Oh, totally. I can't remember where but I've written that essential point before. And as I have to constantly say, I'm opposed to endless census testing. The options are not constant testing or no testing.
I agree with all of this. I think dropping the SAT will indeed increase the number of applications, thus making the "yield" more "selective." But mostly I think it's an absolutely painless and cost-free sort of academic virtue signaling. By dropping the tests, any school can cash in on the social justice cachet of other (better) schools doing the same thing. When the most "prestigious" and "selective" schools choose to do this, you can bet it's not because they're looking forward to enrolling underprepared minority kids from poor backgrounds. They'll reject them as they always have -- maybe they'll even get the chance to reject more of them. I don't think Freddie's wrong, but I think his answer is too one-dimensional.
I mean a lot of loose credit for people too young and idealistic to think about the future and the "curb appeal" impact of dorms, gyms, and dining halls....
Plus, at least for the elite schools, if dropping the SATs encourages more students to apply, the schools' acceptance rate will likely go down, which will make the schools look even more prestigious and goose their ratings in US News & World Report or whatever. (And they'll also make more in admissions fees--when I was applying to college, it was like $90 per application--although I don't realistically know how meaningful admissions fees are to the college's overall budget.)
Well. These are the sort of people who I tend to consider... delicately constituted. And I think it's important to never underestimate how susceptible to venality those who lack spines are. It's 100% cash-related.
It's powered by the sociology profs and their demands for justice, who are empowered by the universities bc the anti-SAT wave leads to cash. So SJWs=puppets, Universities=puppet masters.
My instinct is that it's probably a bit more complex than one or the other. The two "compelling narrative friendly" options being presented are something like:
1. The college wants money; it wants power. It is capitalism melded into machine, and will do anything to get that money. This will make it money, so it's doing that, agnostic of race or social considerations.
2. The college is filled with wokes who will woke; it's doing it entirely because of woke, with no considerations for money.
I was recently talking about the Gina/Mandolorian firing incident, and noted that while nobody (in practical terms) had even heard of the issue, Disney rushed to fire the offending conservative for being not-woke. In the aftermath, at least some conservatives (myself included) cancelled their subscriptions, costing them some money.
Disney had to offend someone here, but broke inertia to damage one of its most popular properties as well in choosing to side against the right in favor of the left in this incident. A few people probably cancelled subscriptions, but overall this was probably something they could absorb either way, so they went with their instincts and stuck it to the right.
I think something very similar is happening here. The very left dominant faculties probably do believe the SAT is keeping them from reaching left-goals. If scrapping the SAT will make them money too, then it *doesn't get in the way of that* and they will proceed to do what they want.
That's what we know; it's not that your posit of "they are doing this for money, and would do the right-wing thing for the same amount of money, it's all about money" is proved untrue here, but instead that it's not made necessary by the evidence.
If 2022 faculty pursued a goal of kicking out all the minorities in addition to making money from doing so, we could reasonably say they were doing it all for the money (since we know they don't want to be right-wing aligned, and they'd think of this as that). If they were to scrap the SAT at monetary cost, we could say it was about wokeness. But since both goals align here, we just know either is possible.
I believe a lot of white progressives really do feel that they're "doing the work" by supporting dropping the SAT. But at the institutional level, it's all about the cold, hard cash.
There are probably around a million one-percenter households in the country. Almost axiomatically, they and their blood relatives are far more likely to be part of the cognitive elite than not. Yes, exceptions exist, and we can all point them out, but the data (that I've even seen on this blog) is very clear: educational attainment, which is highly indicative of life outcomes such as income, is also highly indicative of raw intellectual horsepower.
In other words, the relatively small percentage of one-percent 18-year-olds who are dull as dishwater are far fewer in number than any striver.
Finally, if the SAT is a valid measure of preparedness for college - which it is - opposition to it can be debated on merits surely beyond "a rich kid might benefit." If the SAT's good, it's good regardless of who benefits.
I spent some time working in college administration, and we used “barriers” to mean anything students were required to do.
For example, we used to put a hold on registration until students submitted residency and financial aid forms, met with an advisor, and took placement tests (or the SAT and ACT). Some students never completed all of the steps. To boost enrollment, we changed the rules to allow students to register without doing those things.
The world language requirement was another barrier (to graduation) so we eliminated it. Same with creating an easier “math literacy” course for students who struggled to pass college-level math.
The conversation was always about boosting our metrics (enrollment, retention, graduation). Once you’ve tried everything else (outreach, etc), it’s easy to see all requirements as barriers.
