ppreboard

Affirmative Action Still Exists…If You’re Rich and White

Sumayyah Borders

28 December 2023

This article explores various components of the college admissions process and how they discriminate against students from underrepresented groups and low-income families while favoring rich applicants. I will give a brief history of educational inequality in the United States during the K-12 years. Afterwards, I will analyze four main factors of the admissions process. First, I will explore the correlation between the racial wealth gap and financial aid. Second, I will break down standardized test scores and testing accommodations between students from families of varying income levels. Third, I will analyze the ways in which elite colleges favor wealthy students such as recruited athletes and legacies. Finally, I will explore how bans on affirmative action can affect college admissions in the future and offer solutions on ways to fix the college admissions process.

Introduction

In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University over its admissions process, stating that they were violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by favoring white applicants over Asian American applicants. Harvard admitted to using race as a factor in its admissions. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down race-neutral admissions at Harvard as well as the University of North Carolina, deeming such procedures as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ban on affirmative action is just one way in which minority students are being pushed away from higher education. Let’s look at some other ways (1).

The History of Racial and Ethnic Inequality in American Education Before Brown v. Board of Education

Before diving into college admissions, it is important to discuss the history of K-12 education in the United States. Perhaps the most notable education policy among Americans is the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which established racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional (2). However, the history of racial and ethnic inequality in education goes as far back as the late 1800s. During this time, Native American children attended boarding schools that forcibly assimilated them into white culture. Additionally, California schools in the 1800s barred Chinese American children from being enrolled in white public schools, which led to a lesser known case called Tape v. Hurley (1885) (3). The case was brought to court by Joseph and Mary Tape who attempted to enroll their daughter, Mamie, in a Spring Valley Primary School. Her admission was denied by principal Jennie Hurley, in compliance with the school board’s policy. The Tape family sued Hurley and the San Francisco Board of Education through the California Supreme Court. In 1885, Superior Court Judge McGuire wrote “to deny a child, born of Chinese parents in this State, entrance to the public schools would be a violation of the law of the State and the Constitution of the United States.” However, that same year, the California State Assembly enacted Bill 268, establishing separate schools for children of “Mongolian or Chinese” descent. Although Mamie never attended Spring Valley, Chinese American children were increasingly enrolled in white schools, and the law was eventually repealed in 1947 (4). 

Latinx children were also barred from attending California public schools. In 1930, the Lemon Grove School Board devised a plan to construct a “special school for Mexican children” which would later become known as the caballeriza or “the barn.” Following the winter break for Lemon Grove students, Principal Jerome T. Green stood at the front and denied Mexican children entry into the school, sending them to the new school instead. Angry parents filed a lawsuit against the school board. The case of Roberto Alvarez vs. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District (1931) was heard in the Superior Court of San Diego County in February 1931. Presiding Judge Claude Chambers indicted every member of the board for illegally segregating the children. The board argued that the facility was meant to prevent the “deterioration” of the white children, and to bring Mexican students to the same level of intelligence as the white students (5). Judge Chambers still ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, demanding a reinstatement of the Mexican children into Lemon Grove Grammar School. However, segregation of Mexican students persisted beyond the city limits of Lemon Grove, California. Even with its low profile, the Lemon Grove case was the first successful school desegregation case in the U.S. and marked a significant milestone for civil rights (6).

Historical Analysis of Black K-12 Education

Historically, Black individuals have faced the most discrimination in American education. During the early years of slavery, Black people – freed or enslaved – were prohibited from obtaining educational opportunities. Some organizations educated Black individuals with private funds; however, these efforts were used to teach Christian principles. The Quakers also opened schools for Black students in the 1700s, but these actions were met with outrage by a majority of White people in the United States (7). Many southern states such as South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia began to implement laws that made it illegal to teach enslaved people to read and write. Eventually, the legal rights of Black individuals improved following the Civil War. But those rights were quickly stripped away upon the enactment of Jim Crow laws in the late 1800s, segregating schools and other public spaces based on a “separate-but-equal” philosophy. This philosophy was upheld in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which would later be overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The majority decision in Brown stated that “separate” was not “equal” and demanded the desegregation of schools (8).

