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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

With no test scores, truly how do they decide? Grades are not comparable between schools and grade inflation is rampant. I guess it is just class selection. Yes to 4 years of a language. Yes to taking MV Calc and Physics C. Yes to an internship. Extra Curriculars are also pretty biased towards families with reasouces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

With no test scores, truly how do they decide? Grades are not comparable between schools and grade inflation is rampant. I guess it is just class selection. Yes to 4 years of a language. Yes to taking MV Calc and Physics C. Yes to an internship. Extra Curriculars are also pretty biased towards families with reasouces.

I actually agree with you. Tests are by no means perfect, but the remaining criteria you are left with are even more suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

With no test scores, truly how do they decide? Grades are not comparable between schools and grade inflation is rampant. I guess it is just class selection. Yes to 4 years of a language. Yes to taking MV Calc and Physics C. Yes to an internship. Extra Curriculars are also pretty biased towards families with reasouces.

So are many internships. Esp when a poor kid needs to get a paying job when others get unpaid internships with mommy’s firm or daddy’s friend, the research scientist.

[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 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/2022/10/30/legacy-college-admissions-come-under-fire-in-new-report/?sh=430487945f07

I don’t think just being legacy gives you that much of a boost unless you are a big donor or famous. I know many students who were rejected from top schools despite their legacy status.

[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 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/2022/10/30/legacy-college-admissions-come-under-fire-in-new-report/?sh=430487945f07

I don't disagree with you, but just don't understand why legacy is now on the chopping block if AA is no longer. AA makes no distinction with respect to wealth or education level of the parents which is why the URM population at elite schools is considerably wealthier than the average URM.

Again, if the schools have spent years building diverse racial classes, then at least now their legacies are diverse. If anything, maybe legacy becomes more important because they know the ethnicities of their own graduates and therefore can create racially-diverse classes through using legacies.

[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.

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/2022/10/30/legacy-college-admissions-come-under-fire-in-new-report/?sh=430487945f07

I don't disagree with you, but just don't understand why legacy is now on the chopping block if AA is no longer. AA makes no distinction with respect to wealth or education level of the parents which is why the URM population at elite schools is considerably wealthier than the average URM.

Again, if the schools have spent years building diverse racial classes, then at least now their legacies are diverse. If anything, maybe legacy becomes more important because they know the ethnicities of their own graduates and therefore can create racially-diverse classes through using legacies.

I think it depends on what the schools value, but I don't see why legacy status should matter if the main thing you value in a student body is talent or hard work. I still think different schools, should be free to determine their own legacy policies, because you are right that it is not necessarily racially determined. I don't think this will come down to a legal decision, but schools are already realizing that favoring legacy is inherently unfair when they are evaluating students for admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Pretty much this.

When I worked in donations for my university, the US map in our system was laid out by zip codes. Each zip code area was then given a color that translated to the COL for that area. Our records also showed which alums were c-suites, which had advanced degrees, occupations, etc. so we knew who to press for larger donations. It was also a way to streamline our time. It was better to make 25 calls to alums in higher COL areas than 100 in a low COL area because we knew that most in that lower area would never donate.

I would be very surprised if similar software didn't exist for admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Pretty much this.

When I worked in donations for my university, the US map in our system was laid out by zip codes. Each zip code area was then given a color that translated to the COL for that area. Our records also showed which alums were c-suites, which had advanced degrees, occupations, etc. so we knew who to press for larger donations. It was also a way to streamline our time. It was better to make 25 calls to alums in higher COL areas than 100 in a low COL area because we knew that most in that lower area would never donate.

I would be very surprised if similar software didn't exist for admissions.

If admissions is based on zip code, I can imagine Ivy chasers moving to certain zip codes. I know this sounds patently ridiculous but you know some people would do it!

[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

Wow. This is a stretch. Don't think the Supreme Court will take any time on legacies at all - and legacy preferences wouldn't fall under the Equal Protection Clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Pretty much this.

When I worked in donations for my university, the US map in our system was laid out by zip codes. Each zip code area was then given a color that translated to the COL for that area. Our records also showed which alums were c-suites, which had advanced degrees, occupations, etc. so we knew who to press for larger donations. It was also a way to streamline our time. It was better to make 25 calls to alums in higher COL areas than 100 in a low COL area because we knew that most in that lower area would never donate.

I would be very surprised if similar software didn't exist for admissions.

zip codes for school or address of student?

[Anonymous]

Watch all the wealthy, entitled, White folks who are celebrating this decision flip all the way out when schools re-imagine their legacy admissions policy. As an URM who went to a top private, let me tell you there were a lot of mediocre students getting into Ivy leagues on the coat tails of their parents. If that stops...my gosh...they will have to COMPETE!!! Let me run and grab my popcorn.

[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

When those wealthy people make up the boards that control universities, it doesn't seem that hard.

[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

When those wealthy people make up the boards that control universities, it doesn't seem that hard.

The optics are bad and everyone knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch all the wealthy, entitled, White folks who are celebrating this decision flip all the way out when schools re-imagine their legacy admissions policy. As an URM who went to a top private, let me tell you there were a lot of mediocre students getting into Ivy leagues on the coat tails of their parents. If that stops...my gosh...they will have to COMPETE!!! Let me run and grab my popcorn.

Most of your classmates never had to compete for their seat at your top private. You want freak out? Take away all the hooks (URM, legacy, athlete, sibling), declare all ninth grade seats open, and admit for HS strictly on merit.

[Anonymous]

Any chance they'll end preferential admissions for athletes? (I know. You all are laughing all the way to the bank. But why should your lacrosse player get recruited and get a scholarship while my theatre kid doesn't? Or maybe just my "is a good student but not a gifted lacrosse player" kid?