Sometimes it “helped” disadvantaged students and other times it really did not… for example, allowing students to register without aid and payment sorted out just resulted in bad debt.
Do you think dropping various requirements was “really” about letting in less qualified rich kids? That’s what DeBoer keeps claiming. I’m skeptical. (And I am usually a cynic.)
Same at the publicly-funded HBCU I worked at. It wasn't about letting in rich kids. There were no rich kids. But it was about getting to charge poor kids for 8 semesters instead of 1. It's amazing how you can increase your graduation rate by making college easier!
I think it is also about stopping domination by asian kids. So - for example - many universities have adopted broad based admissions. The stated goal of this is to preference people who have broader life experience at the expense of people who just do well academically. Now this probably does get more people in who have genuinely compelling hard luck backgrounds - but the real impact is that it lets lots of upper middle class mostly white kids rely on their curated life experiences as proof of their broad skill set without them having to do as well in math and science as those pesky asians.
I don’t know…. I think restrictions on well-qualified (by quantitative measures) Asians is mostly a result of, or at least balanced out by, letting in less-qualified applicants from other ethnic/racial minority groups. Asians are often the key to that catchall stat, “We’re 48% POC!” (“48% diverse” is my favorite way of seeing it said.) (You have to dig around in fine print to find out that it’s 41% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 2% Black.) They don’t want that diversity number to go down by much. In other words, Asians bear the brunt of affirmative action admissions policies. There may be some desire for (conscious or not), or indifference to, a reduction in the proportion of Asians, but I don’t think that’s the driving factor.
For whatever it is worth - and I'm neither justifying it nor dismissing it - emails from the Harvard lawsuit really do tell you the whole story about reverse Asian quotas. Universities have concluded that above some threshold like 25-35%, the Asian population starts to be a turn off to everyone else, white and black students alike. In fact, the negative impact it had on recruitment of the top performing black students (which is the hardest part of the job for these admissions officers) was singled out as a reason to let the percentage go over some threshold. And, of course, the most prestigious universities (which are the only ones doing this) have a large mass of white applicants with scores so immaterially different, that they can engage in this practice without actually lowering the median SAT scores of the admitted students. I don't say this to defend the practice, I do so just to point out that we don't have to speculate about the rational for the behavior.
What are the chances of one of the Asian-American communities following the Brandeis model and founding its own university? Admission would be open to people of all ethnicities and all races, of course. But no ethnicity or race would be subject to a quota.
Hmmm! My instinct tells me that it is cash. When the college where I taught dropped the SAT it was crystal clear that the motivation was to expand the applicant pool. How it was justified was based on two arguments: 1) the SAT is biased and anyway doesn't predict success; 2) marginalized populations don't do so well on the tests and requiring it tends to be a strike against them. These arguments were rarely examined but taken as acts of faith, and so served as convenient rationalizations, which, of course, could be deployed for other purposes.
I've never thought much about the "dullard scions of the rich" in this context. At my college you stumbled across them a lot. An ideal type -- not a stereotype -- might be someone from the upper east side of Manhattan, went to an exclusive private school, and whose siblings (usually older) were at Ivy League or other top tier colleges. These kids were very much aware of their status within the family (not high), and it was pretty obvious that it pained them. That eliminating the SAT made it easier to accept them makes sense, but I'm not sure it is true. There was great interest in getting students who could pay for the full ride. That was the goal, and still is. Where this most visibly came into play was with the arrival in the aughts of students from China. First in a dribble, then a torrent, before it finally subsided after about a decade. But good enough (about 8% of our student body at its height) to keep the school afloat during a tough time that has continued to the present. I'm not so sure that the result was our ending up with more "upper class twits" than usual.
Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts. It was the oldest women's liberal arts college in New England (although Mount Holyoke denies this), that went coed in the late 1980s. It is a wonderful college, a warm and supportive community and I loved teaching there. But, like all institutions, it exists in a real world of contradictions and what I believe is probably an increasingly unsustainable business plan, until a significant number of its contributors are culled, and competition is reduced. Of course, Wheaton may end up as one of the ones that is culled, or its mission dramatically re-imagined.
I should also add that there were some very good students there, and they were thoroughly nourished in a exemplary way. For example, I think we might have had more Marshall and Rhodes scholars than Mount Holyoke, Smith and Bryn Mawr combined, all schools with higher prestige, and richer endowments than Wheaton. A surprising number of these very good students were from disadvantaged backgrounds as well as affluence, and there may have been a "dullard" in a family who Wheaton prepared for thriving in national competitions of one kind or another. It's a complex story.
