Going meta about the effects of the admission process is worth a shot, so long as you really are empirical about it and don’t just repeat conventional wisdom about all the ways the process goes wrong. If possible, reach an original (or at least uncommon) conclusion. Not a faux-contrarian conclusion that huge numbers of people repeat as if they’re each part of a tiny minority, a really original one that most people will disagree with but still seems reasonable to you.
You’re right; lots of people will repeat vague criticisms of the admissions process, without really thinking about the implications. Especially the implication, “Then what would replace it?” Given what we have to work with, what, specifically would be a more fair or less game-able system? Would there be anything less susceptible to Goodhart’s Law? I don’t really know. I think finding the answer would probably take more research than one application essay is worth, though.
Going meta about the effects of the admission process is worth a shot, so long as you really are empirical about it and don’t just repeat conventional wisdom about all the ways the process goes wrong. If possible, reach an original (or at least uncommon) conclusion. Not a faux-contrarian conclusion that huge numbers of people repeat as if they’re each part of a tiny minority, a really original one that most people will disagree with but still seems reasonable to you.
You’re right; lots of people will repeat vague criticisms of the admissions process, without really thinking about the implications. Especially the implication, “Then what would replace it?” Given what we have to work with, what, specifically would be a more fair or less game-able system? Would there be anything less susceptible to Goodhart’s Law? I don’t really know. I think finding the answer would probably take more research than one application essay is worth, though.