SCOTUS further restricts racial preferences

[Derec]

Supreme Court guts affirmative action in college admissions

SCOTUS struck down both Harvard (6-2) and UNC (6-3) racial preference schemes. Unfortunately, they left some loopholes, such as talking about race in admission essays. Pro-AA colleges like Harvard will try to drive a Mac truck worth of racial discrimination through that loophole! The ruling also does not affect military academies because I guess the Constitution does not apply in the military.

Nevertheless, it was long overdue. In reality, the Court should have outlawed racial preferences in the 1978 Bakke ruling. The country would have been better off. The Court's attempt to split the baby merely divided us by race for decades.

The decision went along ideological lines, with KBJ recusing herself from the Harvard case. The Harvard case should have been 8-0 given how blatantly and openly Harvard was discriminating against Asian students by assigning them poor personality scores. From NY Times:

Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono.
Harvard said that while admissions officers may not meet the applicants, they can judge their personal qualities based on factors like personal essays and letters of recommendation.

I am not surprised at Red Sonja. She is a far left hack. But I am somewhat surprised that Kagen did not side with the majority at least in the Harvard case given how overt the racial discrimination was. I guess that shows the ideological import racial preferences have within the Democratic Party establishment.

Joe Biden slammed the decision in a very disappointing (but hardly surprising given his late-career lurch to the left) statement. Two wrongs do not make a right, and discriminating against certain students on the basis of race is a wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.

 

[Toni]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade as more and more schools are moving away from using the SAT and ACT in their admissions decisions. I’ve seen numbers from 1750 schools to up to 80% of schools eliminating these tests for admission.

I am certain that admissions offices have long been anticipating this Supreme Court decision and making plans to ensure that they admit a diverse student body.

At the same time, the number of students aged 18-19 who typically comprise the bulk of incoming freshmen is dwindling sharply. For the next several years, admissions/the world will be dealing with students whose K-12 education was compromised by COVID-19–they are not as well prepared. I am expecting to see at most public universities, anyway, smaller student bodies and more remedial classes. Professors have already begun eliminating a lot of more rigorous mathematics—or mathematics from their classes to accommodate those students.

I think the smaller student bodies may not be as small if states start to provide support for universities at the levels they did 40-50 years ago, making university more attainable for less wealthy students, that will help. And we must eliminate predatory student loans and do more for student loan forgiveness.

Without those measures, we can expect to see wealthy, monied families be able to continue to fund their kids’ education, and perpetuate the permanent elite class, I realize that is the plan for conservatives but, like so many conservative plans, is bad for democracy and bad for the US.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But you can still buy your way in to college, right? Or get in on legacy? God forbid the Court gets rid of those!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think this will have any impact thanks to zip codes.

 

[TSwizzle]

Thomas said that the majority opinion, which he joined, effectively overruled the court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld affirmative action but said it should wind down within 25 years.

So today's ruling was supposed to happen anyway, on schedule?

Education and civil rights groups say that ending the use of race-conscious admissions policies will exacerbate inequality for years to come. Many pointed to the public institutions that have struggled to enroll diverse freshman classes in nine states that have already banned the practice.

I wonder about this. is there more specifics? Isn't Harvard a private school?

The whole college system is screwy in the USA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade as more and more schools are moving away from using the SAT and ACT in their admissions decisions. I’ve seen numbers from 1750 schools to up to 80% of schools eliminating these tests for admission.

Yeah, getting rid of the real measures makes it easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy.

I am certain that admissions offices have long been anticipating this Supreme Court decision and making plans to ensure that they admit a diverse student body. can continue to discriminate.

Fixed.

At the same time, the number of students aged 18-19 who typically comprise the bulk of incoming freshmen is dwindling sharply. For the next several years, admissions/the world will be dealing with students whose K-12 education was compromised by COVID-19–they are not as well prepared. I am expecting to see at most public universities, anyway, smaller student bodies and more remedial classes. Professors have already begun eliminating a lot of more rigorous mathematics—or mathematics from their classes to accommodate those students.

In other words, giving inferior degrees.

I think the smaller student bodies may not be as small if states start to provide support for universities at the levels they did 40-50 years ago, making university more attainable for less wealthy students, that will help. And we must eliminate predatory student loans and do more for student loan forgiveness.

