s/o - Cheating and Checking Diversity boxes

[Anonymous]

^^ this is why the cheaters piss me off even more. They have a double advantage coming out of affluent areas/good schools and lying about being a minority. It unfairly spikes their admission rates over more qualified applicants that didn't lie and check the box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:75% of the minorities attending Ivies are from wealthy families. It’s not helping the “disadvantaged”. It’s helping the elite.

The intent to create a racially diverse class has nothing to do with wealth. They use first generation status to bring in disadvantaged groups of all races. Race and disadvantaged are two completely different goals that sometimes overlap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP: you missed the part where Black veterans got nothing from the GI Bill. Do you think that was fair? Do you think white veterans didn’t benefit from their service?

That didn't make it a "handout" to whites. They had to earn it. The white servicemen weren't just handed the benefit for being white - they had to serve in order to get the benefit.

Reminder: most US military casualties in WWII were white men. Blacks overwhelmingly served in rear-area support units. Out of 405,399 US military deaths in WW2, only 708 were African American (0.17%). Do you think that was fair? Do you still think white servicemen were unfairly rewarded?

NP. Yes, as black servicemen were ineligible and also served, some on the front lines. Would you discriminate against white servicemen because of the nature of their service?

Also, note that I refer to them as black servicemen, not "blacks." Look back at the way you refer to the two sets of men. It seems to reveal a bias here.

[Anonymous]

"Why didn't you learn a 'new' language? If your first language is Spanish, wth were you taking Spanish for your language requirement? I find this so common. In Honors Spanish 1-III at my kids' high school they are often the few kids who didn't grow up speaking Spanish at home."

I already had another language besides English and Spanish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context matters.

In the college application context, schools are trying to find Latinos who have been historically frozen out from higher education in an attempt to address their low representation among the college-educated. That's their motivation for wanting to know your race/ethnicity. And they (of the schools that care) want to create a critical mass of Latino students who can turn to one another for social support on campus. The last thing you want is for a kid to be the only one of their type on campus. Separately, they're interested in increasing the number of students enrolled who are the first in their families to go to a 4-yr college. Given that these are both institutional priorities for most schools, students who can check both of those boxes will be of greatest interest to them.

Most selective colleges will have AOs who are familiar with the socioeconomics of different schools within their territory, so finding students from the lower income neighborhoods who indicate that they are Latino/Hispanic/Mexican American/Chicano will be prioritized over finding kids from UMC families who happen to have a grandfather from Peru. In UMC neighborhoods, they'll be most interested in those applicants who themselves, as kids, identify as Latino/Hispanic/Boriqua and who demonstrate in a variety of ways across their application materials that they will contribute something to the Latino community on their college campus. It's like playing that game "tell me you're Latino without telling me that you're Latino." If your kid can't do that and you live in NW DC or Fairfax, don't bother marking the box.

Marking the box might get your kid's application a second look when it otherwise would have gone into the rejection pile. But it won't ever be enough to get them into the accept pile without a lot of other things that make them stand out. At best, it might get your kid into the Latino pool, in which case they then have to be among the best in that group. And they will almost certainly have an AO who is an expert in recruitment of Latino students and/or a Latino themself. That person will be reading your kid's application closely and they will spot a poser in less than 2 minutes with their application.

My own kid (UMC, very rigorous DMV high school and courses and above average ECs) didn't get into most of the more selective schools. They speak Spanish as a native, studied it all through school, have Spanish names, etc... Marking the box definitely does not get you a free pass. If they'd attended school in a low-income neighborhood and had parents who didn't attend college, they'd almost certainly have done even better in the admissions process. But they ended up in a great place for them with merit aid, so all is good. As far as I'm concerned (I was a first-gen Latino) that is how it should work.

(I'm Latino and graduated from highly selective universities.)

This PP is correct. I am a former SLAC admissions counselor and we were all experts at sussing out the applicants who fit the profiles that we were looking for. Example, Cuban Maria Garcia from Coral Gables, FL who attends Ransom Everglades School ($45k/yr) with a law partner mother and surgeon father is going to be evaluated very differently than Salvadoran Ana Cruz from Wheaton, MD who attends Wheaton HS with a mother who is a cleaning lady and a father who is a mechanic. They may both check the same race box, but we know.

