this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
130 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

1025 readers
1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago
 

From The Guardian

So Affirmative Action is basically dead for college admissions, further dismantling Civil Rights era legislation.

Way to go, SCOTUS. /s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Probably going to get downvoted for this, but I tend to agree that AA, as it stood, had run its course. Getting rid of it now clears the way for new and better solutions.

When I read these excerpts from this article https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-action/ - I get a strong sense that AA really just allowed schools to be lazy.

“Universities all across the country will begin to experiment with a whole variety of admissions techniques that are race-neutral in the sense that race is not an explicit factor, but not race-neutral in the sense that they’re intended to produce diversity,” says Jeremy R. Paul, a professor of law and former dean of the Northeastern University School of Law.

Paul says many universities are going to have to up their recruitment efforts, increase partnerships with community colleges and high-poverty high schools, and invest more in scholarships and financial aid.

“These are things that universities will want to do anyway, because they’re good things to do,” Paul says.

Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court, says the ruling means that universities will have to redouble their efforts to maintain diverse student bodies. Urman says there are examples of states opting out of affirmative action policies to mixed results.

“My home state of California abolished affirmative action in 1996 in a vote called Proposition 209, and California universities spent a lot of time and resources recruiting, establishing programs,” he says. “They were able to get diversity, not back to where it was before … but let’s say they were able to avoid some of the worst predictions of what would happen to diversity.”

One potential solution to maintain diversity are so-called percentage plans, where students who graduate at the top of their classes at each respective high school are guaranteed spots in universities. The first percentage plan was signed into law in 1997 in Texas by then-Gov. George W. Bush. It permits any student from “a Texas public high school in the top 10% of his or her class to get into any Texas public college, without any SAT or ACT score.”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Removing legacy admissions would help a lot. I've seen people arguing that admissions are a zero sub game. If someone gets in because of AA then someone else didn't get in. Ending legacy admissions would free up a much larger portion of admissions for a more diverse student body to get in, instead of some rich person's dumbass kid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Colleges give preference to legacies because the admissions department is judged by its yield (the percentage of accepted applicants who actually enroll), and legacy applicants are more likely to enroll if accepted.

It's not necessarily related to being rich. A legacy is about as likely to be wealthy as other students at the school, because after all their parents were also students at that school.

Another important reason is that colleges rely on alumni donors, and alumni are less likely to donate if their children are not accepted.

load more comments (9 replies)