The One Thing We Can Be Certain Of Is Continued Uncertainty

Today’s blog was written by my colleague and good friend Meg Joyce. Please see our “About Us” page if you want to know more about Meg.

By now, you’ve probably heard about last week’s Supreme Court ruling against the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (and by extension, other colleges with similar programs). This ruling was anticipated, and colleges have largely remained silent over the past several months as to what they were planning to do if/when the judgment came pass, other than to confirm their commitment to diversity. It’s worth noting that nine states - California (1996), Washington (1998), Florida (1999), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), Arizona (2010), New Hampshire (2012), Oklahoma (2012), and Idaho (2020) – already had bans on affirmative action in place. Military academies were exempted from the change on the grounds that they need a diverse group of leaders graduating because they will be leading diverse groups of soldiers.

Until this Supreme Court ruling, the idea was that in states where affirmative action had been permitted, public and private colleges and universities that receive federal moneys had an interest in the educational benefits that a racially diverse student body provides. That interest was justified only if race operated as a plus and as one factor among many being considered by admissions committees. A time limit meant to correspond with how long the country would need affirmative action was in place as well. 

So what does the end of race-conscious admissions mean for college admissions? The Supreme Courts ruling really only affects selective college admissions. The vast majority of the almost 4,000 colleges in our country admit almost all students who of apply. For selective colleges, it is too soon to know, but I want to review some of the possible differences I have been hearing about. 

First, some words in the Court’s opinion that I believe will be closely followed by college admissions offices: "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. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Because universities are free to consider “an applicant’s discussion,” we can probably expect to see more application essay questions that aim to learn about the ways in which a student’s race has shaped their experience. We won’t have a complete list of college-specific supplemental essay prompts until August 1, when the Common App goes live for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle, but a few weeks ago, Tufts announced their (new) essay questions (choose one of the following three): 

·       How have the environments or experiences of your upbringing – your family, home, neighborhood, or community – shaped the person you are today?

·       It’s cool to love learning. What excites your intellectual curiosity?

·       Using a specific example or two, tell us about a way that you contributed to building a collaborative and/or inclusive community.

Likewise, students may want to write about their own very personal experiences with race in their personal statements. In a professional association group, I heard the term “pain Olympics” used with concern to refer to the way students may feel compelled to address how race affected their life. I do not intend this email to be political; that is not my job or role. But I do want to report on important events and the impact they may have on students. When students write about their experiences and the impact of those experiences, admissions committees are able to understand nuance and the student better, and this is at the heart of holistic admissions. At the same time, I am worried about the “pain Olympics” and the effect that could have on students, especially as we find ourselves in the midst of a teen mental health crisis. I want students to understand that writing about the sport that they love or the summer they spent playing board games with their grandparents are still great essay topics. Students should not feel advantaged or disadvantaged because they have suffered more or less. I hope students feel reassured by something an Assistant Director of Admissions at a large state university stated over the weekend: that the burden should rest on the professionals, the high school counselors who write school profiles and letters of recommendation, the admissions professionals who visit high schools, review applications, and make admissions decisions. He went on to say the burden should not be on students to lay out the particulars of how they were impacted by racism so that admissions teams can understand.

We could see creative solutions where colleges strive to foster diversity and inclusivity while maintaining high academic standards. For example, universities may increase their outreach efforts into areas with high socioeconomic needs, the theory being that attracting high socioeconomic needs students can aid ethnic diversity. Recruiting and enrolling these students is expensive and, therefore, more viable at some universities than others. 

Published rankings (USNWR in particular) use metrics that weight factors, such as graduation rates, which are at odds with having diverse student bodies. We’ve seen several law and medical schools drop out of the rankings this year on the grounds those metrics devalued schools where many students went on to public service jobs, so it is possible we see undergraduate institutions either drop out of the rankings or pressure the publishers of those rankings to change their formulas.

