What does this mean in practice?
Probably a modest reverse version of that at the lower tier universities.
Love the policy change or hate it, that’s what’s likely to happen.
Given the actual numbers, its more likely that the largest number of applicants negatively affected by this will be white, in absolute terms.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-racial-engineering/
Stanford might be an outlier, but I don't see white applicants being negatively affected by this decision. Quite the opposite.
Asians aren’t White.
I will gladly bet the under on double digits for Ivies, MIT, and Stanford.
5% max, possibly as little as 2% — that is, 26% might increase to 31%, but more likely 28%-29%.
Whatever the number is, the increase for whites will probably be greater in both percentage and absolute number.
That said, I agree that the demographics that will lose these spots are non-white, non-Asian groups.
And that would be the same thing. If someone can prove it, it's illegal.
Could courts force colleges to keep using the SAT?
(They were going to stop anyway, but this ruling sped things up.)
> “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” Roberts wrote.
Sure seems like proxies for race are if anything explicitly called out as being OK by SCOTUS rather than illegal.
The court recognizes the effects of race and recognizes them as valuable when considering a candidate, just not their race per se. If you allow me to be a bit cheeky, it values the content of their character over the color of their skin.
That’s probably what your theoretical proxy will look like, if you’re correct.
"Alumni interviewers give Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gives them the worst scores of any racial group, often without even meeting them, according to Professor Arcidiacono."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
Eventually some university will get sued for that, and we’ll see how the Supreme Court rules. I imagine it’ll depend on how egregious it is, and if there are any internal emails where admissions are openly talking about it.
1990s and 2000s: Asians do well on exams (and in workplace), take ever greater % of sets from establishment, competitively
2010s: Establishment realize that "BLM" and aim to give Asian seats to PoC, while also conveniently setting proportionately lower quotas for Asians so establishment retains seats they were losing
2020s: New ways found to prevent Asians from competitively winning seats (e.g., roadblocks on registration, etc)
If people are really interested in doing something - whether that's discriminating against Black people or discriminating in favor of Black people - they're probably going to find a way to do it. Laws will make a difference on the margins but if there are motivated people then they are going to start trying to work around this ruling today.
The biggest effect of this ruling is that it's a marker to let people know that opposition to affirmative action is serious. That will have more of an impact then the ruling itself.
What this really means is that some students who had better grades and test scores will get into their more preferred university, and some students who had worse grades and scores will have to settle for a more fitting less-preferred university.
In relative numbers it probably impacts less than .1% of all students one way or another.