The Racial Wealth Gap and Financial Aid

Financial aid is a type of funding given to students to help them pay for higher education. This aid can come in the form of scholarships, grants, loans, or work-study awards. A financial aid award is capped at a level defined as “financial need,” which is the mathematical difference between an institution’s cost of attendance (COA) and the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) (9). The COA generally includes but is not limited to: tuition and fees, room and board, textbooks, transportation, and other miscellaneous expenses (10). The EFC is a number used to determine federal aid eligibility. This figure is calculated using the information that families provide in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. Some of the most important components of this formula include taxed and untaxed income, assets, and benefits such as Social Security (11). The FAFSA also asks parents to provide the value of investments and real estate and the value of businesses and farms. However, the application states that home equity and retirement savings such as 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts should be excluded from these fields. Unsurprisingly, home equity and retirement savings account for most assets among all but the highest-income households in America (12).

We can start by breaking down these assets by race. For Black households, housing makes up 67 percent of all assets, business wealth makes up 13 percent, and equity makes up 5 percent. For white households, housing makes up 41 percent of all assets, while business wealth and equity make up 24 percent and 16 percent, respectively (13). 

We could also look at the distribution of assets by family income. In the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, families with children approaching college age were classified by family income and race. The data showed that about 40 percent of white families and 71 percent of Black families have incomes less than $75,000; 23 percent of white families and 19 percent of Black families have incomes between $75,000 to $125,000; and 17 percent of white families and 7 percent of Black families have incomes between $125,00 to $200,000. Families with incomes below $75,000 have very limited assets, so counting home equity and retirement savings would have little to no effect on the EFC. For families in the $75,000 to $125,000 income bracket, the ratio of median uncounted assets to counted assets is about 2.5 to 1 for both Black and white families. For those in the $125,000 to $200,000 bracket, the ratio is roughly 4 to 1 for both groups. While the proportions are similar for Black and white families at comparable income levels, white families overall have a much larger asset total (14).

Why does this matter? Because the fact that white families own more of these assets than Black families also means that white students are more likely than Black students to receive larger implicit subsidies. For those with incomes between $75,000 and $125,000, the median implicit subsidy given to white families is $3,400 per year, while Black families only receive $1,650. Meanwhile, for those families with incomes between $125,000 to $200,000, the median implicit subsidy given to white families is $9,400 per year, while Black families receive about $2,200. Overall, college is much more affordable for white families (15).

Standardized Testing

At the beginning of the 19th century, millions of immigrants from Europe fled to America. Many of the social scientists at the time were concerned about the infiltration of non-whites into public schools. One of these scientists was psychologist and eugenicist Carl Brigham, who believed that testing showed the superiority of “the Nordic race group.” In his 1923 book A Study of American Intelligence, Brigham argued that the education system in America would decline rapidly as “the racial mixture becomes more and more extensive.” Brigham was influential in the development of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), which was used to screen intelligence in U.S. soldiers during World War I. The SAT officially debuted in 1926, and the American College Test (ACT) would later be introduced in the 1950s. During the war, standardized testing was used to place about 1.5 million soldiers in segregated units. This method was the catalyst for the movement of in-school testing. By 1918, over 100 standardized tests were developed to assess aptitude for primary and secondary school subjects. Brigham eventually adapted the test to be used in college admissions, and Harvard University adopted the SAT in 1934. By the 1950s and 1960s, many U.S. universities used the SAT to identify the brightest students of their next incoming class (16). 

Today, the SAT and ACT are the most common standardized tests used in college admissions. They are used to evaluate college preparedness and test students on a variety of subjects such as math, reading, science, language, and writing. A competitive score is typically regarded as a 1300 on the SAT or a 29 on the ACT which constitute the 86th percentile and 91st percentile of all test takers, respectively. However, these scores are only attainable for a certain demographic of students. About one-third of the children from some of the richest families in America scored at least a 1300 on the SAT while less than five percent of middle-class kids achieved this. Children from lower-income families saw even less success. To break this down even further, about 17 percent of SAT test takers who scored a 1300 or higher were part of families in the top 20 percent of earners in the 2010s. On the other hand, only 2.4 percent of students who scored a 1300 or higher were part of families in the bottom 20 percent of earners. Children of the richest 1 percent of families in America were 13 times more likely than the poorest students to score this high. About 31 percent of these children scored a 1300 or higher on their SAT. Even then, around 33 percent of students whose families are in the top 0.1 percent of earners scored higher than this (17). Overall, students from more affluent families tend to score higher on the SAT. But why is that?