Agreed on reducing the need for loans.

Without those measures, we can expect to see wealthy, monied families be able to continue to fund their kids’ education, and perpetuate the permanent elite class, I realize that is the plan for conservatives but, like so many conservative plans, is bad for democracy and bad for the US.

Yup--but note that getting rid of the SAT/ACT is part of what you object to.

 

[Toni]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade as more and more schools are moving away from using the SAT and ACT in their admissions decisions. I’ve seen numbers from 1750 schools to up to 80% of schools eliminating these tests for admission.

Yeah, getting rid of the real measures makes it easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy.

I am certain that admissions offices have long been anticipating this Supreme Court decision and making plans to ensure that they admit a diverse student body. can continue to discriminate.

Fixed.

At the same time, the number of students aged 18-19 who typically comprise the bulk of incoming freshmen is dwindling sharply. For the next several years, admissions/the world will be dealing with students whose K-12 education was compromised by COVID-19–they are not as well prepared. I am expecting to see at most public universities, anyway, smaller student bodies and more remedial classes. Professors have already begun eliminating a lot of more rigorous mathematics—or mathematics from their classes to accommodate those students.

In other words, giving inferior degrees.

I think the smaller student bodies may not be as small if states start to provide support for universities at the levels they did 40-50 years ago, making university more attainable for less wealthy students, that will help. And we must eliminate predatory student loans and do more for student loan forgiveness.

Agreed on reducing the need for loans.

Without those measures, we can expect to see wealthy, monied families be able to continue to fund their kids’ education, and perpetuate the permanent elite class, I realize that is the plan for conservatives but, like so many conservative plans, is bad for democracy and bad for the US.

Yup--but note that getting rid of the SAT/ACT is part of what you object to.

What do you mean by ‘inferior degrees?’

On one hand you acknowledge that it will now be easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy but then you go say ( as you have in the past) that schools use affirmative action to discriminate (in favor of of minorities.). Can you explain?

 

[Toni]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade as more and more schools are moving away from using the SAT and ACT in their admissions decisions. I’ve seen numbers from 1750 schools to up to 80% of schools eliminating these tests for admission.

Yeah, getting rid of the real measures makes it easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy.

I am certain that admissions offices have long been anticipating this Supreme Court decision and making plans to ensure that they admit a diverse student body. can continue to discriminate.

Fixed.

At the same time, the number of students aged 18-19 who typically comprise the bulk of incoming freshmen is dwindling sharply. For the next several years, admissions/the world will be dealing with students whose K-12 education was compromised by COVID-19–they are not as well prepared. I am expecting to see at most public universities, anyway, smaller student bodies and more remedial classes. Professors have already begun eliminating a lot of more rigorous mathematics—or mathematics from their classes to accommodate those students.

In other words, giving inferior degrees.

I think the smaller student bodies may not be as small if states start to provide support for universities at the levels they did 40-50 years ago, making university more attainable for less wealthy students, that will help. And we must eliminate predatory student loans and do more for student loan forgiveness.

Agreed on reducing the need for loans.

Without those measures, we can expect to see wealthy, monied families be able to continue to fund their kids’ education, and perpetuate the permanent elite class, I realize that is the plan for conservatives but, like so many conservative plans, is bad for democracy and bad for the US.

Yup--but note that getting rid of the SAT/ACT is part of what you object to.

I don’t object to getting rid of the ACT/SAT. I know the intent behind the tests but I also know how applicants with enough money to take classes to ace the test and to take many practice tests have an unfair advantage over students who don’t have access to such extra prep—for a test! Not for actual achievement in future academic achievement.

Moreover, I’ve read multiple interviews/articles by various admissions people who point out the limitations of those tests in predicting future academic success.

 

[Derec]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade as more and more schools are moving away from using the SAT and ACT in their admissions decisions. I’ve seen numbers from 1750 schools to up to 80% of schools eliminating these tests for admission.

That is a really bad development. It's removing an objective metric, which means that subjective ones (essays, "personality" scores) will gain more importance. Note also that grades vary widely between different high school, which limits the usefulness of high school GPA. With SAT/ACT, everybody takes the same test and are measured by the same yard stick. And those who want to sneak in race as a factor dislike such metrics.

