What will happen to Columbia admission this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It says that it will report stats of admits and rejects, along with demographic information, to the federal government.

The people behind all this are trying to get to 30-40% Jewish students. This is the goal according to Bill Ackman particularly at UPenn and Columbia. In the 60’s both were close to 40% with a large ultra orthodox presence. Columbia is now around 22%.

So it was a big drop and naturally DEI and affirmative action are to blame. Columbia can easily reach 30-35% by just quietlyincreasing legacy preferences to grandparents. As long as there is progress in this the pressure on Columbia by these activists will disappear.

Ok so I just visited most places with Ivy schools and it most definitely was not driving nor affirmative action I saw,,,,,however it wasnt white either [/quote
Meant to say it wasn’t DEI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I would think Test Optional is dead except possibly for recruited athletes, but not just at Columbia. Given the exec order on admissions data TO won't be helpful to diversify incoming class at any college. If the students admitted TO are more URM that is proof of disparate impact, i.e. discrimination, so TO would have to used for another reason (i.e. athletes) or be applied in an entirely race neutral way.
To be clear, I am not in favor of this. I think there still is a need for affirmative action, school resources aren't anywhere near equal, even without accounting for parental support not available to everyone. But as an attorney I just think colleges won't be able to have programs that though not directly tied to race are essentially surrogate features that help candidates of some races.

Correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It says that it will report stats of admits and rejects, along with demographic information, to the federal government.

The people behind all this are trying to get to 30-40% Jewish students. This is the goal according to Bill Ackman particularly at UPenn and Columbia. In the 60’s both were close to 40% with a large ultra orthodox presence. Columbia is now around 22%.

So it was a big drop and naturally DEI and affirmative action are to blame. Columbia can easily reach 30-35% by just quietlyincreasing legacy preferences to grandparents. As long as there is progress in this the pressure on Columbia by these activists will disappear.

Ok so I just visited most places with Ivy schools and it most definitely was not driving nor affirmative action I saw,,,,,however it wasnt white either

yep, Columbia is very, very Asian. Between domestic and International students the incoming class feels about 75%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I would think Test Optional is dead except possibly for recruited athletes, but not just at Columbia. Given the exec order on admissions data TO won't be helpful to diversify incoming class at any college. If the students admitted TO are more URM that is proof of disparate impact, i.e. discrimination, so TO would have to used for another reason (i.e. athletes) or be applied in an entirely race neutral way.
To be clear, I am not in favor of this. I think there still is a need for affirmative action, school resources aren't anywhere near equal, even without accounting for parental support not available to everyone. But as an attorney I just think colleges won't be able to have programs that though not directly tied to race are essentially surrogate features that help candidates of some races.

TO will stay. TO can be and has been legally applied in first gen low income context, which is race neutral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It says that it will report stats of admits and rejects, along with demographic information, to the federal government.

The people behind all this are trying to get to 30-40% Jewish students. This is the goal according to Bill Ackman particularly at UPenn and Columbia. In the 60’s both were close to 40% with a large ultra orthodox presence. Columbia is now around 22%.

So it was a big drop and naturally DEI and affirmative action are to blame. Columbia can easily reach 30-35% by just quietlyincreasing legacy preferences to grandparents. As long as there is progress in this the pressure on Columbia by these activists will disappear.

Ok so I just visited most places with Ivy schools and it most definitely was not driving nor affirmative action I saw,,,,,however it wasnt white either

yep, Columbia is very, very Asian. Between domestic and International students the incoming class feels about 75%.

There are going to be more asians everywhere. Millions of engineers/doctors immigrated to the US since the 90s. All the IT/biotech/medicine advancements in the US wouldn’t have been possible without Asian professionals. Their children were born here. They value education more culturally. This ain’t bad. Younger generations are not bothered by it because they’re always had diverse friends. The older generations take a little longer to adjust to the reality.

[Anonymous]

"TO will stay. TO can be and has been legally applied in first gen low income context, which is race neutral."

