Anonymous wrote:The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

“Back door” expressly forbidden by scotus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

They are going to get their hands tied tighter and tighter.

I’m disgusted by open confessions of trying to avoid following the law as it has been laid out and I think they’re going to regret the choices they made in the “f*ck around” stage of this conflict when they get to the “find out” stage.

Anonymous wrote:Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

So? They’re all going to get sued no matter what they do.

Every school with pretextual processes is going to get sued. The right wing is ramping up to build the infrastructure to take them to the mat.

The essays will be annoying even for URMs, being asked by colleges to "sell trauma," as a recent article on this discussed.

What about the National Recognition Programs for URMs from College Board? They expanded during COVID, including not only the top 10% of PSAT scorers per group by state, but also those with a 3 on two AP exams, not a very high bar. Back door?

Waiting for parents to talk about how college admissions were "10 years ago."

We are in a new era of college admissions.

Affirmative action done.

Essays becoming more higher stakes.

Legacy admissions scrutiny.

University of California system test blind.

Test Optional becoming the norm.

All this with the top schools still remaining a lottery.

Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:It will result in lots of trauma essays and I’m a good ally essays.

My African American DS refuses to write a trauma essay in response to this type of question. Although he has been profiled by police and in stores, he is upper middle class and doesn't think it is appropriate to construct an essay around racial identity/ trauma or else you are low-income, something significant happened that negatively impacted his life, discrimination in an educational setting, attend an under-resourced school. etc.

It’s funny, I was just thinking what a fun essay this would be to write. The meta framing opens up the possibility of social science and legal discussion, plus philosophical pondering about the nature of identity.

Also, the legal appendices will be more fun. It will bring the voices and thoughts of the younger generation into the case.

It will result in lots of trauma essays and I’m a good ally essays.

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who was celebrating the ruling can recognize how tedious it’s going to be to write these essays. How does a kid who doesn’t have an interesting background respond in a way that will stand out?

I think it’s less tedious now. UVA, for example, reduced the number of supplemental essays. And with so many schools likely effectively asking the same question for the supplemental, it should be a significant time saver.

But your question is ripe for discussion.

I hope everyone who was celebrating the ruling can recognize how tedious it’s going to be to write these essays. How does a kid who doesn’t have an interesting background respond in a way that will stand out?

Anonymous wrote:Not that anyone is fighting over admissions to Sarah Lawrence, but should anyone choose to, they open themselves up for expensive litigation if someone thought they didn't get in because they used the essay responses to identify URMs which IS against the law. Sure they are innocent until proven guilty, but they have to provide all requested material and pay the lawyers.

The essay quotes the language from the ruling and is open to any prospective student to answer. It would be tough to litigate against that, but any aggrieved student ( or by proxy, parent) can use any excuse to sue.

Not that anyone is fighting over admissions to Sarah Lawrence, but should anyone choose to, they open themselves up for expensive litigation if someone thought they didn't get in because they used the essay responses to identify URMs which IS against the law. Sure they are innocent until proven guilty, but they have to provide all requested material and pay the lawyers.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1144777.page


You can find some of them here.

A supplemental essay prompt from Sarah Lawrence college for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle:

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university,’” the question reads. “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

Quoting directly from the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling and using it as an essay prompt.

Will other colleges follow suit?

Thoughts?