cawacko
Well-known member
Thanks, great post. Eliminating legacy admissions would go a long way towards fixing this problem. As it stands, I agree that looking at an applicants opportunities ()or lack thereof) can still be considered, and standard test scores are becoming less important in the process. The reality is that looking at an applicants background, wealth and socio-economic status and considering that is going to capture many black applicants, since they are overrepresented in that 'lacking opportunities' category. Seems like it's easier to include race because it simply addresses reality. I suspect this decision is going to be litigated to death because it has, IMHO, confused an issue that is pretty straightforward.
I definitely don't envy trying to put together an Ivy League class among many seemingly worthy applicants. Let's take a wide view of the term diversity. That can include race, it can also include geography, it can include the economic background of the student it can include interests (we all probably know kids that did little else but study and have amazing grades and tests scores. would you want a class only full of that type or those who do well but seem more 'well rounded'?)
I've thought often about the point you brought up about more emphasis on socio economic background. (The one thought there is a higher percentage of black and Hispanic kids live in poverty but based on numbers alone more white kids are in poverty)
Edit: (I wrote a bunch more and somehow deleted it - but not the above. I'm an idiot. I don't have the energy to retype it all so I'm just sending this)