That's the argumentative environment in which you're operating. What is your version of events, then? What's your alternative theory about what the outcome of getting rid of these tests would be?
I assure you: the admissions departments are not neutral agencies working only to fulfill the best interests of meritocracy.
And looking quickly at that article, it seems to be about how the beneficiaries of affirmative action tend to be racial and ethnic minorities from middle and upper classes. If that’s what you mean, you aren’t quite saying it clearly.
Wow. So I was wondering (genuinely) whether there’s evidence for what you say. I mean, it’s a subject pretty close to your professional/academic training, as far as I can tell, so doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask. You reply by asking me where’s my evidence for an alternative explanation, and cite an article that doesn’t really speak to your claims. I point that out, and you come back with this.
I don’t actually see why the burden’s on me to come up with some alternative theory. I don’t have one, certainly no grand unifying theory, which is what you seem to want: Either it’s a cynical ploy to jump on the bandwagon and get woke credit while actually being about enrolling more rich kids, or it’s “neutral agencies working only to fulfill the best interests of meritocracy.” In real life, motives are mixed and complicated and vary from institution to institution and person to person. My guess is that outcomes will be variable, too, and aren’t easily predictable.
I generally share your opposition to these policies, but I am a little less cynical about universities and their admissions departments. (It would be hard to be more cynical, based on a couple of posts I’ve seen from you on this topic.) Maybe my own experience colors my views. My 3 siblings and I had full rides to an elite, expensive prep school. We were then able to attend top universities because of generous financial aid packages. There was nothing in it for the schools financially or in terms or boosting their diversity numbers.
Hey, my man. I made this pretty clear: you are offering no propositional content of your own, assuming I know nothing about this world when I know quite a bit, and now jumping back to a "why I'm just trying to participate in respectful discourse!" pose. This is all tactics. I am telling you that, based on a life spent in academia - literally, as in, from the day I was born - I am telling you that admissions departments are profoundly motivated by fiscal considerations. I have untold thousands of words on their proclivities. So have others. You think, what, I came up with the idea that elite schools are motivated by the desire to find donors in their admissions decisions? Are you really that ignorant of the larger conversation? It's not my job to educate you, friend, nor to flatter your "I'm just asking questions!" routine when you are so clearly unwilling to do even a little additional reading. Or did you think I thought this 200 word blog post was meant to be the dispositive conclusion on topics I wrote an entire book about?
This post was not proffered as a comprehensive study on the whims of admissions departments. I have written the aforementioned book, dozens of essays, several published freelance stories, and untold dashed-off comments on social media on this topic. The aggregate of those, and of the ones that will come, will be my testimony on this topic. If you are unwilling to investigate that far, cool. But don't read 200 words out of literally hundreds of thousands that I've read and say "you aren't explaining enough here!" It's absurd, and rude, to do so.
I agree with the attached article; the people of color statistic is very much "gamed." Income and first in their family to attend college are superior indications of diversity. I'm unsure about motive for dropping the SATs, but it will definitely allow more latitude to admit development candidate students who otherwise would not get in. Grades are much more easily finagled than SAT scores.
This article helps pinpoint exactly what is going on with Affirmative Action programs. They have been thoroughly undercut and it was a slick trick. Just like dumping SAT's, it's all about the money in the enrollment offices.
We are going to know soon enough, but I am firmly predicting there will be more black students and that some of them will be poor. I'm also predicting the poor ones will be immigrants from Ghana and Nigeria whose parents were the relative elite in the country they emigrated from. The American ones will be the children of black MDs at investment banks whose kids got a 1250 SAT score.
Educational administration is in deep fetid swamp. Stops being so concerned about helping people and encourage them to help themselves. Remember, the world needs bartenders and ditch diggers.
Oh, totally. I can't remember where but I've written that essential point before. And as I have to constantly say, I'm opposed to endless census testing. The options are not constant testing or no testing.
I agree with all of this. I think dropping the SAT will indeed increase the number of applications, thus making the "yield" more "selective." But mostly I think it's an absolutely painless and cost-free sort of academic virtue signaling. By dropping the tests, any school can cash in on the social justice cachet of other (better) schools doing the same thing. When the most "prestigious" and "selective" schools choose to do this, you can bet it's not because they're looking forward to enrolling underprepared minority kids from poor backgrounds. They'll reject them as they always have -- maybe they'll even get the chance to reject more of them. I don't think Freddie's wrong, but I think his answer is too one-dimensional.