I am certain that admissions offices have long been anticipating this Supreme Court decision and making plans to ensure that they admit a diverse student body.

I am afraid of that too. I don't trust Harvard admission folk to follow the law. They will try to sneak in racial preferences by hook or by crook.
Oh, and speaking of having a "diverse student body". If that is such an important thing for a campus to have, to the point that it trumps actual academic achievement and aptitude, then how come those that support so-called "affirmative action" also tend to support HBCUs which are the least diverse colleges in the US? If interacting with many fellow students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds is valuable for a student body, then surely that applies to black students as well. So, what gives?

At the same time, the number of students aged 18-19 who typically comprise the bulk of incoming freshmen is dwindling sharply. For the next several years, admissions/the world will be dealing with students whose K-12 education was compromised by COVID-19–they are not as well prepared.

So, what's the solution? To decrease academic standards at colleges? US' competitive advantage have long been our universities. But with the toxic ideology of DEI taking over campuses to the detriment of academic rigor, I see the standing of US universities decline, unless things change.

I am expecting to see at most public universities, anyway, smaller student bodies and more remedial classes. Professors have already begun eliminating a lot of more rigorous mathematics—or mathematics from their classes to accommodate those students.

Which is very bad news for our international standing. Insisting that admissions be more by race and less by merit certainly does not help matters. So if universities actually accept this ruling things could improve, but if they find "creative" ways to skirt the ruling, the decline will continue.
It's not just math. Let me give you an example of a local 2nd tier public university in suburban Atlanta - I do not want to be more specific than that. I tutor math and science on the side, and had a student going to that college some 5 years ago. Now I tutor his brother, at the same school. The decline in quality and academic rigor is palpable! I have seen non-online science classes like biology and organic chemistry give exams online (and with no camera even, which makes cheating super easy!). I have seen professors cover less material than they did 5 years ago. I am talking cutting redox and electrochemistry as well as some other minor topics from Gen Chem II as an example. And they also let go their sole biochem professor and will apparently have a biology professor (the same one who decided to give her final online with no camera, presumably to improve the class average) try to teach it in the Fall, bless their hearts. Several other quality professors left and have been replaced by dilettantes from what I hear.
This is not the way to go. If US universities do not unfuck themselves quick, China will be eating our lunch. Do we need another Sputnik moment to wake up? What will it be?

I think the smaller student bodies may not be as small if states start to provide support for universities at the levels they did 40-50 years ago, making university more attainable for less wealthy students, that will help.

I think states should increase funding, yes. At the same time, not everybody should go to college. In countries like Germany, university education is free, but a relatively small number of young people get a spot. Many go into trade schools and apprenticeship programs which are well established there.
Also, states should also ensure that the private universities are about academics, not about ideology - neither left nor right. Education is distinct from indoctrination.

And we must eliminate predatory student loans and do more for student loan forgiveness.

What is a "predatory student loan" exactly? And I do not think even more student loan forgiveness (that decision is forthcoming, most likely this morning) is the way to go. If somebody took six figures in loans for a BA degree at some fancy private college, then why should people who went to a state school charging 1/10 of the tuition (or did not go to college at all) pay for that spoiled student's college education through our taxes?

Without those measures, we can expect to see wealthy, monied families be able to continue to fund their kids’ education, and perpetuate the permanent elite class, I realize that is the plan for conservatives but, like so many conservative plans, is bad for democracy and bad for the US.

It is bad if only those who have money can send their kids to college, yes. Access to state universities should be about merit, not ability to pay. And it should not be about race either, to bring it back on topic.
Which is why I think exams like SAT are better than, for example, student essays or a myriad of extracurricular activities. Rich kids can get SAT tutors, but at the end of the day, they have to sit for the exam and actually do the work for three hours. With essays, they can just pay somebody to write the essay for them. So which is the more fair metric?

 

[Derec]

I don't think this will have any impact thanks to zip codes.

If colleges use zip codes as proxy for race, I think they would open themselves up to lawsuits.
But what about zip codes that straddle different neighborhoods of different racial and income demographics?