That is not necessarily true. The complication legally is even if your rationale is to increase the percentage of First Gen students (which I agree is a legally allowed aim) if that results increases some races and not others (which seems it might) that is going to be legally suspect.
By the way, the same thing is true for legacy admissions, i.e., there is already a suit attempting to prove that it is advantages on the basis of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"TO will stay. TO can be and has been legally applied in first gen low income context, which is race neutral."

That is not necessarily true. The complication legally is even if your rationale is to increase the percentage of First Gen students (which I agree is a legally allowed aim) if that results increases some races and not others (which seems it might) that is going to be legally suspect.
By the way, the same thing is true for legacy admissions, i.e., there is already a suit attempting to prove that it is advantages on the basis of race.

Well that’s idiotic. There’s a lot more rich wealthy Asians applying than poor black kids. Most people wouldn’t want a campus gilled with Bay Area kids just because trump is pissed at black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"TO will stay. TO can be and has been legally applied in first gen low income context, which is race neutral."

That is not necessarily true. The complication legally is even if your rationale is to increase the percentage of First Gen students (which I agree is a legally allowed aim) if that results increases some races and not others (which seems it might) that is going to be legally suspect.
By the way, the same thing is true for legacy admissions, i.e., there is already a suit attempting to prove that it is advantages on the basis of race.

That slippery slope argument is rather weak. If you follow that argument, every rationale can be interpreted as a proxy for race. If first gen low income is a proxy, then you can argue test blind is also a proxy. Admission-by-zipcode? Proxy. No one has challenged these rationales, and they most likely would lose if challenge them.

[Anonymous]

That is why they want this data and exactly what they are looking for and I don't think they will lose because 70 years of case law exists on the topic of disparate impact by race/gender is legally equivalent to intentional discrimination.

The civil rights complaint filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights against Harvard's legacy/donor preferences in admissions is very clearly a disparate impact claim "Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% of
legacy applicants are also white. The results of this preferential treatment are substantial."

Now, imagine the same allegation but substitute Test Optional and First Gen for Legacy and Donor and white for black and Hispanic.

Test blind isn't a proxy because it applies to literally all applicants. Though it is still attackable if there is evidence that the policy was adopted for racially motivated reasons. That is what the Trump administration alleges with regards to the UC's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is why they want this data and exactly what they are looking for and I don't think they will lose because 70 years of case law exists on the topic of disparate impact by race/gender is legally equivalent to intentional discrimination.

The civil rights complaint filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights against Harvard's legacy/donor preferences in admissions is very clearly a disparate impact claim "Nearly 70% of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70% of
legacy applicants are also white. The results of this preferential treatment are substantial."

Now, imagine the same allegation but substitute Test Optional and First Gen for Legacy and Donor and white for black and Hispanic.

Test blind isn't a proxy because it applies to literally all applicants. Though it is still attackable if there is evidence that the policy was adopted for racially motivated reasons. That is what the Trump administration alleges with regards to the UC's.

You may have a point.

Though it’s unlike legacy case where you have 70% white. In TO case, it cannot be true that 70% TO admits are URM. Much fewer. 25%? I would guess. Combined with the fact that many overlap with fgli, it’s a rather different case. Difficult to win.

[Anonymous]

I definitely don't think 70% or anywhere near that number of the TO admits are URM.
But it is pretty obvious that Trump administration suspects that TO, essays and First Gen policies are being used as proxies for race to diversify admits.
It is literally what the "Dear Colleague" letter says:
Although some programs may appear neutral on their face, a closer look reveals that
they are, in fact, motivated by racial considerations. And race-based decision-making,
no matter the form, remains impermissible. For example, a school may not use students’
personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student’s race and favoring or disfavoring such students. . . . It would, for instance, be unlawful
for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired
racial balance or to increase racial diversity."

People on this board just seem super naive in assuming that holistic review or aims like increasing FGLI aren't seriously at risk.

I would not be deluding my kid into thinking that they have a shot at any top 20 school if their GPA and SAT score weren't pretty close to the 50th percentile for that school on the basis that their race or class could make up for lower scores/grades.

[Anonymous]

Point taken. Dear Colleges letter is not the law, and has never been litigated. So we will see.