Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Won't the AA ruling be particularly bad for private school URMs?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
One is explicitly based on racial discrimination, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional. The other is not. The issue with AA that proponents keep ignoring is that it does blatantly violate key constitutional clauses about not discriminating on race. Previous SCOTUS rulings acknowledged this tension and that is why the language was always in terms of being a limited policy, the original SCOTUS spoke of a 25 year policy, which was in the 1960s. Most of you have probably never read the previous rulings just as you will never read the current ruling. Logically and constitutionally, overturning AA makes perfect sense. As for what will happen next, it's completely unclear. We just don't know how both SCOTUS and secondary courts will respond to future lawsuits, which will definitely happen if schools skirt the issue with under the table AA. As long as there is a clear discrepancy between average scores between black and Asian applicants and admitted students, the lawsuits will be vigilant. Ultimately, the universities will decide whether it is a battle worth continually fighting. My guess is that black and Latino shares will definitely fall at least a third if not half, but that will reach a new level where differing standards will be deemed quietly acceptable. I do wonder, however, what this AA ruling means for the rest of the AA bureaucracy. Which is hugely entrenched in the Federal bureaucracy. Hiring and procurement set aside for minority businesses are harder to defend now. |
Anonymous
No one is saying that legacy preferences are unconstitutional. They are saying that they probably conflict with school’s stated values and the schools themselves may respond by ending them. The point is these policies are from another age and any relook or reimagining of admissions might find schools abandoning these policies. |
Anonymous
Yep. I know. Notice I didn't say intelligence was the only factor. But surely you would agree that adequate nerd power is also important to maintaining the prestige of an institution (even besides MIT). Back when I was applying to colleges there were definitely some that stood out as being selective for wealth only. Those didn't have much prestige. |
Anonymous
They do not, however, conflict with the fundraising and development efforts of those schools. Is that really so difficult to understand? |
Anonymous
| There is no objective definition of merit or fairness. Some people think sports are valuable, some think theater, some think being from a less privileged background, some think SAT scores and grades. The whole concept of merit is biased based on what you think is important |
Anonymous
The problem is that there are enough upper middle and middle class black and latino kids that AA doesn't necessarily mean a full scholarship. If they really concentrate on SES, then it does and a lot of these newly need blind school will no longer be able to afford it and will have to revert to need aware. That's going to mean even more of a dumb bell distribution which schools may not be happy with |
Anonymous
The problem with that argument is that these schools also have to appear to their donors as embodying certain valuea. It is a delicate dance for Harvard and it has to attend to lots of different constituencies- faculty, students, trustees, etc. so it is not nearly as simple that. |
Anonymous
Different schools can definite merit in different ways to attract different students. Maybe this is the way admissions is headed. |
Anonymous
Oh my sweet summer child... |
Anonymous
| Legacy admission usually requires substantial donations, which benefit the school. More importantly, though, it selects for wealthy families who are willing to support the success of their children. That provides value to all students. People always say (and as an Ivy grad, I found it to be very true) that the biggest value of an Ivy is the network - you get to go to school with the children of the movers and shakers of society, who can make connections for you and give you insight into the top stratosphere of the country. That’s very valuable. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
| That should have read I know that you only cared about race… |
Anonymous
|
What is Interesting is that Asians have benefited immensely under hard fought for affirmative action initiatives and now are responsible for the dismantling of them.
|
Anonymous
There you have it folks - this is White man panic right here. Sitting in a corner, hugging his legacy admits...because the thought of his mediocre children not getting the advantage he felt they were entitled to by birth right - in addition to the birth right advantage their skin has given them. So this parent is hopeful that in addition to removing AA competition from his mediocre legacy kid for college that it will extend to the workplace so that his child can also live a comfortable life in an echo chamber with other white adults who create tone deaf commercials and problematic policies. But clutch your purse and pearls honey because even if this one was about just keeping the Blacks out - precedent means something and if we are talking about "merit"...let's see where your legacy kid falls. |
Anonymous
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. |