For one thing, wealthier students can afford to take the test several times. The current cost of the SAT for the 2023-2024 school year is $60, which can serve as a great financial barrier for many students. The College Board does offer fee waivers for low-income students, but it only covers the cost of two SATs (18). It is no surprise that wealthier students also have more access to test prep resources such as private tutoring. One popular test-prep service is the Princeton Review. The company offers targeted tutoring for students who want help for specific SAT topics, as well as comprehensive tutoring, which is more holistic. The targeted tutoring plan costs $200 an hour for 10 hours of instruction, which comes out to a whopping $2,000. Comprehensive tutoring costs around $175 an hour for 18 hours of instruction which comes out to $3,150. Princeton Review advertises that their tutoring services are guaranteed to help students obtain a 1500 or more on the SAT, or improve their score by 180 points (19).

Students from higher-income families are also more likely to get testing accommodations on standardized tests than lower-income students. An analysis done by the Wall Street Journal looked at 9,000 public schools and found that students in more affluent areas are more likely to get special allowances known as 504 designations. These accommodations are typically provided to students with anxiety or ADHD to allow them extra time or a private space for test-taking. The analysis showed that in wealthier areas where no more than 10 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced cost school lunches, an average of 4.2 percent of students have 504 designations. On the other hand, in poorer areas where 75 percent or more students are eligible for free and reduced-cost lunches, an average of only 1.6 percent of students have these same designations (20). To obtain testing accommodations, students must be evaluated and approved by a medical professional or specialist, which can sometimes cost as much as $10,000 without insurance. For wealthier students, this price tag is no problem, because many of their families can afford to hire private consultants such as William Singer, who has previously served families involved in college admissions scandals. Singer would tell students to “act stupid” during psychologist visits to qualify for extra time on standardized tests (21). The main problem lies in the fact that public high schools are responsible for determining who gets accommodations. However, the College Board does not check student eligibility because of the time it takes; therefore, they cannot assess whether or not a student truly needs 504 designations or not. Private high schools do not use these designations, but most schools supposedly give special learning and test-taking accommodations to a significant number of their students (22).

Wealth Bias in College Admissions

Regardless of whether you are Black or white, a perfect SAT scorer, or a reigning Mathlete champion, elite colleges only care about one thing: how much money your parents make. In October 2023, Opportunity Insights, a research group of Harvard-based economists, released a study analyzing the extent to which being rich is its own qualification in elite college admissions. The group focused on Ivy-Plus universities, which includes the eight Ivy League colleges, Duke, MIT, Stanford, and the University of Chicago. The study showed that students from families in the top one percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant with comparable SAT or ACT scores. Additionally, students from the top 0.1 percent were over twice as likely to get into these Ivy-Plus schools (23). For example, at Stanford University, a private college in California, applicants from families in the top 1 percent are 1.8 times more likely to attend than the average student with the same test scores. Those from families in the top 0.1 percent are 3.1 times more likely to attend. Out of the top 140 schools in America, Stanford had the highest relative likelihood that an applicant in the top 1 percent or top 0.1 percent would attend the school (24).

In their study, Opportunity Insights noted three factors that drive the preference for the richest applicants. Unsurprisingly, the first main factor involved legacy admissions. A student is considered a legacy if at least one of their parents or grandparents attended the same college to which they are applying for. Legacy students from families in the top 1 percent are five times as likely to be admitted than the average applicant (25). The second factor is concerned with athletics. About one in eight admitted students from the top 1 percent are recruited athletes. This figure was one in 20 for those in the bottom 60 percent. Children from rich families tend to be more likely to partake in sports, especially more exclusive ones such as rugby, rowing, and golf. After all, the Ivy Leagues are not necessarily known for having stellar football or basketball programs, both of which are sports typically played by Black students. The third and final driving force behind elite admissions are nonacademic ratings. Generally, applicants are given numerical scores for their academic achievements as well as nonacademic components such as extracurricular activities and leadership traits. While students from the top 1 percent did not have higher academic ratings than those with the same test scores, they had significantly higher nonacademic ratings. These students typically attend private, nonreligious high schools in affluent neighborhoods. Therefore, they have more opportunities to participate in attractive activities and get excellent recommendations from school counselors (26). But the state schools are safe from this, right?