I mean a lot of loose credit for people too young and idealistic to think about the future and the "curb appeal" impact of dorms, gyms, and dining halls....
Also: So much money saved on 2 years CC at home plus 2 years at a four-year on campus.
<insert “why not both” meme here>. Another great post, as usual.
Plus, at least for the elite schools, if dropping the SATs encourages more students to apply, the schools' acceptance rate will likely go down, which will make the schools look even more prestigious and goose their ratings in US News & World Report or whatever. (And they'll also make more in admissions fees--when I was applying to college, it was like $90 per application--although I don't realistically know how meaningful admissions fees are to the college's overall budget.)
Juking the stats as Detective McNulty might say.
McNutty
Well. These are the sort of people who I tend to consider... delicately constituted. And I think it's important to never underestimate how susceptible to venality those who lack spines are. It's 100% cash-related.
Straight cash, homie.
Sure, there may some True Believers in there, but it's mostly about money. Usually is in this country.
It's powered by the sociology profs and their demands for justice, who are empowered by the universities bc the anti-SAT wave leads to cash. So SJWs=puppets, Universities=puppet masters.
My instinct is that it's probably a bit more complex than one or the other. The two "compelling narrative friendly" options being presented are something like:
1. The college wants money; it wants power. It is capitalism melded into machine, and will do anything to get that money. This will make it money, so it's doing that, agnostic of race or social considerations.
2. The college is filled with wokes who will woke; it's doing it entirely because of woke, with no considerations for money.
I was recently talking about the Gina/Mandolorian firing incident, and noted that while nobody (in practical terms) had even heard of the issue, Disney rushed to fire the offending conservative for being not-woke. In the aftermath, at least some conservatives (myself included) cancelled their subscriptions, costing them some money.
Disney had to offend someone here, but broke inertia to damage one of its most popular properties as well in choosing to side against the right in favor of the left in this incident. A few people probably cancelled subscriptions, but overall this was probably something they could absorb either way, so they went with their instincts and stuck it to the right.
I think something very similar is happening here. The very left dominant faculties probably do believe the SAT is keeping them from reaching left-goals. If scrapping the SAT will make them money too, then it *doesn't get in the way of that* and they will proceed to do what they want.
That's what we know; it's not that your posit of "they are doing this for money, and would do the right-wing thing for the same amount of money, it's all about money" is proved untrue here, but instead that it's not made necessary by the evidence.
If 2022 faculty pursued a goal of kicking out all the minorities in addition to making money from doing so, we could reasonably say they were doing it all for the money (since we know they don't want to be right-wing aligned, and they'd think of this as that). If they were to scrap the SAT at monetary cost, we could say it was about wokeness. But since both goals align here, we just know either is possible.
Cash! Of course. “The dullard sons of the 1%.” Phrases like this are what keep me comin’ back for more.
I believe a lot of white progressives really do feel that they're "doing the work" by supporting dropping the SAT. But at the institutional level, it's all about the cold, hard cash.
There are probably around a million one-percenter households in the country. Almost axiomatically, they and their blood relatives are far more likely to be part of the cognitive elite than not. Yes, exceptions exist, and we can all point them out, but the data (that I've even seen on this blog) is very clear: educational attainment, which is highly indicative of life outcomes such as income, is also highly indicative of raw intellectual horsepower.
In other words, the relatively small percentage of one-percent 18-year-olds who are dull as dishwater are far fewer in number than any striver.
Finally, if the SAT is a valid measure of preparedness for college - which it is - opposition to it can be debated on merits surely beyond "a rich kid might benefit." If the SAT's good, it's good regardless of who benefits.
I spent some time working in college administration, and we used “barriers” to mean anything students were required to do.
For example, we used to put a hold on registration until students submitted residency and financial aid forms, met with an advisor, and took placement tests (or the SAT and ACT). Some students never completed all of the steps. To boost enrollment, we changed the rules to allow students to register without doing those things.
The world language requirement was another barrier (to graduation) so we eliminated it. Same with creating an easier “math literacy” course for students who struggled to pass college-level math.
The conversation was always about boosting our metrics (enrollment, retention, graduation). Once you’ve tried everything else (outreach, etc), it’s easy to see all requirements as barriers.
Sometimes it “helped” disadvantaged students and other times it really did not… for example, allowing students to register without aid and payment sorted out just resulted in bad debt.