The practice of advantaging legacy applicants at many colleges is likely to feel the heat. Already, Amherst, Johns Hopkins University, and the State of Colorado, among others, have moved away from considering applicants’ legacy status. Many people feel that if we are going to remove any special consideration for race, we have got to do the same for legacies. Legacy admissions and other institutional priorities, such as admissions advantages for large donors and faculty children, are known to advantage white students. If those policies remain in place, minority applicants lose the one advantage they may have had while white applicants keep theirs. 

With race off the table, socioeconomic status may play a larger role as colleges look to enroll diverse classes. Therefore, early decision (ED) plans may also come under fire (though universities rely on them to help with enrollment management and to fill their institutional priorities). If admitted, early decision applicants lose the ability to compare financial aid packages. When large percentages of classes are filled in the ED rounds, diversity suffers.

Test-optional admissions could be here to stay. Literally overnight, colleges shifted to test-optional admissions during COVID, and most of those colleges have continued with the practice, either on a trial basis or permanently. Test scores were at the heart of the case before the Supreme Court, and it is therefore unlikely that colleges that are committed to diversity will return to requiring scores. In fact, more colleges may adopt test-blind admissions, where they do not see applicants’ scores so that future lawsuits cannot bring in test scores (we do expect there to be more lawsuits in the future as there is ambiguity because students are allowed to write about their race). When the University of California system went test blind in 2021, there were huge jumps in applications from underrepresented minorities, Black and Hispanic students in particular. For colleges that still accept test scores, minority applicants may feel pressure to submit high scores to support their applications. 

There is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen to race-based scholarships. Some of these scholarships were set up long ago, and the original donor is no longer here to advise on them. 

More public universities may establish auto-admit policies. Some states – Texas and California, in particular - automatically admit all students in the top X% of their high school’s graduating class to the state’s public university system and/or the state’s flagship (though oftentimes excluding popular majors). This can help get students from majority-minority high schools into the state’s top universities and add to diversity. More states may add similar mandates.

The bottom line is that we are all guessing and will be watching how things unfold over the coming months and years. Nine states have already been operating under a system that disallows race-based admissions. The diversity of Michigan and California’s colleges really suffered in the first ten years after they banned affirmative action. In California, test blind admissions really boosted their numbers, but they are still inconsistent with the state’s overall numbers at the most selective universities, in particular for Black students. A lot has been learned from those states’ experiences, and colleges will be better equipped today to attract and enroll diverse classes. Colleges are committed to diversity, and students say they, too, want diversity because everyone learns more/better in diverse classrooms.

The one thing we can be certain of is continued uncertainty, which is something we have been feeling acutely since the start of COVID. I will continue to advise students to apply to a range of colleges, to demonstrate interest, and to apply to more colleges than they would have a short time ago. I will advise some students to write about their experience as it pertains to race but not to engage in the pain Olympics. I will continue to put students’ well-being at the forefront of the process. The process is broken, but we can do our part to retain sanity and even some growth and joy in it.

Meg

P.S. - There was another big decision this week when the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s plan to forgive at least $10,000 of federal student loans for eligible borrowers earning less than $125,000 per year. I wish college in the US didn’t cost so much, this is another broken system. I hope to write more on this in the near future.

P.P.S.  Monday afternoon, after I finished this, three groups led by an activist group called Lawyers for Civil Rights, filed suit to end Legacy admissions at Harvard.

Some articles related to the Supreme Court’s decision

Five Ways College Admissions Could Change, The New York Times

How the Supreme Court Ruling Will Change Admissions, The Chronicle of Higher Education (you may need to sign up for a free subscription to access)

The Problem with Elite-College Admissions

https://apple.news/AOjgy-aIiRW6fzKdxb6A9ew

Supreme Court strikes down Biden's student loan relief plan and limits LGBTQ rights, NBC News

Some Schools See Opening in Affirmative-Action Ruling, Wall Street Journal

I Teach at an Elite College. Here’s a Look Inside the Racial Gaming of Admissions, The New York Times

Can Colleges Be Racially Diverse Without Affirmative Action? Experience Suggests No, Wall Street Journal