The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard has ignited a heated debate about equal opportunity, meritocracy, and the unintended consequences of well-intentioned policies. While the ruling primarily focused on the
Re Legacies & Donors: The irony of the Court’s decision is that they are perfectly fine with policies that statistically discriminate in favor of less qualified white applicants.
The Vox podcast had an interesting discussion about what universities do going forward. Increased funding for recruitment and retention were the low hanging fruit, but they also briefly considered policy changes around prioritizing early decision applicants, recruited athletes, or legacy admissions.
I think eliminating legacy admissions may be the most costly move for colleges to increase diversity.
We will see what happens to the plaintiffs case against Harvard for favoring legacies
Re Legacies & Donors: The irony of the Court’s decision is that they are perfectly fine with policies that statistically discriminate in favor of less qualified white applicants.
They have only banned race. A college can use legacy-status as a positive factor. Or whether the student went to an elite private school. Etc.
The Vox podcast had an interesting discussion about what universities do going forward. Increased funding for recruitment and retention were the low hanging fruit, but they also briefly considered policy changes around prioritizing early decision applicants, recruited athletes, or legacy admissions.
I think eliminating legacy admissions may be the most costly move for colleges to increase diversity.