Our focus is to unpack how the inequitable college landscape has evolved to its current state through the lenses of intersectional identities as influenced by Marxism, Critical Race Theory, and Gender Bias/Feminism. Each of these theoretical frameworks addresses key socio-economic factors that contribute to accumulative advantages and disparities in college admissions. 

The concept of accumulative advantages, as discussed by Malcolm Gladwell in his non-fiction bestseller Outliers, refers to the idea that small initial advantages can snowball over time into significant disparities in success and outcomes. Gladwell argues that these advantages often result from timing, cultural circumstances, and external conditions rather than solely individual merit or talent. Gladwell illustrates this with the “birthdate effect” in sports like hockey. He noticed most NHL players were born in January, February, and March. This is because youth hockey leagues have age cutoffs of January, giving players born earlier in the year a slight age and development edge in youth leagues, leading to enhanced performance and more coaching attention. Gladwell suggests that similar small initial advantages in areas like education and business can also lead to significant long-term impacts.

To reiterate, our aim is to use Marxism, Critical Race Theory, and Gender Bias/Feminism to examine where accumulative advantages may arise. These frameworks let us explore intersectional factors that contribute to systemic inequalities and the perpetuation of advantages for certain groups over others.

To start, we will examine how Marxism contextualizes the role of college in capitalism and how this leads to inequitable admission practices. Marxism, a socio-economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, critiques the structures and inequalities inherent in capitalism and advocates for a classless society. It centers on the belief that economic relationships determine all social structures and identifies class struggle between the bourgeoisie (capitalists who own the means of production) and the proletariat (workers) as the driving force behind historical and political change. In applying Marxist theory to college admissions, we can better understand how economic disparities perpetuate educational inequalities, thereby favoring people with greater economic power and marginalizing the working class.

College admissions processes often perpetuate inequalities by favoring those from wealthier backgrounds who can afford extensive preparatory resources, thereby reinforcing generational wealth disparities. For example, an editorial from the Los Angeles Times discusses the stark advantages of the early decision admissions process at colleges, arguing that it disproportionately benefits wealthy students. The early admissions process "offers a better chance of being admitted. In schools with low admission rates, the difference can be significant. For example, at the University of Pennsylvania, the regular acceptance rate is 5%. It’s more than triple that for those applying through early decision, according to the admissions consulting company College Transitions” (LA Times Editorial Board). This system engenders a sense of alienation among less privileged students, who may feel disconnected from the promise of higher education as a pathway to social mobility. As automation and artificial intelligence begin to reshape the job market, the pressure on obtaining a degree from a prestigious institution intensifies, further entrenching the inequalities embedded within the admissions process and reflecting a capitalist system that prioritizes wealth and status over genuine educational opportunity and equity.

Now, we can connect Marxism with Critical Race Theory (CRT), which offers another powerful lens to analyze the inequities in college admissions. CRT examines how race and racism intersect with other social categories and power structures to maintain the marginalization of people of color. It focuses on intersectional identities, which is crucial for understanding how societal institutions in our country perpetuate systemic racial biases. 

In the context of higher education, CRT can highlight how systemic racism influences admissions policies and practices. For instance, standardized testing—often a significant criterion in college admissions—has been shown to disadvantage students of color due to biases in test design and differences in access to test preparation resources. Historical legacies of segregation and discrimination also mean that schools predominantly attended by students of color may lack the resources that enhance students’ competitiveness for elite colleges. Furthermore, wealthy parents often invest in “microschools”, an increasingly popular type of unregulated private school meant to provide a competitive edge, often serving fewer students than are enrolled in a single classroom at a traditional school (Goldstein). By recognizing these systemic barriers, CRT elucidates how racial inequalities are perpetuated in education and how they intersect with capitalist interests to maintain an inequitable status quo.

Examining the college landscape through the lens of Gender Bias and Feminism illuminates how gender disparities shape educational opportunities and outcomes. Under the long-standing patriarchal structure, inequality in gender bias offer tendes to men in opportunities and resources. The main beneficiaries of higher education in its initial stages are also mostly men. According to a paper from the Russell Sage Foundation, “women first gained entry to institutions of higher education in the United States when Oberlin College admitted female students in 1837- more than 200 years after Harvard College was founded for the education of young men.” In order to eliminate gender bias in higher education and encourage diversity and gender equality, college admissions are biased towards majors that  challenge traditional gender norms. Under the same conditions, women are more likely to be admitted to engineering and science majors, while men are more likely to be admitted to liberal arts and science majors.Gender bias in academia can manifest in subtle yet profound ways, influencing everything from classroom dynamics to the academic disciplines that young women are encouraged to pursue.

These prejudices not only affect women's opportunities to receive higher education but also have a significant impact on their career development. Although there has been a significant breakthrough in gender differences in education, with the enrollment rate of women even higher than that of men, women still face many challenges in career development. The overall power structure of society is still male-centered, which leads to difficulties for women in the job market. Societal expectations and stereotypical gender roles can discourage women from entering predominantly male fields such as engineering and computer science. This not only limits individual career prospects but also perpetuates broader societal inequalities, as these fields often lead to higher-paying positions. "For instance, women's income is still less than 82% of men's" (Cohen). As a result, although gender equality for women has achieved certain results in the field of education, women are restricted in their career choices and find it difficult to access the same opportunities in these high-paying industries, thereby further solidifying gender inequality.

By integrating Marxism, CRT, and Feminism, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of an individual’s intersectional identity and how deeply ingrained societal structures contribute to inequities in college admissions. Overcoming these barriers requires systemic change, encompassing both reforms within colleges and broader societal shifts that dismantle the intertwined legacies of racism, sexism, and classism in education. This holistic approach not only makes higher education more accessible but also challenges the capitalist frameworks that prioritize profit and prestige over genuine educational equality and opportunity.