Why Stop at Affirmative Action in Changing Campus Admissions?
It’s more than race. Several systemic admissions practices are letting some in, and keeping many others out

Why Stop at Affirmative Action in Changing Campus Admissions?

The Inequities of College Admissions - A Closer Look

As conversations bubble up regarding the Supreme Court's decision about affirmative action in the campus admissions processes, I find myself questioning if it actually solves all the inequitable practices in the admissions process.

While I actually agree with this decision, I believe it's high time we acknowledged all the inequitable inherent flaws in the admission processes of many 4-year institutions - especially the Ivy League.

The stark reality is that the current system of admissions is fundamentally flawed due to a multitude of practices we've simply come to accept. Just look at the criteria we use in our admissions process; grades, the high school applicant attended, standardized test results, essays that are typically edited and improved by parents or even AI like ChatGPT.?

All these factors are used to determine who’s admitted.Are any of these criteria normalized so they are equitable across the pool of candidates being reviewed??We are basing our decisions on these disparate and unstandardized criteria.

Historically, to ensure equity, race was a factor used to shape the composition of the incoming class. However, the current admissions practices present other inequality issues stemming from several unexamined practices that must be taken into account.?


Admissions Practices

  • Legacy Admissions: This practice signifies the special consideration given to applicants with family ties to the institution's alumni. This mechanism inherently favors these candidates over others.
  • Relationship Admissions: This practice pertains to applicants securing their admissions due to their network with influential individuals who can support them with strong recommendations.
  • Donation Admissions: As demonstrated in the Varsity Blues documentary, this practice entails candidates gaining admission on the strength of substantial financial donations made to the institution.
  • Pattern Admissions: Faced with the challenge of distinguishing qualified candidates, admission officers might lean on the proven success of former students from specific demographics or high schools as an indicator of a prospective student's likelihood of success.
  • Class Shaping Admissions: Institutions annually may make strategic decisions about the types of students they want to admit, driven by current trends, or to replenish certain student profiles that have decreased due to graduation.

These admissions practices collectively contribute to a systemically biased process that perpetuates unfair advantages, irrespective of an individual's racial or ethnic background. The approach used by campus admissions to influence class composition based on race merely highlights one of many inequitable procedures. Many of these practices have led to many qualified applicants being rejected.

Thought: maybe US News & World Reports should instead track these practices and provide rankings?

Transparency Fosters Equity

Many inside and outside higher education have their focus on race impacting admissions decisions. That’s not a bad thing, but the concern needs to be extended to other areas - legacy, relationship, donation, pattern, and class shaping admissions. None of these factors determine or relate to academic capabilities. We cannot focus on race alone, and not take any of these other factors into account.?

The college admissions process at 4 year institutions is in dire need of reform. To address these issues, there is a need for greater transparency.?

I’d challenge institutions to be transparent on who’s really being admitted and the criteria used to shape the class.?That is the best form of accountability - and an opportunity to have a holistic dialogue on how to level the playing field for learners entering higher education.?


One Question to Leave You With

What are the set of criteria we should look at for an equitable admissions process?


Acknowledgement

Special thanks to Sureya Alex & Joe Abraham who contributed their time to this article to help create the narrative that fosters the change that we all believe is needed.

Shanna Hayes, CX-PRO

?? Education Thought Leader Leveraging Learner Voice to Redesign the Learner Experience | Speaker & Storyteller | CX Learner, Practitioner, & Researcher | The Customer Experience = The Learner Experience

1 年

I completely agree that the practices you listed in the article are in much need of reform (or sheer removal) Matthew Alex. Part of the conversation centers on the use of fair or equitable when referring to admissions standards, policies, or procedures. IMO fair is having the same standard across the board, whereas equitable requires instituions to take various methods & approaches depending on student criteria. Easy example is the student with a 4.0 from an affluent private HS vs the student with a 4.0 from an NYC Burroughs. Without affirmative action, these students are often compared as apples to apples, with the student from the private HS receiving a higher score due to the 'rigor' associated with their HS. While it's easy to say we understand, this work perpetuates socioeconomic factors playing negative roles before we even discuss financial aid. Affirmative action encouraged and allowed instituions to view these two student types as apples and oranges, and ensure they are less impacted by geographic location or socioeconomic status of their HS/hometown. There's a lot of work to be done when it comes to equity in admissions. I really appreciated the article and your thoughts here as always.

William Barnett

Founder, Barnett Writer LLC

1 年

I generally agree. Let's also take note of the use of financial aid matrices at many institutions to recruit the optimal number of full-paying students. Many are unaware of the Robin Hood effect, for good or ill.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了