Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

NP: Yes, numerically, the majority of first gens are white. However, the majority of first gen applicants to the top 100 schools are URM or Asian American. Rural first gen white students apply to regional public universities / community colleges. There is also greater skepticism regarding elite universities as they are more likely to be conservative. URMs in urban areas are more likely to be exposed to programs like Questbridge and exposed to progressive messages emphasizing education as a means of social mobility.

PP: as someone who's been poor (and white), this is also because until a very recent past, colleges just didn't give a damn about this population. There were scholarships and outreach programs for URMs, but nothing much for others. Now there is a big emphasis on first gen, and I expect the poor white kids will follow the money; they are not stupid.

But it’s not about being stupid or not. The skepticism about the value of a college degree has significantly increased amongst white students, especially low income males. Or else elite colleges culturally change and become less left leaning, the demographic composition of first gen students to top 100 schools will not change. I do think there will be an increase in first gen white girls and Asian American students.

Would it be impermissible discrimination if a university chose to mimic the demographics of the United States in their freshman class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

NP: Yes, numerically, the majority of first gens are white. However, the majority of first gen applicants to the top 100 schools are URM or Asian American. Rural first gen white students apply to regional public universities / community colleges. There is also greater skepticism regarding elite universities as they are more likely to be conservative. URMs in urban areas are more likely to be exposed to programs like Questbridge and exposed to progressive messages emphasizing education as a means of social mobility.

PP: as someone who's been poor (and white), this is also because until a very recent past, colleges just didn't give a damn about this population. There were scholarships and outreach programs for URMs, but nothing much for others. Now there is a big emphasis on first gen, and I expect the poor white kids will follow the money; they are not stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

What counts as “prep?” SAT/ACT tutoring only? Tutoring for classes? As for college advising, would advice from connected family friends be allowed?

And how could any of this be enforced?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

Anonymous wrote:But here is the thing, do URM that are UMC really need a boost? They do not. I am perfectly fine with SES and essays being the means to bring diversity to colleges. I think we should have programs designed to bring opportunity to first generation college students of all races, including white.

I was not URM/UMC when applying to college. No hook at all but I am fairly sure I got in T5 school because of the school’s desire for geographic diversity. URM are concentrated in metro areas and the coasts. I would be in favor of eliminating geographic diversity, legacy, and athletic preferences (especially for those applicants who are playing intramural sports and are non-sports scholarship applicants). Then just give preferences for first-gen and SES and offering sufficient financial aid to meet their family’s financial need coupled with proactive recruitment (summer research and enrichment programs for HS sophomores and juniors sponsored by colleges to target and prepare first gen and low SES applicants so they actually want to apply rather than get scared off by the huge debt they will incur).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Also, some evidence suggests that eliminating easy language questions on the SAT reduces race and income-based disparities, but the College Board has refused to do that.

The faculty who studied the impact of test-optional suggested that it’s possible to design and much more equitable test. I wonder if the correlation between scores and SES is a feature not a bug.

But here is the thing, do URM that are UMC really need a boost? They do not. I am perfectly fine with SES and essays being the means to bring diversity to colleges. I think we should have programs designed to bring opportunity to first generation college students of all races, including white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

NP: Yes, numerically, the majority of first gens are white. However, the majority of first gen applicants to the top 100 schools are URM or Asian American. Rural first gen white students apply to regional public universities / community colleges. There is also greater skepticism regarding elite universities as they are more likely to be conservative. URMs in urban areas are more likely to be exposed to programs like Questbridge and exposed to progressive messages emphasizing education as a means of social mobility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

I said disproportionate, not headcount or total numbers. A greater percentage of, say, AA or Latin applicants, will be first generation or disadvantaged, compared to the percentage of white applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Asians get enough discrimination, even from other dominant minorities. but who cares when they work hard. Discriminate more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't realize the supreme court had a band.

I was thinking the OP meant there was a ring around something to mark it.

I think this explains why my DC's English 101 prof is teaching grammar one day a week.

I think your post highlights why most first grade teachers teach about "context clues" when teaching the six-year-olds how to read Typos happen. D and S are right next to each other on the keyboard- probably meant to type "bans" not band. But common sense is not so common these days!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

They will choose whoever they want through interviews.

It won’t change anything.

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).