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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Cue the flood of adversity stories from ALL applicants....I feel pretty sorry for admissions essay readers.

[Anonymous]

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

The development case will make this incredibly easy to say.

[Anonymous]

I understand why the Supreme Court ruling will affect (a) public school systems [i.e., pre-college], (b) state colleges & universities, and (c) private colleges & universities which accept Federal funds.

I do not understand why the Supreme Court ruling would apply to a private school which does not accept either Federal or State funds.

Am I confused ? If so, what is the specific Federal law which means the SC ruling applies to a private which does not accept governmental funding ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand why the Supreme Court ruling will affect (a) public school systems [i.e., pre-college], (b) state colleges & universities, and (c) private colleges & universities which accept Federal funds.

I do not understand why the Supreme Court ruling would apply to a private school which does not accept either Federal or State funds.

Am I confused ? If so, what is the specific Federal law which means the SC ruling applies to a private which does not accept governmental funding ?

It likely doesn't. Hillsdale and a handful of very religious colleges are the only college that accept no federal funds and they are already race blind, so there will never be a test case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand why the Supreme Court ruling will affect (a) public school systems [i.e., pre-college], (b) state colleges & universities, and (c) private colleges & universities which accept Federal funds.

I do not understand why the Supreme Court ruling would apply to a private school which does not accept either Federal or State funds.

Am I confused ? If so, what is the specific Federal law which means the SC ruling applies to a private which does not accept governmental funding ?

It likely doesn't. Hillsdale and a handful of very religious colleges are the only college that accept no federal funds and they are already race blind, so there will never be a test case.

The Equal Protection Clause applies to government entities. So wholly private organizations/entities are entitled to discriminate in their membership unless another applicable state or federal law prohibits it.

[Anonymous]

For admissions to private school and college or grad school, you always have to compete WITHIN your gender and race, and even nationality.

If you want to go to SFS or Harvard and are male, AA, from Washington DC area, your actual competition is other AA males from WDC.

Same for Asians, whites, Hispanics, int’l, female, male, nonbinary.

Toughest cohort to apply from is female Asia from an urban area. Very qualified academically and similar ECs: Piano; swim or tennis, math club.

This is what got the AdComs in trouble: stereotyping Asian Americans. So they ended up completely ignoring the stereotype ones for outlier EC ones. And had that in writing everywhere. Not a leader. No team sports. No risk taking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These URM will still be coveted by universities as well prepared students that are diverse and likely to succeed. In the case of our school - most will also be from wealthy full pay families.

The applicants can clearly self-identify in their essays.

Private high schools are relatively small - it will not be hard for an AO to tell the difference between the diverse and non-diverse options from a given school's applicant pool.

Correct. None of the BLM initiatives or former ones helped low SES Blacks, only the push to not arrest or incarcerate law breakers. The DEI and affirmative action initiatives helped high SES, educated Blacks and Africans.
Politicians have openly said they aren’t touching the SES factor here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who’s going to donate to Ivy endowments now that most of the acceptees and grads are anti-capitalist and studies majors working at non profits?

[Anonymous]

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.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

[Anonymous]

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)?

You seem to be assuming that this case will move elite colleges away from "holistic" admissions and toward a "first past the post" system that rewards the kid with a perfect SAT score. It will not.

The kid at the top of their class at TJ and winning national awards has always been able to write their own ticket, and will continue to do so (remember that Asian Americans are the largest group at many of these colleges already).

There are plenty of schools that don't use holistic admissions, or who weight test scores above other metrics, but the specific schools targeted in this lawsuit are not going to change anything in practice except that they'll have to dig a little deeper into an applicant's resume/application/essays to build a racially diverse class.

[Anonymous]

agree.

you're still competing against your same cohort to get in.

[Anonymous]

No. The rich will find a way. That's what they do. Private school URMs will be fine.

[Anonymous]

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.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

In Europe your test scores and schooling performance dictate which majors, track, and level of uni are available for you to even apply for.

So sure it's less costly than the silly sticker prices here, but they want results to get in and they want results 10 years out. Or else they revamp things.
No results, no subsidized degree programme.

[Anonymous]

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.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

I’m very sure that Harvard will look to Argentina for guidance. If you really think that Amherst has any interest in bringing South Korean entrance testing to the US, you haven’t been paying attention

[Anonymous]

The question was does [Amherst] have any ability to put more highly qualified, low SES admits at their school.

And if so, how would they do that or finance that? and why?