Supreme Court Ends Affirmative Action

[apl68]

Legacy admissions may be next:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/03/harvard-university-legacy-admissions-civil-rights-complaint/

Non-paywalled version: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4079319-harvard-faces-civil-rights-complaint-over-its-legacy-admissions/

Well, that's nice, at least. I didn't expect that challenge to come so quickly!

I dunno that racial discrimination is a framework that the courts are likely to accept, however, since in legacy admissions it's indirect despite the strong correlation.

And, now there are opinion pieces about eliminating the de facto admission quotas for the mostly white athletes who will play college squash, ski, lacrosse, field Hockey, etc.

great idea

Those have been in bad odor since they figured so prominently in the Varsity Blues scandal.

[Wahoo Redux]

And, now there are opinion pieces about eliminating the de facto admission quotas for the mostly white athletes who will play college squash, ski, lacrosse, field Hockey, etc.

great idea

A few friends of mine have sent sent their kids to college on a full sailing scholarships.

Make of that what you will.
[/quote]

You know, we like to call these "de facto quotas" and the like because, being academics, we are suspicious of sports, particularly sports that are played almost exclusively by wealthy, white people, but sports acceptance & scholarships are really not "quotas," however unfair they may seem.  They reward excellence in a skill.  Yes, a skillset that is greatly overvalued, particularly for an academic institution, but profiting off of excellence is not the same thing as being admitted because of genetics. 

I am not saying that this is the final word or anything, but this idea is the problem with Jimbo's excellent cartoon op-ed. 

[Stockmann]

And, now there are opinion pieces about eliminating the de facto admission quotas for the mostly white athletes who will play college squash, ski, lacrosse, field Hockey, etc.

great idea

A few friends of mine have sent sent their kids to college on a full sailing scholarships.

Make of that what you will.

You know, we like to call these "de facto quotas" and the like because, being academics, we are suspicious of sports, particularly sports that are played almost exclusively by wealthy, white people, but sports acceptance & scholarships are really not "quotas," however unfair they may seem.  They reward excellence in a skill.  Yes, a skillset that is greatly overvalued, particularly for an academic institution, but profiting off of excellence is not the same thing as being admitted because of genetics. 

I am not saying that this is the final word or anything, but this idea is the problem with Jimbo's excellent cartoon op-ed. 
[/quote]

This. Reluctant as I am to say anything in support of athletics in academia - and I definitely know what it feels to be in a Department that clearly doesn't matter compared to athletics, as was the case at my previous employer, at least performing at a high level requires a combo of talent, hard work, perseverance and discipline. There are much worse things academia could be rewarding. It's not really equivalent to affirmative action nor to legacy admissions.

[Ruralguy]

Its been said before but many schools would not exist if it weren't for athletics. Students athletes make up a bit
less than half of our student body, but more than a third, so its significant.

In addition, most such schools (D3) do not have athletic scholarships at all. Basically, either a coach will recruit them and check on what their rough academics are and then help the prospect shop for the best financial offer based on academics, or the other way around--they are recruited based on academics or other elements ("leadership") and then referred to coaches when a student also shows interest in a sport. Many such students hold one more more jobs during the academic year as well.

So, its not all about cushy sports and cushy students who could just will this away tomorrow and then the school wouldn't suffer for it.

[Wahoo Redux]

NY Times: Wesleyan University Ends Legacy Admissions

[spork]

NY Times: Wesleyan University Ends Legacy Admissions

The article is riddled with errors and the content appears nearly verbatim in at least a half dozen other news websites.

[Hibush]

NY Times: Wesleyan University Ends Legacy Admissions

The article is riddled with errors and the content appears nearly verbatim in at least a half dozen other news websites.

"Legacy status played a 'negligible role' in admissions, Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan's president, said in an interview. But the practice was becoming a distraction and 'a sign of unfairness to the outside world.'"

That is probably accurate. The optics matter a lot. Wesleyan's modest legacy figure (8%) could be achieved simply by admitting well-qualified full-pay students from the local area where the school has high awareness and a big alumni base among those who want to send their kids to a place like Wesleyan.

It is pretty different from Johns Hopkins, a national university that doesn't draw so much from the locals. Much more dilute alumni base.

Overall, I think many financially successful parents feel some inclination to send their kids to Alma Mater. That alone will result in a higher level of legacies than random chance, even if there is no overt preference in the admission process.

I'm emphasizing full-pay students, because those are the legacy admits who matter. I don't think eliminating legacy admits at private schools opens a single slot for students requiring significant financial aid.

[dismalist]

Adam Smith learned of the Pennsylvania Quakers releasing their slaves into freedom. Somewhere in the Wealth of Nations he writes: From this we can infer that slaves were only a small part of their wealth.

Just like legacy admissions being relinquished!

[Ruralguy]

I've already mentioned how getting rid of certain athletics would probably be destructive at many D3 type schools.
But for any with enrollment issues, any program is worth keeping, of course, because it brings in some students.
Of course, this did and would include affirmative action. However, in such cases, since we are not bound by hitting against enrollment limits, we can probably find some other solid reason for keeping almost all minority candidates who wish to come to our school and are generally qualified. That's very possible for legacies too, but again, anything we can keep will help us. 

[spork]

NY Times: Wesleyan University Ends Legacy Admissions

The article is riddled with errors and the content appears nearly verbatim in at least a half dozen other news websites.

"Legacy status played a 'negligible role' in admissions, Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan's president, said in an interview. But the practice was becoming a distraction and 'a sign of unfairness to the outside world.'"

That is probably accurate. The optics matter a lot. Wesleyan's modest legacy figure (8%) could be achieved simply by admitting well-qualified full-pay students from the local area where the school has high awareness and a big alumni base among those who want to send their kids to a place like Wesleyan.

It is pretty different from Johns Hopkins, a national university that doesn't draw so much from the locals. Much more dilute alumni base.

Overall, I think many financially successful parents feel some inclination to send their kids to Alma Mater. That alone will result in a higher level of legacies than random chance, even if there is no overt preference in the admission process.

I'm emphasizing full-pay students, because those are the legacy admits who matter. I don't think eliminating legacy admits at private schools opens a single slot for students requiring significant financial aid.

The article was hastily rewritten by The New York Times without acknowledgement of errors. Johns Hopkins completely ended legacy admissions ~ 2019 after a decade-long reduction. MIT never did legacy admissions. Etc.