The study also analyzed 12 other highly selective private colleges and nine highly selective public institutions. Some public flagships, such as the University of Virginia and UC Berkeley, showed little to no bias towards applicants from the richest families. Many university systems in big blue states such as California and New York tend to show no wealth bias in the admissions process. In fact, ultra-wealthy students are about 50 percent less likely to attend Berkeley than those who are lower or middle-class. This trend can be seen across other schools within the UC system as well as campuses in the State University of New York system. 

The opposite story is true in other parts of the country, particularly in the South. Public institutions such as Auburn University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Arkansas, and the University of Alabama are similar to the Ivy-Plus colleges in their approach to wealth bias in admissions. These schools are not considered to be elite and tend to have high acceptance rates, so their methods of exclusion work very differently from that at an institution like Stanford or Yale. For example, the University of Alabama gives a 45 percent bump to students from the top 1 percent. On the other hand, the state of Alabama has one of the highest poverty rates in America, yet only 11 percent of Auburn students are Pell-grant eligible (27). Additionally, more than 30 percent of college-age Alabama residents are Black, but Black students only make up 3.2 percent of Auburn’s student body. Fourteen years ago, the Black student population at Auburn was 8.7 percent, indicating a drop in Black enrollment since then. This decline has become a trend among the 14 schools of the Southeastern Conference, nine of which saw decreasing Black enrollment between 2010 and 2018. During and after the 2008 financial crisis, college tuition shot up significantly to compensate for cuts to state funding which is one possible explanation for the shrinking numbers of Black students at these institutions (28). Speaking of tuition, many public universities tend to have a high sticker price for out-of-state students, making it easier for wealthy applicants to afford such institutions. About 58 percent of undergraduates at Alabama are out-of-state, meaning that they pay $32,400 a year, plus room and board. In another example, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor charges out-of-state students $55,000, the same price as Harvard. Meanwhile, in-state tuition amounts to $16,736 (29).

However, if you are rich, the quickest method to getting into elite colleges is simple: bribery. In March 2019, over fifty people, including actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, were charged in the biggest college admissions scandal ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Parents spent anywhere from thousands to tens of millions of dollars to get their students admitted into colleges (30). In particular, coaches and athletic officials at seven schools were accused of accepting bribes to mark students as athletic recruits. The following universities were part of this scheme: Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, UCLA, the University of Southern California (USC), the University of Texas, and Wake Forest. The mastermind behind the entire scandal was basketball coach turned college counselor William “Rick” Singer, who helped parents bribe college coaches and test proctors. One parent paid Singer over $1 million to help him bribe a USC water polo coach to designate his son as a recruit. The same parent also attempted to secure spots for his twin daughters as athletes at Stanford and Harvard with the guidance of Singer (31). Lori Louglin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli paid half a million dollars to get their daughter into USC and onto the rowing team; Felicity Huffman paid $15,000 for her daughter’s SAT score. In the aftermath of the scandal, Huffman served 11 days out of a two-week sentence, Loughlin served a two-month prison sentence, and Giannulli served a five-month prison sentence (32). And Rick Singer, the man at the center of the scheme, was only sentenced to 3.5 years in prison with an additional three years of supervised release (33).

The Ban on Affirmative Action

With all that being said, some universities have recently made significant efforts to mitigate the cost barrier for students. Several Ivy League colleges cover tuition for students from families below a certain income level – $100,000 at Stanford and Princeton, $85,000 at Harvard, and $60,000 at Brown. At Princeton, one-fifth of the student body are now from low-income families, and one-fourth of the population receive a full ride scholarship. At Harvard, one-fourth of the fall 2023 freshman class are from families with incomes below $85,000 who pay next to nothing. Some public flagships such as the University of California schools forbid giving preference to legacies and donors. Additionally, the UC system has partnered with California schools across all education levels to support students who face barriers (34). However, these solutions are just one piece of the puzzle in fixing college inequality. 

The other piece revolves around fairness in the college admissions process, which has actually taken a step backwards in recent months. In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action could no longer be used at colleges and universities acrossing the country. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative members ruled that race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote for the majority stated: 

“The Harvard and U.N.C. admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the equal protection clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points.” 

The decision ultimately ensures that the student population at highly selective institutions become less Black and Latino (35). 

