Won't the AA ruling be particularly bad for private school URMs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume that white students will be the biggest beneficiaries of this? I think high achieving Asian students will be. Who is getting the perfect SAT scores? Who is at the top of the class at schools line TJ? Who is doing original scientific research in high school? And whose admissions have been artificially suppressed (by, for example, Harvard’s likeability rating)?

Honestly, when I hear that, it makes me wonder as an Asian parent whether there will be increased anti-Asian sentiment as a result of the ruling from unhappy affirmative action supporters. However, I don't think Asian students will really be the beneficiaries. I hope people from disadvantaged backgrounds will be beneficiaries, as the schools shift their equity policies to be race-blind. However, as another poster pointed out, schools still need full tuition dollars to function. I don't think any of us can really guess how this will pan out.

[Anonymous]

They will figure it out. No one I know, black or white or anywhere in between, wants their kids in a non-diverse environment. I ran away from all privates that were non-diverse.

You’re not getting my baby to be Ruby Bridges in 2023!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

Why do people that that Princeton wants to be a school with nothing but poor kids? What in the 300 year histories of most Ivies leads you to believe that the will choose to educate the poor at the expense of the UMC and UC?

Obviously it won’t be nothing but poor kids. But now that affirmative action is illegal, they will replace their X number of seats for Black students (many of which came from elite high schools) with the same X number of seats for low-income students of non specified races.

That doesn't make sense, as not all black students are low ses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of poor kids in Maryland in Baltimore City and on the eastern shore of Maryland.

Then they should write about that in their essays and let the colleges decide if they should be admitted.

And almost none are applying to selective institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

Why do people that that Princeton wants to be a school with nothing but poor kids? What in the 300 year histories of most Ivies leads you to believe that the will choose to educate the poor at the expense of the UMC and UC?

Obviously it won’t be nothing but poor kids. But now that affirmative action is illegal, they will replace their X number of seats for Black students (many of which came from elite high schools) with the same X number of seats for low-income students of non specified races.

That doesn't make sense, as not all black students are low ses

No they won't -- the schools don't want too many downscale kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume that white students will be the biggest beneficiaries of this? I think high achieving Asian students will be. Who is getting the perfect SAT scores? Who is at the top of the class at schools line TJ? Who is doing original scientific research in high school? And whose admissions have been artificially suppressed (by, for example, Harvard’s likeability rating)?

Honestly, when I hear that, it makes me wonder as an Asian parent whether there will be increased anti-Asian sentiment as a result of the ruling from unhappy affirmative action supporters. However, I don't think Asian students will really be the beneficiaries. I hope people from disadvantaged backgrounds will be beneficiaries, as the schools shift their equity policies to be race-blind. However, as another poster pointed out, schools still need full tuition dollars to function. I don't think any of us can really guess how this will pan out.

The most selective school are such a crap shoot that it will have little discernible impact on the admissions chances of most. Maybe a bigger impact at the somewhat selective state schools....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume that white students will be the biggest beneficiaries of this? I think high achieving Asian students will be. Who is getting the perfect SAT scores? Who is at the top of the class at schools line TJ? Who is doing original scientific research in high school? And whose admissions have been artificially suppressed (by, for example, Harvard’s likeability rating)?

Honestly, when I hear that, it makes me wonder as an Asian parent whether there will be increased anti-Asian sentiment as a result of the ruling from unhappy affirmative action supporters. However, I don't think Asian students will really be the beneficiaries. I hope people from disadvantaged backgrounds will be beneficiaries, as the schools shift their equity policies to be race-blind. However, as another poster pointed out, schools still need full tuition dollars to function. I don't think any of us can really guess how this will pan out.

The most selective school are such a crap shoot that it will have little discernible impact on the admissions chances of most. Maybe a bigger impact at the somewhat selective state schools....

Crap shoot is right. Back in the day, if I heard of a kid getting into a T10 school, I thought to myself, wow, impressive! These days I think, "wow, so lucky!" Not that these kids aren't great kids, but like you said, it has become more of a crapshoot, especially with test optional. I think the best and brightest students (academically) are now distributed more evenly across the T30+ schools than they used to be. There are a lot of great schools beyond the T10. The angst for T10 is not worth it, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it be any worse than at other schools?

