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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Why would it be any worse than at other schools?

[Anonymous]

Most colleges and universities are going to adapt to ensure they have diverse student populations. I think it's a safe bet to make that many colleges will no longer rask for test scores, a metric that normally benefits students applying from independent schools. This equates to more competition and a decrease in students from independent schools being accepted to Ivies and top 50 schools.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most colleges and universities are going to adapt to ensure they have diverse student populations. I think it's a safe bet to make that many colleges will no longer rask for test scores, a metric that normally benefits students applying from independent schools. This equates to more competition and a decrease in students from independent schools being accepted to Ivies and top 50 schools.

Perhaps liberal arts colleges can do this without consequences, but I believe institutions like MIT do need to select students based on exams, whether that refers to the SAT or making up their own math-based examinations, if they want to remain at the forefront of research and innovation.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

So if schools no longer ask about race/ethnicity, aren't there other ways to figure it out? Applying for FA, transcripts from previous schools, student's address, student's last name, etc?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

They are already out the door at many top schools. I think that's fair.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

I think legacy preference is inherently unfair as well. Imagine a talented, hard-working kid who is the first in his family to go to college, or a kid whose family could never afford an elite college before now. Why should another kid get a leg up because his parents went to that school? Being a legacy says nothing about your own merit, which is probably why some top universities have been doing away with them even before this supreme court decision.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/...ort/?sh=430487945f07