Even before the decision, nine states, including Michigan and California, already had bans on race-conscious programs and admissions at public universities. In 2006, the University of Michigan adopted a voter referendum known as Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative, resulting in a constitutional ban on affirmative action statewide. As a result, Black undergraduate enrollment at Michigan declined to 4 percent in 2021 from 7 percent in 2006, even though the total percentage of college-age Black students increased to 19 percent from 16 percent. Similarly, the state of California adopted Proposition 209 in 1996, which also banned racial preferences in admissions. At UCLA, there were 96 Black students out of 5,000 in the fall 2006 freshman class. The group was deemed as the “Infamous 96.” This figure caused outrage, and many UCLA students protested against the state’s ban on affirmative action. In the years since, Black enrollment in the UC system has recovered slightly. Before Proposition 209, UCLA’s Black enrollment was 7 percent, then fell to 3.43 percent in 1998. By 2019, Black enrollment increased to 5.98 percent, though California’s population is 6.5 percent Black (36). 

Conclusion

From financial aid and standardized testing to wealth bias and affirmative action, there are many systems that go into the college admissions process to assist students with attending and paying for their dream schools. But college does not seem so dreamy when the systems are meant to work against you. And the ban on affirmative action adds more kindling to the fire by creating less diversity at universities and potentially discouraging underserved groups from applying to more prestigious institutions. However, there are ways that we can fix the college admissions process.

Firstly, universities could place more emphasis on the college essay rather than quantifiable factors such as GPA and SAT. Race-neutral does not mean race-blind, and students are still allowed to mention race, ethnicity, and other parts of their identity in their Common App and supplemental essays. On the other hand, we need to eliminate affirmative action for the rich, which includes advantages for athletes and legacies. Second, colleges could also eliminate binding early decisions. When a student applies to a college with early decision, the applicant pledges that they will attend that university if accepted. Highly selective colleges tend to fill up many of their incoming classes this way. In the 2022-2023 application cycle, Boston University filled about 50 percent of its class early, and the University of Pennsylvania filled 51 percent of its class early (37). The early decision process can put pressure on a student to choose the “right” college for them, which is not ideal for a lower-income student attempting to maximize their offers. Another option is that states could make changes to increase low-income students’ access to college. For example, the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan guarantees admission to public Texas universities for all Texas high school seniors in the top 10 percent of their graduating class. And the Collegebound Nebraska program offers free in-state tuition for residents who are Pell Grant recipients and meet minimum credit-hour and GPA requirements (38). On the other hand, more federal funding should go into Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Sixteen states have been underfunding their land-grant HBCUs by some $12 billion (39). Increased funding to these institutions could improve their campus infrastructure, research and development, student support services, and financial aid distribution, providing more stability and resources to potential Black students. 

Even with a 15 year affirmative action ban, the University of Michigan has also aimed to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus. The Wolverine Pathways program, for example, is a college preparatory program designed for under-resourced communities in the state. Successful scholars are admitted to U-M Ann Arbor and receive a full, four-year tuition scholarship (40). 

Until problems within financial aid, standardized testing, and wealth bias are resolved, the college admissions process will continue to remain unfair, and the privileged will continue to game the system. The future of admissions with the recent ban on affirmative action looks especially grim. In the next few years, some colleges could possibly have their own Infamous 96 or some variation of it. 

Special thanks to Professor Heather McCambly from the Pitt School of Education for reviewing this piece.