Because if colleges use HHI or zip code to identify URMs, these kids won't be found.

Right now, black and latino kids from the Big3 get a huge leg up in college admissions due to being URM despite many being the children of physicians, law partners, IMF workers, diplomats, etc and living in places like upper NW, Chevy Chase, Bethesda.
They are like gold to colleges because they're smart, well educated AND contribute to the college's URM goals. At the Big3 they claim a ton of the Ivy and similar spots (despite many not being in the top 20% of the class--and sometimes none
being in this quintile).

I see this as being a huge shift in Big3 college admissions.

How is that any different from high performing publics?

Depends on the public. BCC pulls from a fairly wide swath of Silver Spring that falls into lower HHI areas. TJ pulls many kids from lower HHI areas. Blair pulls the vast majority from lower HHI, even though the magnet kids have different demographics from Blair as a whole. Whitman, Churchill and Langley will probably feel the same impact as Big3 URMs.

That said, there is nothing in the ruling that prohibits a Sidwell URM that is the child of a wealthy IMF worker from say Ghana talking extensively about their heritage/upbringing in Ghana...which will of course give the AO what they need to know without explicitly mentioning race.

Can only comment on Blair. While the school itself pulls from a certain section of the populace (lower income) I would say the Magnet does not pull from same demographic. (Not even close).

Let’s just say the magnet portion is put there for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think the decision means that legacy preferences aren’t long for the world. Hard to justify keeping that while eliminating race and the politics will become too difficult to keep the legacy preferences whatever you think of them

Why would you jump to that conclusion?

It’s not a novel thought. Legacy admissions almost certainly will be on the chopping block as schools reimagine admissions policies.

Can someone explain the connection? If you have pursued AA policies for many years, in theory you now have a diverse group of legacies. I don't think any legacy of any color wants to ban legacy for their own kids.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why the two are equated.

Because it is difficult to say we are no longer giving race a preference but we are going to continue to give preference to things like legacy that is perceived to benefit wealthier people

One is explicitly based on racial discrimination, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional. The other is not.

The issue with AA that proponents keep ignoring is that it does blatantly violate key constitutional clauses about not discriminating on race. Previous SCOTUS rulings acknowledged this tension and that is why the language was always in terms of being a limited policy, the original SCOTUS spoke of a 25 year policy, which was in the 1960s. Most of you have probably never read the previous rulings just as you will never read the current ruling. Logically and constitutionally, overturning AA makes perfect sense.

As for what will happen next, it's completely unclear. We just don't know how both SCOTUS and secondary courts will respond to future lawsuits, which will definitely happen if schools skirt the issue with under the table AA. As long as there is a clear discrepancy between average scores between black and Asian applicants and admitted students, the lawsuits will be vigilant. Ultimately, the universities will decide whether it is a battle worth continually fighting. My guess is that black and Latino shares will definitely fall at least a third if not half, but that will reach a new level where differing standards will be deemed quietly acceptable.

I do wonder, however, what this AA ruling means for the rest of the AA bureaucracy. Which is hugely entrenched in the Federal bureaucracy. Hiring and procurement set aside for minority businesses are harder to defend now.

Sue away. Universities want diversity because they’re run by educated, smart people and they recognize the value in it. They can say they admitted blind to race, then decided to admit an URM student because they liked a random sentence in their essay or the student took basket weaving in high school and there’s a shortage of basket weavers. There’s no way to prove they’re lying. There’s no university policy that states a student must have x scores or make x grades as a prerequisite to admission. They can take who they want. And thank god for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think the decision means that legacy preferences aren’t long for the world. Hard to justify keeping that while eliminating race and the politics will become too difficult to keep the legacy preferences whatever you think of them

Why would you jump to that conclusion?

It’s not a novel thought. Legacy admissions almost certainly will be on the chopping block as schools reimagine admissions policies.

Can someone explain the connection? If you have pursued AA policies for many years, in theory you now have a diverse group of legacies. I don't think any legacy of any color wants to ban legacy for their own kids.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why the two are equated.

Because it is difficult to say we are no longer giving race a preference but we are going to continue to give preference to things like legacy that is perceived to benefit wealthier people

One is explicitly based on racial discrimination, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional. The other is not.