I agree with PP's statement that this is how it should work. The hope is that Ana Cruz's children will BE Maria Garcias in the next generation. For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

Why are these stats relevant? In 1947, fully 49% of all students admitted to colleges in America were veterans. FORTY NINE PERCENT! Prior to WW2, the overwhelming majority of American college students were wealthy (white) elites. The GI Bill dramatically changed the American higher ed landscape and brought millions and millions of white Americans out of poverty and the lower middle class into middle class prosperity. The number of degree holders in the US DOUBLED from 1940 to 1950, even though there was only a 14% increase in total population from '40 to '50, because of the GI Bill. This is exactly why URMs and first generation college students are advantaged. The lasting effect of a system that America created to lift whites out of poverty, that WORKED, really well. Now, you and your children do not need, nor deserve a leg up, handout, additional support of any kind. You already got it. You are probably paying for college with wealth accumulated from the GI Bill house your parents inherited from your grandparents.

Black Tyler Jenkins' grandfather also fought in WW2, but he was denied those benefits, and came home with no opportunity, and Jim Crow still the law of the land. All while white Johnny Murphy's grandpa was able to go to University of Maryland, get a good federal job, buy a little rambler in Bethesda for $30k with a low interest, subsidized loan and the rest is history. You want to erase everything leading up to 2022 and say - well, we aren't racist anymore. Now, you've deemed the system unfair because it considers the set of circumstances that led to Tyler Jenkins at Montgomery Blair and Johnny Murphy at Walter Johnson and why Tyler has only one extra curricular activity because he works, or his parents need him to watch younger siblings while they work; all while Johnny plays travel sports, has an SAT tutor and a brand new Macbook pro.

This time in the past, where white people seem to think the racism occurred, is still here, affecting us all every single day.

Is there any reason a wealthy Hispanic student should not check the accurate box (Yes to the question on Hispanic ethnicity)? Do AOs simply filter through the Hispanic pile for the disadvantaged students and put the rest back into the regular pool, or does having checked the correct box hold any stigma for a wealthy student?

[Anonymous]

Just stop people the racist garbage is just amazing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP: you missed the part where Black veterans got nothing from the GI Bill. Do you think that was fair? Do you think white veterans didn’t benefit from their service?

That didn't make it a "handout" to whites. They had to earn it. The white servicemen weren't just handed the benefit for being white - they had to serve in order to get the benefit.

Reminder: most US military casualties in WWII were white men. Blacks overwhelmingly served in rear-area support units. Out of 405,399 US military deaths in WW2, only 708 were African American (0.17%). Do you think that was fair? Do you still think white servicemen were unfairly rewarded?

NP. Yes, as black servicemen were ineligible and also served, some on the front lines. Would you discriminate against white servicemen because of the nature of their service?

Also, note that I refer to them as black servicemen, not "blacks." Look back at the way you refer to the two sets of men. It seems to reveal a bias here.

If you think whites were unfairly rewarded for their military service, you are the one who is biased.

If you think whites got a handout for serving in WW2, you are amazingly stupid.

The fact that some blacks were denied what they'd earned does not make it unfair that whites were given what they'd earned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the thread about cheating via extended time, some mentioned that white/Asian students are being coached to check the box that they are black or Hispanic.

Is this really what our college application system has become? I cannot imagine anyone that I know doing this. And doesn’t the high school guidance counselor have to review the application and verify information anyway?

I know families who have really pushed the boundaries on checking these boxes, especially for the Latino/Hispanic category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the thread about cheating via extended time, some mentioned that white/Asian students are being coached to check the box that they are black or Hispanic.

Is this really what our college application system has become? I cannot imagine anyone that I know doing this. And doesn’t the high school guidance counselor have to review the application and verify information anyway?

How do they explain their last name (if Asian)?

Umm, you do know that there are Asian Latinos. They don't need to explain anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP: you missed the part where Black veterans got nothing from the GI Bill. Do you think that was fair? Do you think white veterans didn’t benefit from their service?

That didn't make it a "handout" to whites. They had to earn it. The white servicemen weren't just handed the benefit for being white - they had to serve in order to get the benefit.

Reminder: most US military casualties in WWII were white men. Blacks overwhelmingly served in rear-area support units. Out of 405,399 US military deaths in WW2, only 708 were African American (0.17%). Do you think that was fair? Do you still think white servicemen were unfairly rewarded?

NP. Yes, as black servicemen were ineligible and also served, some on the front lines. Would you discriminate against white servicemen because of the nature of their service?

Also, note that I refer to them as black servicemen, not "blacks." Look back at the way you refer to the two sets of men. It seems to reveal a bias here.

