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

[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.

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

that was a pretty clear If, Then statement you are mis-responding to.

[Anonymous]

It's a gift donation, a gift for diversity.

You can even endow a perpetual scholarship for 1+ students a year of whatever demographic profile you desire!
Lots of charitable legacy families do that. Many require a handwritten thank you note annually too.
Do that.

[Anonymous]

It's just the opposite.

In the old world, you could have a hispanic from a Fancy Day School with a 1200 SAT competing against a hispanic from Meh County High School who had a 1300 for one of the hispanic student quota slots.

Under the new regime, in order to keep functional affirmative action, you need to not see test results from either, because that leads to legal problems when you deny the Asians with 1500s or the whites with 1400s. Thus the best way to find the better Hispanic students for your desired racial balance quota is to outsource your credentialing.

The Meh County hasn't gone through the admissions ringer at Fancy Day, nor has he passed Fancy Day's more stringent courses. Absent testing, there are few ways for him to show that he's the more capable student, and in any case he doesn't have Fancy Day's college counseling to walk him through gussying up his app to showcase those ways. Fancy Day gets the slot, and Meh County sends its kid to Local State U. Yay, equity!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just the opposite.

In the old world, you could have a hispanic from a Fancy Day School with a 1200 SAT competing against a hispanic from Meh County High School who had a 1300 for one of the hispanic student quota slots.

Under the new regime, in order to keep functional affirmative action, you need to not see test results from either, because that leads to legal problems when you deny the Asians with 1500s or the whites with 1400s. Thus the best way to find the better Hispanic students for your desired racial balance quota is to outsource your credentialing.

The Meh County hasn't gone through the admissions ringer at Fancy Day, nor has he passed Fancy Day's more stringent courses. Absent testing, there are few ways for him to show that he's the more capable student, and in any case he doesn't have Fancy Day's college counseling to walk him through gussying up his app to showcase those ways. Fancy Day gets the slot, and Meh County sends its kid to Local State U. Yay, equity!

Fancy Day sounds great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

source?

[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.

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.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

[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 don't think they are related legally, but from a public relations perspective taking away a preference that benefitted URMs while maintaining a preference that benefits mostly wealthy whites looks pretty bad.

[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.

I don't think they are related legally, but from a public relations perspective taking away a preference that benefitted URMs while maintaining a preference that benefits mostly wealthy whites looks pretty bad.

Aren’t there 100000s or college ugrad “legacy” students by now for each college and still the same number of 1000-4000 per legacy admits per year? So that’s not a good hit rate.

As for the successful legacy person who bequeaths 10s of millions for a building or scholars program or new department, If their kids qualify (whatever that has meant for anyone the last 8 years), would you let them in or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just the opposite.

In the old world, you could have a hispanic from a Fancy Day School with a 1200 SAT competing against a hispanic from Meh County High School who had a 1300 for one of the hispanic student quota slots.

Under the new regime, in order to keep functional affirmative action, you need to not see test results from either, because that leads to legal problems when you deny the Asians with 1500s or the whites with 1400s. Thus the best way to find the better Hispanic students for your desired racial balance quota is to outsource your credentialing.

The Meh County hasn't gone through the admissions ringer at Fancy Day, nor has he passed Fancy Day's more stringent courses. Absent testing, there are few ways for him to show that he's the more capable student, and in any case he doesn't have Fancy Day's college counseling to walk him through gussying up his app to showcase those ways. Fancy Day gets the slot, and Meh County sends its kid to Local State U. Yay, equity!

Thank goodness you can still submit your AP scores, act or sat or do an IB programme or go abroad and bypass this mess.

Can’t wait to see these never-get-tested types in the work force or training programmes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This pretty much describes my kid to a T. For many years people have been telling us to change her hobbies and passions for the sake of college admissions. The problem is, when it comes to her passions, she is the most enthusiastic kid ever. She loves piano and classical music, but it'd look much better if she played drums in a rock band. She hates sports but loves to gush about pi and Euler's constant with her mathlete friends, and yet we're supposed to encourage her to join the field hockey team. In other words, "You need to make her less Asian!" I finally thought, "Nope, no way! She is going to be true to herself." She IS culturally Asian, and we're not going to play some BS game to try to whitewash her and make her more "likable" for the Harvard types.

[Anonymous]

No worries. I agree. I wrote that for my Hong King friend.
She stormed a Columbia grad school program when she got waitlisted and they basically confessed it was because she was female Asian and they had too many similar high caliber applicants.

[Anonymous]

As an aside, an Asian woman storming a business school to demand a proper response would make me hire her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, an Asian woman storming a business school to demand a proper response would make me hire her!

Haha, yes! I'm sure that your friend did just fine in business!

[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.

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.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Tracking kids before their brains are fully developed sounds great to you?

[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.

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.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Tracking kids before their brains are fully developed sounds great to you?

OMG this is not how it works. Tracking in most of these countries typically doesn't happen until the teen years. It's over here in the US where tracking is ass backwards, with gifted programs in early elementary school. And the US could stand to do better in offering trade training to kids who actually want practical workforce skills, instead of saying that everyone needs to pay for ridiculously expensive higher education to get a job.