 

[Patooka]

You know the best way to be racist in this day and age? Supply an opportunity for tertiary education but make the standards so high "urbanites" can't qualify. It's "those people"'s fault they don't pick themselves up by their own bootstraps,

 

[Derec]

So today's ruling was supposed to happen anyway, on schedule?

Theoretically. But there are AA absolutists like "Red" Sonja Sotomayor who believe in "racial preferences today, racial preferences tomorrow, racial preferences forever".

I wonder about this. is there more specifics?

In California for example black enrollment declined. But that just means that it was overinflated before the affirmative action ban.

Isn't Harvard a private school?

It is. Doesn't mean that the Constitution does not apply to them. And since they take federal funds, so do laws like Title VII.

The whole college system is screwy in the USA.

We can definitely agree on that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't think this will have any impact thanks to zip codes.

If colleges use zip codes as proxy for race, I think they would open themselves up to lawsuits.
But what about zip codes that straddle different neighborhoods of different racial and income demographics?

There’s nothing to stop rich people from moving into zip codes where poorer people live. It’d be their own fault to not take every advantage they can, right?

 

[Derec]

You know the best way to be racist in this day and age? Supply an opportunity for tertiary education but make the standards so high "urbanites" can't qualify. It's "those people"'s fault they don't pick themselves up by their own bootstraps,

How is it "racist" to have different universities of different selectiveness and different levels of academic rigor? Nominally equivalent classes, say Principles of Chemistry, are going to be harder at Georgia Tech or Emory vs. Gwinnett County College or Clayton State University. And classes one is expected to take may be different. Tech requires Calculus, but lesser schools may only require College Algebra.
In other words, there are different universities of different rigor and selectiveness. And if one is not qualified for top schools, there are plenty of other schools.

What is racist is your assumption that "urbanites" (by which I reckon you mean blacks?) all can't qualify for most selective schools and that therefore they should be let in even if they don't qualify.

 

[Derec]

There’s nothing to stop rich people from moving into zip codes where poorer people live. It’d be their own fault to not take every advantage they can, right?

So let's just dispense with all these silly metrics and just look at the students' demonstrated ability? I agree!
If a college wants to give some modest bump for socioeconomic status, they can use FAFSA data directly instead of relying on imperfect proxies like zip codes.
By the way, such a bump would have to be very modest. The idea would be to compensate for advantages of wealth and admit bright students of modest means. Not give a bonus so big that mediocre students of modest means end up admitted over bright students of more generous means. That's what Harvard et al were doing with race - the bump has been huge.

 

[Derec]

What do you mean by ‘inferior degrees?’

If academics at an institution gets watered down because the admitted student body can't keep up, then the college is offering "inferior degrees". See my experience at a metro Atlanta college I described above. They are offering inferior degrees compared to themselves just a few years ago!

On one hand you acknowledge that it will now be easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy but then you go say ( as you have in the past) that schools use affirmative action to discriminate (in favor of of minorities.). Can you explain?

I think he means that without SAT/ACT it is easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy (essays etc. are easier for them to game). Not that ending "affirmative action" makes it easier to discriminate in favor of the wealthy.

 

[Derec]

I don’t object to getting rid of the ACT/SAT.

And you are wrong for that. As are the universities caving to the ideology of "equity".

I know the intent behind the tests but I also know how applicants with enough money to take classes to ace the test and to take many practice tests have an unfair advantage over students who don’t have access to such extra prep—for a test! Not for actual achievement in future academic achievement.

Practice materials from say UPlanet ($69 for a bank of over 3k practice questions, $199 for a more fancy package with self assessments) are actually pretty affordable. Paper materials even more so. But students, rich or poor, black, white or otherwise, still have to put in the work and take the test. For the essay? Rich parents can just have some starving English graduate student write the damn thing for the kid.
So what is fairer? Using SATs or eliminating them and relying on essays even more?

Moreover, I’ve read multiple interviews/articles by various admissions people who point out the limitations of those tests in predicting future academic success.

Every single metric has its limitations. But a combination of SAT/GPA is a better predictor than GPA alone. And SAT has the advantage of not having different standards between high schools. GPA does, making direct comparison between high schools unfeasible. Essays are more subjective, as are things like "personality scores". And we have seen how Harvard was gaming those in order to discriminate by race.
Do you really think SATs have a lesser predictive power than subjective "personality scores"?

