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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one is confusing it. In the discussion of a legal ruling, it is not strange for comments stating that another policy is likewise "not long for this world" to be interpreted as being in the same legal setting.

In the real world, the schools only have a certain, finite amount of money to allocate to financial aid. If they start looking at socio-economic status and increase their diversity this way, where do you suggest they get the money to fund their financial aid if they remove legacy admissions, who tend to be the donors? Or do you think there will just be enough government funds to go around? Realistically? Or should those students just take out ever increasingly massive loans to afford university? Is this better? Or is it enough that they were accepted even if they could never afford to go?

On another level, the idea that for profit organizations- including universities- would just leave money on the table for the feels is naïve. It is likewise easy to call for such an action without also providing a workable solution on how it would be implemented on the ground.

I absolutely think legacy should go, but in the real world it won't. If it does, it will just be done superficially- remove the school question but parents will still be able to offer that info somehow. Or make a big show of removing it only to quietly reinstate. Much like many other policies.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why do people that that Princeton wants to be a school with nothing but poor kids? What in the 300 year histories of most Ivies leads you to believe that the will choose to educate the poor at the expense of the UMC and UC?

[Anonymous]

So what does this mean for our AA middle class family who valued education and academic success over athletics? We'll need near perfect SAT scores, 5.4 GPA and amazing ECs for a chance? Guess I should have put a basketball in my kid's hands at birth instead of a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

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.

Sorry, but can you actually argue against what the PP said without just name calling and hyperbole? If you want to defend AA, go ahead and do so, but don't just say anyone who disagrees with you is engaging in "white man panic." This doesn't look good for your position.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why do people that that Princeton wants to be a school with nothing but poor kids? What in the 300 year histories of most Ivies leads you to believe that the will choose to educate the poor at the expense of the UMC and UC?

Obviously it won’t be nothing but poor kids. But now that affirmative action is illegal, they will replace their X number of seats for Black students (many of which came from elite high schools) with the same X number of seats for low-income students of non specified races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions are next. I only cared about race… but legacy admission then gender.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-racial-preferences-college-supreme-court-20230629-knpmxmhikrbh7mxabrrkim46ny-story.html?lctg=F454B4A1F45EA42933E1D464ED&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nydailynews.com%2fopinion%2fny-edit-racial-preferences-college-supreme-court-20230629-knpmxmhikrbh7mxabrrkim46ny-story.html&utm_campaign=Dont-miss&utm_content=%23Listrak%5cDateTimeStampNumeric%23

...this is an opinion piece

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean for our AA middle class family who valued education and academic success over athletics? We'll need near perfect SAT scores, 5.4 GPA and amazing ECs for a chance? Guess I should have put a basketball in my kid's hands at birth instead of a book.

You mean, you’ll need the same thing that all the rest of our kids now require for a chance?

[Anonymous]

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.

+100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean for our AA middle class family who valued education and academic success over athletics? We'll need near perfect SAT scores, 5.4 GPA and amazing ECs for a chance? Guess I should have put a basketball in my kid's hands at birth instead of a book.

So same as other non athletes then...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean for our AA middle class family who valued education and academic success over athletics? We'll need near perfect SAT scores, 5.4 GPA and amazing ECs for a chance? Guess I should have put a basketball in my kid's hands at birth instead of a book.

It will mean what it has always meant for Black people, working twice as hard for half as much. It will mean the only people with an edge are those with the ability to “play the game” through dubious means of network and influence.

[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?

Becsuse whites are the #1 beneficiaries of legacy!

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.

[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

Since when? When my son applied in ‘20, top 50 schools did not even look at work experience. It was not considered.

[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

Did Ohio State sell 100,000 tickets for lax? I don't think money really explains the athletic preferences. There are a very small number of sports that make money for a very small number of schools. Most sports at most schools cost money.

[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.

Why do people that that Princeton wants to be a school with nothing but poor kids? What in the 300 year histories of most Ivies leads you to believe that the will choose to educate the poor at the expense of the UMC and UC?

Obviously it won’t be nothing but poor kids. But now that affirmative action is illegal, they will replace their X number of seats for Black students (many of which came from elite high schools) with the same X number of seats for low-income students of non specified races.

If it's zero sum, then it will have no impact non URM applicants except to the extent they qualify as poor/rural/whatever

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but can you actually argue against what the PP said without just name calling and hyperbole? If you want to defend AA, go ahead and do so, but don't just say anyone who disagrees with you is engaging in "white man panic." This doesn't look good for your position.


I get it, you are panicking too. Don't worry...your entitlement and privilege will probably be just fine. It doesn't look like a meltdown to you because you are probably feeling the panic too.