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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it be any worse than at other schools?

Because if colleges use HHI or zip code to identify URMs, these kids won't be found.

Right now, black and latino kids from the Big3 get a huge leg up in college admissions due to being URM despite many being the children of physicians, law partners, IMF workers, diplomats, etc and living in places like upper NW, Chevy Chase, Bethesda.
They are like gold to colleges because they're smart, well educated AND contribute to the college's URM goals. At the Big3 they claim a ton of the Ivy and similar spots (despite many not being in the top 20% of the class--and sometimes none
being in this quintile).

I see this as being a huge shift in Big3 college admissions.

How is that any different from high performing publics?

Depends on the public. BCC pulls from a fairly wide swath of Silver Spring that falls into lower HHI areas. TJ pulls many kids from lower HHI areas. Blair pulls the vast majority from lower HHI, even though the magnet kids have different demographics from Blair as a whole. Whitman, Churchill and Langley will probably feel the same impact as Big3 URMs.

That said, there is nothing in the ruling that prohibits a Sidwell URM that is the child of a wealthy IMF worker from say Ghana talking extensively about their heritage/upbringing in Ghana...which will of course give the AO what they need to know without explicitly mentioning race.

I believe pp was referring to schools such as the “W” schools.

[Anonymous]

I know a lot of folks are focusing on this being an attack against Black students, but historically AA has benefitted women more than any UM group. So what will be interesting is to see what happens to gender balance at the university level. I also foresee tons of lawsuits where entitled families believe their child should've been admitted over another candidate. I feel for anyone working in admissions right now because its gonna be messy.

[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.

Black students from schools like the Big 3 should not be at a competitive disadvantage, as long as they write about how race affected their life in their essays. UMC academically well-prepared students will continue to be admissions gold. No college wants all of their students, from any racial group, to come from economically distressed environments. There will be far fewer Black applicants from schools like Sidwell than schools like JR and Dunbar.

Here’s is what the SCt. opinion says:

“At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race af­fected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspira­tion, or otherwise…A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim­ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose herit­age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her ex­periences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Our "chance" isn't and has never been equal. I guess redlining, predatory lending practices, wage discrimination, no access to homestead grants, rigged criminal justice system, occupational segregation, educational segregation and hundreds of years of free labor probably wouldn't allow for a fair chance. Yeah I get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a lot of folks are focusing on this being an attack against Black students, but historically AA has benefitted women more than any UM group. So what will be interesting is to see what happens to gender balance at the university level. I also foresee tons of lawsuits where entitled families believe their child should've been admitted over another candidate. I feel for anyone working in admissions right now because its gonna be messy.

Curious about this statement. Are you talking about outside of the higher Ed world? Because I was under the impression that girls/women/females outperforms boys/men/males as students and, only upon entry to the wrokforce and child rearing, did they “fall behind.” But perhaps you can point me to data to the contrary?

[Anonymous]

Nope will not be bad for private schools at all. In fact it will most likely help private schools.

The people who can afford private school will always have a place at elite colleges and universities. It just the facts. This court ruling reinforced this which will help private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like private school admissions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Our "chance" isn't and has never been equal. I guess redlining, predatory lending practices, wage discrimination, no access to homestead grants, rigged criminal justice system, occupational segregation, educational segregation and hundreds of years of free labor probably wouldn't allow for a fair chance. Yeah I get it.

If your kid is at a Big 3, you are not suffering from any of those and should not benefit.

[Anonymous]

I’m happy with the decision and also think legacy should go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will mean that they are in the same situation that every unhooked white and asian kid was in previously. I guess having to compete on a level playing field is working twice as hard now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a lot of folks are focusing on this being an attack against Black students, but historically AA has benefitted women more than any UM group. So what will be interesting is to see what happens to gender balance at the university level. I also foresee tons of lawsuits where entitled families believe their child should've been admitted over another candidate. I feel for anyone working in admissions right now because its gonna be messy.

Curious about this statement. Are you talking about outside of the higher Ed world? Because I was under the impression that girls/women/females outperforms boys/men/males as students and, only upon entry to the wrokforce and child rearing, did they “fall behind.” But perhaps you can point me to data to the contrary?

https://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/06/16/what-women-have-gained-from-affirmative-action-00102397

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/opinion/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html

Here are a few articles I suggest you take a look at. I think people assume that college admissions is cut and dry. One of the reasons AA was important for racial minorities AND women was because it was a point toward equity. Historically in college admissions, majority men have benefited despite any data showing women "out performing". So universities essentially had to be pushed to consider the importance of diversity (to include women). This also extends to the workplace (which trust is next). And women are falling behind in the workplace for many more reasons outside of child rearing. If you think gender discrimination has ended, you are not paying enough attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a lot of folks are focusing on this being an attack against Black students, but historically AA has benefitted women more than any UM group. So what will be interesting is to see what happens to gender balance at the university level. I also foresee tons of lawsuits where entitled families believe their child should've been admitted over another candidate. I feel for anyone working in admissions right now because its gonna be messy.

Curious about this statement. Are you talking about outside of the higher Ed world? Because I was under the impression that girls/women/females outperforms boys/men/males as students and, only upon entry to the wrokforce and child rearing, did they “fall behind.” But perhaps you can point me to data to the contrary?

DP. Curious about your statement. Do you think women alway graduate college at a higher rate vs men? The first time that happen was in 2014- male 31.2% women 32%(% of population graduated from 4 year university or college). In 1970 the number for women was 8% by 2021 it was 39.1%. This is a direct result of government action.

[Anonymous]

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.[/quote

There is no constitutional bar to legacy admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a lot of folks are focusing on this being an attack against Black students, but historically AA has benefitted women more than any UM group. So what will be interesting is to see what happens to gender balance at the university level. I also foresee tons of lawsuits where entitled families believe their child should've been admitted over another candidate. I feel for anyone working in admissions right now because its gonna be messy.

Perhaps historically, but more qualified women than men apply to college these days, and most college classes have more women than men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will mean that they are in the same situation that every unhooked white and asian kid was in previously. I guess having to compete on a level playing field is working twice as hard now

Nope, the field has NEVER been level for Black people in this country.

Here’s what the SCt. opinion says:

“At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race af­fected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspira­tion, or otherwise…A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim­ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose herit­age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her ex­periences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”