Do you think dropping various requirements was “really” about letting in less qualified rich kids? That’s what DeBoer keeps claiming. I’m skeptical. (And I am usually a cynic.)
This was a community college, so we let in anyone with a pulse.
Same at the publicly-funded HBCU I worked at. It wasn't about letting in rich kids. There were no rich kids. But it was about getting to charge poor kids for 8 semesters instead of 1. It's amazing how you can increase your graduation rate by making college easier!
This prevents problems such as the "Varsity Blues Scandal."
I think it is also about stopping domination by asian kids. So - for example - many universities have adopted broad based admissions. The stated goal of this is to preference people who have broader life experience at the expense of people who just do well academically. Now this probably does get more people in who have genuinely compelling hard luck backgrounds - but the real impact is that it lets lots of upper middle class mostly white kids rely on their curated life experiences as proof of their broad skill set without them having to do as well in math and science as those pesky asians.
I don’t know…. I think restrictions on well-qualified (by quantitative measures) Asians is mostly a result of, or at least balanced out by, letting in less-qualified applicants from other ethnic/racial minority groups. Asians are often the key to that catchall stat, “We’re 48% POC!” (“48% diverse” is my favorite way of seeing it said.) (You have to dig around in fine print to find out that it’s 41% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 2% Black.) They don’t want that diversity number to go down by much. In other words, Asians bear the brunt of affirmative action admissions policies. There may be some desire for (conscious or not), or indifference to, a reduction in the proportion of Asians, but I don’t think that’s the driving factor.
For whatever it is worth - and I'm neither justifying it nor dismissing it - emails from the Harvard lawsuit really do tell you the whole story about reverse Asian quotas. Universities have concluded that above some threshold like 25-35%, the Asian population starts to be a turn off to everyone else, white and black students alike. In fact, the negative impact it had on recruitment of the top performing black students (which is the hardest part of the job for these admissions officers) was singled out as a reason to let the percentage go over some threshold. And, of course, the most prestigious universities (which are the only ones doing this) have a large mass of white applicants with scores so immaterially different, that they can engage in this practice without actually lowering the median SAT scores of the admitted students. I don't say this to defend the practice, I do so just to point out that we don't have to speculate about the rational for the behavior.
What are the chances of one of the Asian-American communities following the Brandeis model and founding its own university? Admission would be open to people of all ethnicities and all races, of course. But no ethnicity or race would be subject to a quota.
I guess there is one, though I don't think it was founded because of Asian exclusionary concerns - Soka University of America.
Hmmm! My instinct tells me that it is cash. When the college where I taught dropped the SAT it was crystal clear that the motivation was to expand the applicant pool. How it was justified was based on two arguments: 1) the SAT is biased and anyway doesn't predict success; 2) marginalized populations don't do so well on the tests and requiring it tends to be a strike against them. These arguments were rarely examined but taken as acts of faith, and so served as convenient rationalizations, which, of course, could be deployed for other purposes.
I've never thought much about the "dullard scions of the rich" in this context. At my college you stumbled across them a lot. An ideal type -- not a stereotype -- might be someone from the upper east side of Manhattan, went to an exclusive private school, and whose siblings (usually older) were at Ivy League or other top tier colleges. These kids were very much aware of their status within the family (not high), and it was pretty obvious that it pained them. That eliminating the SAT made it easier to accept them makes sense, but I'm not sure it is true. There was great interest in getting students who could pay for the full ride. That was the goal, and still is. Where this most visibly came into play was with the arrival in the aughts of students from China. First in a dribble, then a torrent, before it finally subsided after about a decade. But good enough (about 8% of our student body at its height) to keep the school afloat during a tough time that has continued to the present. I'm not so sure that the result was our ending up with more "upper class twits" than usual.
Now I’m trying to guess what college that is.
Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts. It was the oldest women's liberal arts college in New England (although Mount Holyoke denies this), that went coed in the late 1980s. It is a wonderful college, a warm and supportive community and I loved teaching there. But, like all institutions, it exists in a real world of contradictions and what I believe is probably an increasingly unsustainable business plan, until a significant number of its contributors are culled, and competition is reduced. Of course, Wheaton may end up as one of the ones that is culled, or its mission dramatically re-imagined.
I should also add that there were some very good students there, and they were thoroughly nourished in a exemplary way. For example, I think we might have had more Marshall and Rhodes scholars than Mount Holyoke, Smith and Bryn Mawr combined, all schools with higher prestige, and richer endowments than Wheaton. A surprising number of these very good students were from disadvantaged backgrounds as well as affluence, and there may have been a "dullard" in a family who Wheaton prepared for thriving in national competitions of one kind or another. It's a complex story.
