College Admission Preferences: An Inflection Point

What's Transparency Got to Do With It?

As my blog broadens in style and scope, I start by turning to education, the prime catalyst for upward mobility and breaking socio-economic inequalities. The question of the use of preferences in college and graduate school admissions has seen a resurgence in the public discourse in large part due to a recent US Supreme Court ruling that knocked down the use of race-based affirmative action. Meanwhile, from another end of the political spectrum, a movement has emerged to do away with legacy-based admissions that tend to favor the wealthy and privileged. 

I don’t profess to have many answers, however I do wish to pose a few questions to help unwrap whether it makes sense for colleges and universities to use any sort of preferences in their admissions decisions for the sake of solving gaps in higher education.

Question 1. What qualifies as an appropriate basis for the use of affirmative action? Let’s compare a few examples:

• Student A comes from a racial or ethnic background that is legitimately underrepresented in academia and by most standard measures of achievement, and therefore deserves preferential admission despite coming themselves from a middle class background. Should this student receive a preference in order to benefit the greater good of representation?

• Student B does not come from a diverse racial or ethnic background, but does come from a low-income background and is the first in her family to attend college. Does this type of background demonstrate another form of diversity that is worthy of a preference?

• Student C does not come from an underrepresented background in either a racial, ethnic, or socio-economic sense, but has worked hard and is a unique human being in her own right. Does she therefore deserve the same opportunity as any other individual?

Question 2. Is there a moral justification for continuing with legacy-based admissions?

Does birthright alone endow someone with the privilege of having higher preference for admission in a competitive academic institution? On the surface, this is hard to justify as being fair or ethical. However, legacy admission is a well-established tool that serves one critical purpose, which is to provide alumni with an incentive to make donations. Donations, of course, allow institutions to build their endowments, which can serve the purpose of providing scholarships, developing academic programs, and modernizing school infrastructure. The counterpoint to this argument is that legacy admissions nearly always benefit families who have some privilege and economic status. 

Question 3. Doesn’t the “black box” admissions process obscure what’s really behind an admissions decision, and how might institutions “rebalance” this process?

Universities in the United States and many other countries have long ditched the practice of relying solely on the results of a single standardized test in order to determine admissions preference. The rest therefore has become a black box of unknown formulas, institutional or personal preferences, and subjectivity. If the “whole person” is considered, including non-academic accomplishments, what extracurricular activity is more important than another? 

For now, the Supreme Court has determined that race may not be used as a factor in admissions decisions. However, what about the use of other types of preferences? The question is not just about legacy admissions, but what about the preference for anyone on a non-academic basis? How should a university consider the value of one non-academic credential compared to another?

Do achievements in sports weigh more heavily than the arts? In the one-on-one interview process, how can a recommendation to admit be anything but one powerful person’s opinion? If the interviewer and interviewee have a common interest or background, will that not bias the recommendation to admit? Do traditional academic measurements such as test scores, transcripts, recommendation letters, and admission interviews truly represent the full picture of a student and their prospects for success, and if not, what is the ideal balance for predicted future success? 

What about students who are soft spoken or perhaps neurodivergent (autism, ADHD, etc.), or who face myriad personal or family obstacles in life, such as having to take care of an ailing parent or mind younger siblings rather than participate on a sports team? How do such cases factor into a decision? Moreover, how does an admissions committee objectively weigh an “A” average at one “ordinary'' high school vs. a “B” average at another school that is known for being highly selective and demanding? As one pokes holes into the admissions process, there is simply no clear cut formula for making an admissions determination. Hence, students may apply to ten or more schools, knowing how competitive each is on an aggregate level, but still without having any clue as to where they may be accepted. Assuming that few institutions are eager to revert to a single standardized exam (which can certainly come with its own set of inherent biases), then perhaps a fairer system should rely on two basic principles: “context” and “transparency.”

In terms of the application of “context” to an admissions decision, it is important that committees get to know the whole applicant. Perhaps one student is unable to participate in team sports or other outside activities because they have to commute to school an hour each way and have family obligations, such as caregiving or working a part-time job, that don’t allow them to take part in an activity that they would otherwise like to and excel in. Has a student overcome disabilities or demonstrated brilliance in a specific, narrow field despite not being a “straight A” student? Perhaps overachievement in one area makes up for underachievement in another. It is all worth understanding to get to know the true individual who is ready to spend a significant portion of their life and worth as a student at the target institution.

University admissions committees should be willing to show openly the reason why an acceptance was made or rejected for each and every candidate. This can be based on a scorecard system, so that both applicants and prospective candidates can have a reasonable understanding of how the school determines who will make the cut. Every school may have a different approach and formula, but they should make it clear what their priorities are. If a Division 1 university prefers to accept top notch athletes in certain sports, they should state clearly that this is the case. If a competitive college weighs math and science SAT scores and high school grades most heavily, they should make this clear as well. If another school values initiative and creative arts relatively highly, then let that be known. 

Taking transparency a step further, an admissions committee should be willing to tell all applicants precisely what was behind each and every admissions decision. If part of the decision weighs the balance in favor of a candidate with a legacy preference, will an admissions committee be willing to say so directly? Will students and families accept an admissions decision knowing that a birthright preference played a role over demonstrated achievement? It stands to reason that a family that applies with an explicit alert of one’s family affinity to a school, then they should not only be ready to accept the knowledge that a non-merit based preference got them in the door, but they ought to expect it. If it hurts the candidate’s pride or confidence to know that they have been accepted based on lineage in lieu of qualifications, then perhaps they should not be invoking their legacy status to begin with.

If all of the opaqueness surrounding college admissions decisions remains intact, the truth of the matter will not waiver. That is that the use of preferences of all kinds will continue to be embraced and neither the Supreme Court nor anyone else will be any bit the wiser.