It’s hard not to be cynical about college admissions. In the latest effort to encourage diversity in American colleges and universities, two Democrats in the US Congress have introduced legislation to bar colleges that participate in the federal financial aid program, which will be considered ‘legacy’ status in deciding We do. As Oregon Senator Jeff Merkle, one of the co-sponsors, explained, “Selection of applicants to universities based on family names, connections, or the size of their bank accounts is a non-profit for students without those inherent benefits.” Creates a level playing field, especially affecting minority and first generation students.”
But if we’ve learned any lesson from the past quarter century, it must be that college officials will find a way to avoid these restrictions, such as the use of race as a primary factor in admission in favor of some who have them. There are limiting laws. group. Strategies designed to promote racial diversity can easily be used to provide cover for inheritance entry, giving special preference to grandchildren or donors of children or alumni. The current trend to eliminate standardized tests and class rankings for diversity purposes, or to make those tests optional, gives schools even more latitude.
As measures of ability or promise become less objective, legacy students—just as all students with money and connections—will benefit by taking advantage of the new rules. Of course, this is contrary to the intention of the sponsors of the law of Congress. They would reject comparisons to ongoing lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which claim these universities are discriminating against students in certain racial groups at the expense of others.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in these cases in October and a verdict is expected next year. The court ruled in University of California v. Bucke (1978) of Regents that colleges cannot use race as a primary factor in admissions, but only as a “plus factor”. In Gutter v. Bollinger (2003), the judges determined that the policy be “narrowly tailored”. In two court cases plaintiffs can prove that they were discriminated against, the individual test scores and grade point averages of various applicants to these schools will have to be examined. This is not easily done because those records are confidential and private.
But the plaintiffs claim that Asian American students in the Harvard case and Caucasian and Asian students at the University of North Carolina, whose test scores (as well as grades and extra-curricular resumes) are well above their averages, are more likely than African-American, Hispanic and Native American students whose SAT scores were below average. Admissions officers use tests of vague wording of personality or character to promote portfolios of students from preferred groups and to curate records of students from others. Asian applicants argue that they are heavily influenced by these subjective measures. The court will decide whether universities are allowed to tip the scales in this way. Schools claim that such measures are necessary to accept diverse and balanced classrooms.
A parallel question for universities is about their “legacy” policies of admissions. The said idea is to encourage alumni loyalty and help raise funds. Even if such legacies are prohibited or discouraged due to outside pressure and attention, colleges will be able to find ways to identify alumni or relatives of donors through essays, interviews, letters and recommendations.
Heritage students may be more likely to write an essay that mentions specific aspects of the school’s history or campus traditions. They are less likely to use a general application and are more capable of writing school-specific essays. They may be more likely to meet in person and mention that their parents have been involved.
Inherited 15% of the 2019 Harvard class. If Harvard eliminated race and heritage-based and preferences for the children of donors, faculty and staff, and gave a major boost to socio-economically disadvantaged students of all races, inheritance would drop from 15% to the status quo. would have been 4%. For an expert report.
But the campaign against inherited admissions, which is seen as one aspect of the push for diversity and ‘privileges’, cannot be combined with efforts to get rid of standardized tests – because eliminating clear and reliable measures can prevent admissions. The officers will get the scope to fight more. They want students to choose a mix of.
Whatever you want the next freshman class to look like, the only way to ensure accountability on the part of colleges is to insist on measurable standards of academic performance.
Naomi Schaefer Riley and James Pearson are Senior Fellows of the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, respectively
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint.
download
Our App Now!!