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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take away all the hooks (URM, legacy, athlete, sibling), declare all ninth grade seats open, and admit for HS strictly on merit.

Define "merit," and why don't athletic achievements count? Or overcoming certain types of adversity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

Sad. But I guess true.

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s all a black box and no test scores anymore.
High SES diversity candidates will always pass the bar, as Biden said. Once the bar is passed, the AdCom can work its magic crafting a diverse class.

[Anonymous]

Schools won’t be eliminating test scores. Think about it - without the scores the schools will have to be all about ECs and an application that is all about ECs is crushing to a student whose family requires her to work a min wage job and can’t pay for the robotics competitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

They may not be as celebrated as the athlete. However, your smart but not athletically gifted kid is important to the school too. Otherwise there’s no academic prestige and the school just becomes a glorified haven for jocks and rich kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

They may not be as celebrated as the athlete. However, your smart but not athletically gifted kid is important to the school too. Otherwise there’s no academic prestige and the school just becomes a glorified haven for jocks and rich kids.

Call me when Ohio State sells 100,000 tickets for model UN. Besides, I'd bet on that lax player who is able to get into a prestigious school being more successful than any random student who gets in on their merits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

They may not be as celebrated as the athlete. However, your smart but not athletically gifted kid is important to the school too. Otherwise there’s no academic prestige and the school just becomes a glorified haven for jocks and rich kids.

Call me when Ohio State sells 100,000 tickets for model UN. Besides, I'd bet on that lax player who is able to get into a prestigious school being more successful than any random student who gets in on their merits

That school wouldn’t be prestigious if it weren’t full of smart kids and faculty.

[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

This is not the case any time soon. It was specifically brought up in SC arguments. It was pointed out to Harvard, etc. that truly increasing diversity would best be served by removing legacy, donor, and faculty applicants. They very clearly stated that they would not do this, despite it being a better way to achieve the ends they claim they supported through AA. Legacies are more likely to be donors, they will not get rid of this. Unlike the basis of race, it is also not a protected status.

The decision did allow universities to consider socioeconomic status, which is absolutely their avenue to promote diversity through outreach in lower income communities. The issue here of course is that only so many students could qualify for things like Financial aid before the allotted funds are used up. And where would they get more funding if they increase lower income students who cannot pay in full but cut out legacies and donors?
Don't get me wrong, the leg up for donors, athletes (for anything other than solely athletic programs), legacies, etc. absolutely should be eliminated. But they won't.

[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

Difficult? not at all. They literally said this in oral arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools won’t be eliminating test scores. Think about it - without the scores the schools will have to be all about ECs and an application that is all about ECs is crushing to a student whose family requires her to work a min wage job and can’t pay for the robotics competitions.

Are you kidding? A student working a min wage job in high school is the dream EC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools won’t be eliminating test scores. Think about it - without the scores the schools will have to be all about ECs and an application that is all about ECs is crushing to a student whose family requires her to work a min wage job and can’t pay for the robotics competitions.

Are you kidding? A student working a min wage job in high school is the dream EC

+1 As mentioned above, this ruling specifically allows for consideration of socioeconomic situation.

[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

Difficult? not at all. They literally said this in oral arguments.

People are confusing the legal issues and the issues of the politics within elite universities. As a legal matter, sure, legacy admissions aren’t going to get struck down. But legacy admissions were already very politically tenuous within these institutions espoused values. So once you start changing things, the subject of legacy admissions is going to be discussed and over time more and more schools will go the MIT route and do away with it because they are hard to defend and the schools can admit true development candidates outside this framework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

They may not be as celebrated as the athlete. However, your smart but not athletically gifted kid is important to the school too. Otherwise there’s no academic prestige and the school just becomes a glorified haven for jocks and rich kids.

Call me when Ohio State sells 100,000 tickets for model UN. Besides, I'd bet on that lax player who is able to get into a prestigious school being more successful than any random student who gets in on their merits [/quote

That school wouldn’t be prestigious if it weren’t full of smart kids and faculty.

Maybe if you are taking about a school like MIT. However, most prestigious schools are prestigious because that is where the rich and powerful have sent their children for generations. Don’t you get this? You think JFK got into Harvard because of his IQ? Or Bush attended Yale because he was so smart? Old money sent their kids to these schools and it became prestigious because of it.

[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

This is not the case any time soon. It was specifically brought up in SC arguments. It was pointed out to Harvard, etc. that truly increasing diversity would best be served by removing legacy, donor, and faculty applicants. They very clearly stated that they would not do this, despite it being a better way to achieve the ends they claim they supported through AA. Legacies are more likely to be donors, they will not get rid of this. Unlike the basis of race, it is also not a protected status.

The decision did allow universities to consider socioeconomic status, which is absolutely their avenue to promote diversity through outreach in lower income communities. The issue here of course is that only so many students could qualify for things like Financial aid before the allotted funds are used up. And where would they get more funding if they increase lower income students who cannot pay in full but cut out legacies and donors?
Don't get me wrong, the leg up for donors, athletes (for anything other than solely athletic programs), legacies, etc. absolutely should be eliminated. But they won't.

If that's the case, I really don't think this will be the end of diverse representation. It won't be as long as schools are still considering SES. In many ways, it's perhaps more fair to consider economic background.