If you think whites were unfairly rewarded for their military service, you are the one who is biased.

If you think whites got a handout for serving in WW2, you are amazingly stupid.

The fact that some blacks were denied what they'd earned does not make it unfair that whites were given what they'd earned.

NP. That is the definition of "unfair." And no one is suggesting white servicemen shouldn't have been rewarded; the point was that black servicemen never received those same rewards, and that inequity needs to be acknowledged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP: you missed the part where Black veterans got nothing from the GI Bill. Do you think that was fair? Do you think white veterans didn’t benefit from their service?

That didn't make it a "handout" to whites. They had to earn it. The white servicemen weren't just handed the benefit for being white - they had to serve in order to get the benefit.

Reminder: most US military casualties in WWII were white men. Blacks overwhelmingly served in rear-area support units. Out of 405,399 US military deaths in WW2, only 708 were African American (0.17%). Do you think that was fair? Do you still think white servicemen were unfairly rewarded?

NP. Yes, as black servicemen were ineligible and also served, some on the front lines. Would you discriminate against white servicemen because of the nature of their service?

Also, note that I refer to them as black servicemen, not "blacks." Look back at the way you refer to the two sets of men. It seems to reveal a bias here.

If you think whites were unfairly rewarded for their military service, you are the one who is biased.

If you think whites got a handout for serving in WW2, you are amazingly stupid.

The fact that some blacks were denied what they'd earned does not make it unfair that whites were given what they'd earned.

NP. That is the definition of "unfair." And no one is suggesting white servicemen shouldn't have been rewarded; the point was that black servicemen never received those same rewards, and that inequity needs to be acknowledged.

What pp is trying to tell you is that the unfairness is that black people were omitted. That is the wrong thing. NOT that whites were allowed to use the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP: you missed the part where Black veterans got nothing from the GI Bill. Do you think that was fair? Do you think white veterans didn’t benefit from their service?

That didn't make it a "handout" to whites. They had to earn it. The white servicemen weren't just handed the benefit for being white - they had to serve in order to get the benefit.

Reminder: most US military casualties in WWII were white men. Blacks overwhelmingly served in rear-area support units. Out of 405,399 US military deaths in WW2, only 708 were African American (0.17%). Do you think that was fair? Do you still think white servicemen were unfairly rewarded?

NP. Yes, as black servicemen were ineligible and also served, some on the front lines. Would you discriminate against white servicemen because of the nature of their service?

Also, note that I refer to them as black servicemen, not "blacks." Look back at the way you refer to the two sets of men. It seems to reveal a bias here.

If you think whites were unfairly rewarded for their military service, you are the one who is biased.

If you think whites got a handout for serving in WW2, you are amazingly stupid.

The fact that some blacks were denied what they'd earned does not make it unfair that whites were given what they'd earned.

NP. That is the definition of "unfair." And no one is suggesting white servicemen shouldn't have been rewarded; the point was that black servicemen never received those same rewards, and that inequity needs to be acknowledged.

What pp is trying to tell you is that the unfairness is that black people were omitted. That is the wrong thing. NOT that whites were allowed to use the program.

So you’re saying the program was fair for white people? I don’t think that meets the definition of fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP. WHOOSH!!! Damn girl, go back to reading comp 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the white folks - do you not understand that this is what happened for your people a generation ago except the government fully paid for it? Y'all remain super supportive (or forgetful/willfully ignorant) of any handout that white people receive.

Have you heard of the GI Bill? Let's talk some numbers to help put this into perspective. There were ~16mil WW2 vets. 1mill were black, we will subtract them out, since they were denied GI benefits. So, we are left with around 15mil white male veterans (less the 350k women vets). Using 1950 census data: there were 150mil Americans total. ~135mil whites and ~15mil "nonwhites" (term used in census reports at the time). Of the 135mil white Americans in 1950, ~67mil were men. So, around 22% of white men were WW2 vets.

What a load of absolute bs. The GI bill was not and is not a handout. In order to obtain it, you had to serve your country for years. This is in no way comparable to “give kids a leg up because their skin is brown or black.” If you want to create a program in which blacks and Hispanics received educational benefits in exchange for four years of national service, great, let’s have that. But don’t pretend giving people a diversity advantage in college applicants is just like the GI bill, because that’s utter crap.

NP: you missed the part where Black veterans got nothing from the GI Bill. Do you think that was fair? Do you think white veterans didn’t benefit from their service?