 

[Derec]

Waah, waah, a SCOTUS ruling did not go my way, so the court is illegitimate.
Congressional Black Caucus chair condemns Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action

 

[RVonse]

At the same time, the number of students aged 18-19 who typically comprise the bulk of incoming freshmen is dwindling sharply. For the next several years, admissions/the world will be dealing with students whose K-12 education was compromised by COVID-19–they are not as well prepared. I am expecting to see at most public universities, anyway, smaller student bodies and more remedial classes. Professors have already begun eliminating a lot of more rigorous mathematics—or mathematics from their classes to accommodate those students.

Idiocracy has arrived. The correct move is not to remove SAT testing or other standards but to simply graduate less qualified students. If that then causes too few quality people in the workforce then capitalism will fix (through higher wages) the incentive more students to increase real skills and capabilities to become quality candidates colleges should look for.

Otherwise the world enters idiocracy where standards become so low no one can function with past technology already invented. Humanity regression....

 

[Toni]

I don’t object to getting rid of the ACT/SAT.

And you are wrong for that. As are the universities caving to the ideology of "equity".

I know the intent behind the tests but I also know how applicants with enough money to take classes to ace the test and to take many practice tests have an unfair advantage over students who don’t have access to such extra prep—for a test! Not for actual achievement in future academic achievement.

Practice materials from say UPlanet ($69 for a bank of over 3k practice questions, $199 for a more fancy package with self assessments) are actually pretty affordable. Paper materials even more so. But students, rich or poor, black, white or otherwise, still have to put in the work and take the test. For the essay? Rich parents can just have some starving English graduate student write the damn thing for the kid.
So what is fairer? Using SATs or eliminating them and relying on essays even more?

Moreover, I’ve read multiple interviews/articles by various admissions people who point out the limitations of those tests in predicting future academic success.

Every single metric has its limitations. But a combination of SAT/GPA is a better predictor than GPA alone. And SAT has the advantage of not having different standards between high schools. GPA does, making direct comparison between high schools unfeasible. Essays are more subjective, as are things like "personality scores". And we have seen how Harvard was gaming those in order to discriminate by race.
Do you really think SATs have a lesser predictive power than subjective "personality scores"?

Derek: I did extremely well on the PSATs and the SATs. That alone should tell you just how imperfect they are.

You are correct that there are some SAT prep materials available for relatively low prices but those prices are still far above the heads of students whose families do not have much money. And there are SAT prep courses that cost far, far, far more. Did you know that in some areas/some certain private schools, students start taking the SAT in 7th or 8th grade? And take them every year. That also puts wealthy students attending those private schools at another advantage.

More importantly, universities have discovered that high or even perfect SAT or ACT scores are not as predictive of future academic success as they were intended to be. If they were perfect or even particularly good measures, universities would want to keep them because universities are highly invested in the academic success of their students and in producing graduates who are successful in their future careers. That's their model.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raison_d'être
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raison_d'être
Universities are extremely invested in admitting students who will do very well there. There is a desire to have more diversity at elite schools for a number of reasons but one of the biggest reasons is that universities are also quite invested in matriculating students who go onto be very successful. Studies have shown that workplace teams with more diverse members are more successful compared with teams which are not diverse.

Something that test scores do not provide is a sense of how mature a student is and how open the student is to new ideas, both important qualities in college students. Another important quality in students is learning to overcome difficulties. Students who enter college never having earned less than an A (even at elite schools) are generally knocked down a bit when they arrive at college and find the coursework much more rigorous than their classes even at competitive colleges. Did you know that today, there are parents who will call up universities and demand to a)know how their student is performing in all their classes b)call up individual professors to inquire about everything from how the student performed on their test/homework, to their class attendance and their apparent mental health? Now, parents are in for a very rude awakening because that information, even if university admin or individual professors knew it, belongs to the student and not the parent. Some students arrive on college campuses never having had to share a bathroom, much less a dorm room. There's a lot to being in college aside from sitting in a quiet room, all alone and memorizing text, formulas, answers to tests, etc.