which is approximately 30 points by the old system). Do they need better students? No. They need fewer students, they are over-subscribed, and higher requirements deter applicants and some will miss the higher requirement, meaning they teach maybe 500 students (in my day it'd be maybe 80). They still can't find big enough lecture theatres, next year's course will require overflow video relays. As I said, there's no correlation, but the goal isn't to find "the best" it's to reduce the sheer numbers without expensive in-person interviews of every candidate.
The result isn't better graduates, it's about the same, because you could teach (within reason) anyone. Some populations might lead to more pastoral problems†, but the degree to which excellent pastoral care is delivered is independent of actual teaching.
†Somebody's dog dies, they're distraught, don't go to class for a few weeks because they're so upset, next thing they know it's exams and they don't know anything. It doesn't have to be their dog dying, it can be mum got cancer, the family home burned down, their home country has a civil war, or even just the guy next door plays loud music 24/7 and they can't sleep properly. Non-academic stuff happens, you can wipe out somebody's potential by not addressing it.