That didn't make it a "handout" to whites. They had to earn it. The white servicemen weren't just handed the benefit for being white - they had to serve in order to get the benefit.

Reminder: most US military casualties in WWII were white men. Blacks overwhelmingly served in rear-area support units. Out of 405,399 US military deaths in WW2, only 708 were African American (0.17%). Do you think that was fair? Do you still think white servicemen were unfairly rewarded?

NP. Yes, as black servicemen were ineligible and also served, some on the front lines. Would you discriminate against white servicemen because of the nature of their service?

Also, note that I refer to them as black servicemen, not "blacks." Look back at the way you refer to the two sets of men. It seems to reveal a bias here.

If you think whites were unfairly rewarded for their military service, you are the one who is biased.

If you think whites got a handout for serving in WW2, you if are amazingly stupid.

The fact that some blacks were denied what they'd earned does not make it unfair that whites were given what they'd earned.

NP. You are being intentionally obtuse. The original poster never said that white servicemen did not deserve the GI Bill. She said that all of the Black servicemen were denied the GI Bill. You seem to think that was okay that Black servicemen were denied the same opportunities simply because they did not die in greater numbers. I mean woman you sound crazy. FYI, Black servicemen served in both support and frontlines, including but not excluding infantry, pilots, bombing, maintenance, artillery, etc.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/african-americans.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am quite sure this is not as widespread as the pyschos on this board suggest.

Plenty of Asian parents are fed up with their kids being discriminated against and being held to an impossible standard. The system is rigged against them, why not play the game?

Have you seen the make up of Ivy campuses? My kid was admitted to several T15. Asian kids are over represented. At one Ivy, Asian was the majority race of the admitted students group that day. Stop playing the victim. Many Asian families think there is some recipe to a T15 and now claim discrimination. It's holistic admissions, and every T15 campus has a large cohort of Asian kids. Much larger than population percentages would suggest. Even if these schools filled all their spots with Asian kids, it would still result in overwhelming rejection for most Asian kids.

DP: You are a vile, racist person. People are people, not mere members of a supposed race.

I did not intend this to be any judgment on race, and it was not intended to be a subjective statement. It's just the data. Sorry if the syntax came across as subjective here. I meant that if you look at percentage of Asian students on these campus compared to Asian students in overall population, the percentage is much much higher. That's what "overrepresented" means here. It was not meant to be a judgment! Just to say that Asian students do very well in top tier admissions.

I do think there is a cultural (but not racial) component in when it comes to this notion of a "recipe" for Ivies and expectation that high stats equates to best qualified.

I understand what you are saying, and the data is in your side. Asians, particularly East and South Asians, are represented at colleges and universities in percentages that exceed their proportion of the national population. At some of the nation’s top magnet high schools—TJ in Virginia and Bedford-Stuy in NY—you can see what happens when there’s aren’t holistic admissions but rather admission decisions based solely on stats/test scores: Asians occupy more than half (I think 70%) of slots at Bedford. TJ was pressured to revamp their admission policies because Asians were nearing 50% (or more). A massive outcry has followed.

The US is the only country that practices “holistic” college admissions, rather than stats- and test-based admissions. The historical reason for that was to limit the number of Jews, starting around the 1920s, admitted to top universities, especially the Ivies. They, too, were over-represented based on their percentage of the national population. All of this was linked to immigration policies at the time, which originally were more lax and then became more restrictive for Chinese (1881) and later Asians generally and Jews. So this issue is a long-standing one for whites. Fareed Zakaria captured this in a documentary a couple of years ago. A NY Times op-ed this week addressed the topic as well (9/23 “stop making Asian-Americans pay the price for campus diversity”). Asians, much like Jews in the past, are up against informal quotas that holistic admissions practices mask. A friend’s kid is Asian/white, and that student will be checking the white box on their college application to improve their admission odds.

I don’t know what the answer is, but for those who focus on fairness in admissions, this strikes me as a broken and unfair system. On the other hand, the system is also rigged against other minority groups—often in low-income zip codes—who have less access to quality education in k-12 and who are now benefiting from a less test-based set of admissions criteria. What they have experienced in their schools for 13 years before college isn’t fair either. Dumping the (income-biased) standardized tests is helping them (to a modest degree) gain admission to top universities. It’s not as much as it seems when you review each university’s common data set. But it’s better than it was. This is and always has been such a vexing public policy issue. We want diverse representation on campuses at the aggregate level, but at the individual level, we want each student who is exceptionally qualified to not have informal quotas working against them.