Photo credit: hechingerreport.org
Recent legislation signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom has made headlines by barring the influence of legacy and donor status in college admissions. This change is particularly relevant for a few select private institutions, including the University of Southern California (USC), where this policy might reshape admissions practices.
This law is presented as a move towards greater fairness in the admissions landscape, particularly in the wake of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that limited race-conscious admissions policies. Advocates argue that eliminating legacy preferences could lead to increased enrollment of Black, Latino, and Native American students at prestigious universities.
The significance of access to elite institutions extends beyond mere educational attainment; graduating from such schools often opens doors to influential roles and enhances opportunities for further education. Given my background in promoting equitable access to higher education and developing fairer admissions processes, the ban on legacy admissions intrigues me. I wholeheartedly support separating contributions from admissions decisions, yet I question whether this measure will significantly address the complex issue of racial inequality in higher education.
To truly tackle racial disparities, a multifaceted approach is necessary. It won’t suffice to change isolated aspects of the admissions process; systemic challenges require comprehensive solutions. This includes re-evaluating a combination of criteria used in admissions, seeking tailored strategies for various types of institutions, and addressing the diversity of inequalities present within the educational landscape.
Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly Higher Education newsletter.
As of 2023, approximately 700 colleges and universities across the country acknowledged that they factored in legacy status during admissions. Many of these institutions had acceptance rates below 25%, further complicating the notion of meritocracy in the admissions process.
The ongoing perception of elite universities as gatekeepers to success feeds into the idea that legacy admissions serve as “affirmative action for the privileged,” a notion echoed by figures like Senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This dialogue is not disconnected from previous scandals like the Varsity Blues case, which exposed serious malpractices in college admissions, as well as recent investigations revealing that USC allegedly prioritized the admissions of donors’ children as walk-on athletes. USC has responded by claiming to have instituted measures to uphold the integrity of its admissions process.
Despite the fallout from the Varsity Blues scandal, legacy and donor preferences remain ingrained in the admissions fabric. This persistence raises essential questions about the misconceptions surrounding admissions criteria, often viewed narrowly as a challenge of identifying the most academically proficient candidates. In reality, institutions like USC and Stanford are inundated with applications from qualified individuals, making it essential for admissions teams to evaluate additional qualitative factors beyond just grades and test scores.
To construct an effective student body, admissions must consider candidates’ potential contributions to campus life and institutional goals, spanning various domains such as academics, athletics, and community engagement. The ideal candidate cannot embody all forms of excellence; instead, diversity—whether in experience or background—plays a crucial role in creating a well-rounded class.
This discussion is noted in the context of previous rulings, such as the US Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, which recognized race as a part of a holistic admissions review process. Since the passing of Proposition 209 in California in 1996, public universities have refrained from considering race in admissions. The resulting decline in the enrollment of Black and Latino students prompted experiments with race-neutral strategies that sought to enhance diversity through socioeconomic factors and percentage plans.
However, these approaches have yielded mixed results, as evidenced by UCLA’s struggle a decade post-Proposition 209, recording only 96 Black first-year students enrolled. Research indicates that while race-neutral alternatives can contribute positively to diversity, their impact falls short of the effects of direct consideration of race. Additionally, contentious factors tend to overshadow the broader goal of pursuing systemic change in admissions practices.
My skepticism towards the efficacy of banning legacy admissions in bridging racial divides stems from the recognition that addressing significant gaps will involve iterative refinement of admissions, recruitment, and financial aid processes, rather than focusing on one singular criterion.
Looking ahead, it is imperative to engage in discussions and research that inform an integrated approach to admissions reform, cognizant of how these elements interact within the broader educational framework.
My research group has demonstrated that doctoral programs within the University of California system and at USC can successfully enhance diversity without affirmative action by engaging in cycles of discussion, experimentation, assessment, and refinement of holistic admissions and recruitment strategies through collaboration.
Ultimately, both admissions and hiring processes face inherent challenges in achieving full equity, and neither should be expected to singlehandedly resolve deep-rooted societal inequalities. Nonetheless, there exists a significant opportunity to create fairer systems. It is crucial to elevate the discourse and objectives surrounding admissions beyond mere alterations to individual factors.
Julie Posselt is a professor of education at the University of Southern California, associate dean of the USC Graduate School and executive director of the Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice (CERPP)
Source
hechingerreport.org