Anonymous wrote:My takeaway is that the last scenario (mass intensive recruitment) is unlikely to be realistic in the near term. Therefore, there's likely to be a drop of at least ten percentage points in the black/Hispanic composition of this year's admitted class.

If it's 34% last year, it'll be like 25% or less this year. And likely the black total will drop more.

And the enrolled class will probably be even less diverse.

The last scenario is basically "what if magic was real?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

No. Unless your consider 42 old. Their demos are enviable.

I’m always shocked when a link is posted here and someone says “paywall”. Who doesn’t subscribe to the NYT? I’m not always a fan, but can’t imagine not having access to the NYT.

https://gitnux.org/new-york-times-readership-statistics/

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Remember, those charts show drop-off relative to test only admissions, not relative to last year's affirmative action policy. The AA drops would probably be even more severe.

My takeaway is that the last scenario (mass intensive recruitment) is unlikely to be realistic in the near term. Therefore, there's likely to be a drop of at least ten percentage points in the black/Hispanic composition of this year's admitted class.

If it's 34% last year, it'll be like 25% or less this year. And likely the black total will drop more.

And the enrolled class will probably be even less diverse.

Anonymous wrote:My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Or maybe parents will finally understand that schools outside the top 20 still offer a good education and stress around getting into the "right" school will decrease.

Unrealistic, I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Ewwwww!

My honest thoughts? Holy hell that is a huge drop off of the top quartile. Mental health and stress rates for UMC kids are going to explode.

As replies to the OP on another thread whose kid has perfect grades, great SATs and strong ECs indicate - these kids seem to have to be super human as it is already to get into even T50 schools.

Anonymous wrote:All just a waste of time and effort just virtue signaling. Those kids who are minorities capable of succeeding will find a way. Schools are taking kids who aren’t going to make through, who pile up debt and don’t have a degree or wind up with a degree with a worthless major in the end.

Schools would clearly have to implement some additional supports for those students, but I think that’s doable. Debt shouldn’t be an issue if kids are already getting a free ride.

Really interesting—thanks so much for posting. That last strategy of targeting outliers + casting a wider net makes a lot of sense. I hope schools decide to pursue it. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Have income-based preferences in admissions ever been legally challenged?

All just a waste of time and effort just virtue signaling. Those kids who are minorities capable of succeeding will find a way. Schools are taking kids who aren’t going to make through, who pile up debt and don’t have a degree or wind up with a degree with a worthless major in the end.

This basically will have the unintended consequence of an arms race in STSA scores among middle class and wealthier high schools. You have to outperform the average for your school, not a cut-off to gain admission to elite schools. This will cause more students to take the test multiple times to raise them as high as possible. 1530 is not a good score if your peers in your high school are getting 1570.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t scenario 1 effectively what Brown claimed it’s intent was by reinstating the testing requirements?

Moreso per Dartmouth’s statements, but yes, applies to Brown and similar schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The 4 scenarios to achieve racial diversity post SCOTUS affirmative action ban are interesting. The key observation IMO, especially with colleges like Dartmouth, Yale, and Brown going back to requiring standardized testing, is that if you're an URM with at least a 1400 / 31 regardless of income, admission chances to highly selective colleges are VERY good if the grades and ECs are exceptional as well.