The issue with AA that proponents keep ignoring is that it does blatantly violate key constitutional clauses about not discriminating on race. Previous SCOTUS rulings acknowledged this tension and that is why the language was always in terms of being a limited policy, the original SCOTUS spoke of a 25 year policy, which was in the 1960s. Most of you have probably never read the previous rulings just as you will never read the current ruling. Logically and constitutionally, overturning AA makes perfect sense.

As for what will happen next, it's completely unclear. We just don't know how both SCOTUS and secondary courts will respond to future lawsuits, which will definitely happen if schools skirt the issue with under the table AA. As long as there is a clear discrepancy between average scores between black and Asian applicants and admitted students, the lawsuits will be vigilant. Ultimately, the universities will decide whether it is a battle worth continually fighting. My guess is that black and Latino shares will definitely fall at least a third if not half, but that will reach a new level where differing standards will be deemed quietly acceptable.

I do wonder, however, what this AA ruling means for the rest of the AA bureaucracy. Which is hugely entrenched in the Federal bureaucracy. Hiring and procurement set aside for minority businesses are harder to defend now.

Sue away. Universities want diversity because they’re run by educated, smart people and they recognize the value in it. They can say they admitted blind to race, then decided to admit an URM student because they liked a random sentence in their essay or the student took basket weaving in high school and there’s a shortage of basket weavers. There’s no way to prove they’re lying. There’s no university policy that states a student must have x scores or make x grades as a prerequisite to admission. They can take who they want. And thank god for that.

And since there’s no longer a race box to check on the application, you won’t be able to prove that anyone was admitted based on race.

Be careful about what you wish for…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume that white students will be the biggest beneficiaries of this? I think high achieving Asian students will be. Who is getting the perfect SAT scores? Who is at the top of the class at schools line TJ? Who is doing original scientific research in high school? And whose admissions have been artificially suppressed (by, for example, Harvard’s likeability rating)?

Because…history. Mark my words, Asians will NOT be the primary beneficiaries of this ruling. Why do you think test-optional is still a thing (and in some cases “permanent”)?

Be careful about what you ask for…[/pquote]

You think test optional is anti-asian?

[Anonymous]

The workaround is actually quite simple... black applicants will simply write about their experience with racism in their college essay. While universities can no longer ask what race applicants are, Justice Roberts expressly acknowledges in the ruling that the court feels it is perfectly okay for students to write about their personal experience with racism and race.

[Anonymous]

Not to worry folks. Universities have effectively nullified the 1st amendment so they won’t have any trouble trampling on the 14th. Nothing really changes here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to worry folks. Universities have effectively nullified the 1st amendment so they won’t have any trouble trampling on the 14th. Nothing really changes here.

Poor little incel!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it be any worse than at other schools?

Because if colleges use HHI or zip code to identify URMs, these kids won't be found.

Right now, black and latino kids from the Big3 get a huge leg up in college admissions due to being URM despite many being the children of physicians, law partners, IMF workers, diplomats, etc and living in places like upper NW, Chevy Chase, Bethesda.
They are like gold to colleges because they're smart, well educated AND contribute to the college's URM goals. At the Big3 they claim a ton of the Ivy and similar spots (despite many not being in the top 20% of the class--and sometimes none
being in this quintile).

I see this as being a huge shift in Big3 college admissions.

How is that any different from high performing publics?

Depends on the public. BCC pulls from a fairly wide swath of Silver Spring that falls into lower HHI areas. TJ pulls many kids from lower HHI areas. Blair pulls the vast majority from lower HHI, even though the magnet kids have different demographics from Blair as a whole. Whitman, Churchill and Langley will probably feel the same impact as Big3 URMs.

That said, there is nothing in the ruling that prohibits a Sidwell URM that is the child of a wealthy IMF worker from say Ghana talking extensively about their heritage/upbringing in Ghana...which will of course give the AO what they need to know without explicitly mentioning race.

Can only comment on Blair. While the school itself pulls from a certain section of the populace (lower income) I would say the Magnet does not pull from same demographic. (Not even close).

Let’s just say the magnet portion is put there for a reason.

Of course it was put there for a reason - MoCo explicitly stated that when it was created.