Maybe. Is there evidence that letting in less qualified rich kids will be the result of these policies? (Which I oppose.) Or is that just a hunch?
Is there evidence that the result will be letting in more poor and Black students, as is constantly claimed? You might start here: https://www.good.is/articles/ivy-league-fooled-how-america-s-top-colleges-avoid-real-diversity
Well that’s not a very powerful reply. I didn’t say that would be the result.
That's the argumentative environment in which you're operating. What is your version of events, then? What's your alternative theory about what the outcome of getting rid of these tests would be?
I assure you: the admissions departments are not neutral agencies working only to fulfill the best interests of meritocracy.
And looking quickly at that article, it seems to be about how the beneficiaries of affirmative action tend to be racial and ethnic minorities from middle and upper classes. If that’s what you mean, you aren’t quite saying it clearly.
I think you're being pedantic and annoying, and you're trying my patience.
Wow. So I was wondering (genuinely) whether there’s evidence for what you say. I mean, it’s a subject pretty close to your professional/academic training, as far as I can tell, so doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask. You reply by asking me where’s my evidence for an alternative explanation, and cite an article that doesn’t really speak to your claims. I point that out, and you come back with this.
I don’t actually see why the burden’s on me to come up with some alternative theory. I don’t have one, certainly no grand unifying theory, which is what you seem to want: Either it’s a cynical ploy to jump on the bandwagon and get woke credit while actually being about enrolling more rich kids, or it’s “neutral agencies working only to fulfill the best interests of meritocracy.” In real life, motives are mixed and complicated and vary from institution to institution and person to person. My guess is that outcomes will be variable, too, and aren’t easily predictable.
I generally share your opposition to these policies, but I am a little less cynical about universities and their admissions departments. (It would be hard to be more cynical, based on a couple of posts I’ve seen from you on this topic.) Maybe my own experience colors my views. My 3 siblings and I had full rides to an elite, expensive prep school. We were then able to attend top universities because of generous financial aid packages. There was nothing in it for the schools financially or in terms or boosting their diversity numbers.
Hey, my man. I made this pretty clear: you are offering no propositional content of your own, assuming I know nothing about this world when I know quite a bit, and now jumping back to a "why I'm just trying to participate in respectful discourse!" pose. This is all tactics. I am telling you that, based on a life spent in academia - literally, as in, from the day I was born - I am telling you that admissions departments are profoundly motivated by fiscal considerations. I have untold thousands of words on their proclivities. So have others. You think, what, I came up with the idea that elite schools are motivated by the desire to find donors in their admissions decisions? Are you really that ignorant of the larger conversation? It's not my job to educate you, friend, nor to flatter your "I'm just asking questions!" routine when you are so clearly unwilling to do even a little additional reading. Or did you think I thought this 200 word blog post was meant to be the dispositive conclusion on topics I wrote an entire book about?
This post was not proffered as a comprehensive study on the whims of admissions departments. I have written the aforementioned book, dozens of essays, several published freelance stories, and untold dashed-off comments on social media on this topic. The aggregate of those, and of the ones that will come, will be my testimony on this topic. If you are unwilling to investigate that far, cool. But don't read 200 words out of literally hundreds of thousands that I've read and say "you aren't explaining enough here!" It's absurd, and rude, to do so.
I agree with the attached article; the people of color statistic is very much "gamed." Income and first in their family to attend college are superior indications of diversity. I'm unsure about motive for dropping the SATs, but it will definitely allow more latitude to admit development candidate students who otherwise would not get in. Grades are much more easily finagled than SAT scores.
This article helps pinpoint exactly what is going on with Affirmative Action programs. They have been thoroughly undercut and it was a slick trick. Just like dumping SAT's, it's all about the money in the enrollment offices.
We are going to know soon enough, but I am firmly predicting there will be more black students and that some of them will be poor. I'm also predicting the poor ones will be immigrants from Ghana and Nigeria whose parents were the relative elite in the country they emigrated from. The American ones will be the children of black MDs at investment banks whose kids got a 1250 SAT score.
Educational administration is in deep fetid swamp. Stops being so concerned about helping people and encourage them to help themselves. Remember, the world needs bartenders and ditch diggers.
If I recall what you said elsewhere about how your company pays, I’d be happy to be a ditch digger there.