![ucb bsu email ucb bsu email](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2qUyEukkSfs/Vi_LQmIi_tI/AAAAAAAABpA/Zsm0TXORizo/s640/WeeklyBlast_10-26-152.jpg)
All in all, when you say "qualified", I agree that many of the financially disadvantaged are fairly intelligent, however, when you remove the very bedrock of a meritocracy, they simply don't have sturdy ground to build themselves upon anymore. To "win" in this new system is to have extracurriculars, however, as I have already presented, it is already out of reach for many. In contrast, there are multiple students who have gotten 1600's from poorer communities, far better than the pay-to-win style of Mathcounts. Yes, all of them! At this rate, the poor stand no chance. In my experience with Mathcounts every successful student from each state shares one or two tutors. Assuming that qualified means that someone's college is fitting for them, not many extracurricular activities actually make people more qualified. Winning some soccer tournament doesn't make you more qualified for a Mathematics degree. I may follow up to ask some more questions. But definitely say where you are in the college application process. You may identify yourself or remain anonymous. If you're interested in sharing what you think, send me a pm or shoot me an email at [ Send me a voice memo recording of your answers to these questions. Has it made applying to college more accessible? Are you still planning on taking the SAT or ACT? Or have the policy changes made you decide you don't need to? Do you think the changes make applying to college more fair? Are you happy? Sad? Frustrated? Relieved? We'd love to feature some answers to these questions on the show. We're looking to hear how students feel about those changes. We're putting together an episode on how many colleges are no longer requiring standardized tests like the SAT or ACT. My name is Will Reid, and I'm a producer for Today, Explained, Vox.com's daily news podcast.