Image via Pexels Free Photos

Works Cited

  1. “Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199. Accessed 30 Nov. 2023. 
  1. National Archives. “Brown v. Board of Education (1954).” National Archives, 29 Sept. 2021, www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education#:~:text=On%20May%2017%2C%201954%2C%20U.S. 
  1. Noltemeyer, Amity, et al. The History of Inequality in Education. 2012, p. 4, https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=his_fac 
  1. Thomas, Heather. “Before Brown v. Board of Education, There Was Tape v. Hurley | Headlines and Heroes.” Library of Congress Blogs, 5 May 2021, https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2021/05/before-brown-v-education-there-was-tape-v-hurley/. 
  1. Madrid, E. Michael. “The Unheralded History of the Lemon Grove Desegregation Case.” Multicultural Education, vol. 15, no. 3, 2008, p. 17, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ793848.pdf.   
  1. Madrid, p. 18
  1. Noltemeyer et al., p. 5
  1. Noltemeyer et al., pg. 6
  1. Levine, Phillip, and Dubravka Ritter. “The Racial Wealth Gap, Financial Aid, and College Access.” Brookings, 27 Sept. 2022, www.brookings.edu/articles/the-racial-wealth-gap-financial-aid-and-college-access/. 
  1. “What Does Cost of Attendance (COA) Mean?” Federal Student Aid, https://studentaid.gov/help-center/answers/article/what-does-cost-of-attendance-mean.  Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
  1. “What Is My Expected Family Contribution (EFC)?” Federal Student Aid, https://studentaid.gov/help-center/answers/article/what-is-efc. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
  1. Levine and Ritter, 2022
  1. Derenoncourt, Ellora, et al. “Wealth of Two Nations: The U.S. Racial Wealth Gap, 1860-2020.” National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2022, p. 20, www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30101/w30101.pdf,  https://doi.org/10.3386/w30101. 
  1. Levine and Ritter, 2022
  1. Ibid. 
  1. Rosales, John, and Tim Walker. “The Racist Beginnings of Standardized Testing | NEA.” NEA Today, 20 Mar. 2021, www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing. 
  1. Cain Miller, Claire. “New SAT Data Highlights the Deep Inequality at the Heart of American Education.” The New York Times, 23 Oct. 2023, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/23/upshot/sat-inequality.html?searchResultPosition=1. 
  1. “Fee Waiver Eligibility .” College Board, https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/sat/registration/fee-waivers/fee-waiver-eligibility. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
  1. “SAT Prep.” The Princeton Review, www.princetonreview.com/college/digitalsat-tutoring-course?ceid=%20pp-tutoring. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
  1. Belkin, Donald , et al. “Many More Students, Especially the Affluent, Get Extra Time to Take the SAT.” Wall Street Journal, 21 May 2019, www.wsj.com/articles/many-more-students-especially-the-affluent-get-extra-time-to-take-the-sat-11558450347?mod=hp_lead_pos5. 
  1. Van Beek, Sophia. “Breaking down Privilege and the SAT.” Tower, 10 Mar. 2020, https://tower.mastersny.org/4900/features/privilege-sat/.
  1. Belkin et al., 2019
  2. Chetty, Raj, et al. Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges. July 2023, p. 1. National Bureau of Economic Research, https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf, https://doi.org/10.3386/w31492. 
  1. Sumida |, Nami. “College Admissions: Charts Show Huge Impact of Income on Who Attends Top U.S. Schools.” The San Francisco Chronicle, 24 Aug. 2023, www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/us-college-admissions-income/. 
  1. Chetty et al., p. 2
  1. Bhatia, Aatish, et al. “Study of Elite College Admissions Data Suggests Being Very Rich Is Its Own Qualification.” The New York Times, 24 July 2023, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html. 
  1. Carey, Kevin. “These State Schools Also Favor the One Percent.” The Atlantic, 15 Aug. 2023, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/public-university-wealthy-admissions/675009/. 
  1. Pooley, Drake. “Opinion | Why Has Black Enrollment Fallen at an Elite Southern University?” The New York Times, 17 Sept. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/opinion/auburn-university-black-students.html. 
  1. Carey, 2023
  1. Gutterman, Annabel. “What to Know about Netflix’s “Operation Varsity Blues.”” Time, 17 Mar. 2021, https://time.com/5947501/operation-varsity-blues-netflix/.  
  1. Gregory, Sean. “As Varsity Blues Trails Start, College Sports Still Unequal.” Time, 27 Sept. 2021, https://time.com/6100715/varsity-blues-trial-college-sports/. 
  1. Gutterman, 2021
  1. Cohen, Miles, and Nadine El-Bawab. “Mastermind of “Varsity Blues” College Cheating Scandal Sentenced to 42 Months.” ABC News, 4 Jan. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/mastermind-varsity-blues-college-cheating-scandal-sentenced/story?id=96080462.  
  1. Bhatia et al., 2023
  1. Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Rejects Affirmative Action Programs at Harvard and U.N.C.” The New York Times, 29 June 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-admissions-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html. 
  1. Saul, Stephanie. “Affirmative Action Was Banned at Two Top Universities. They Say They Need It.” The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/affirmative-action-admissions-supreme-court.html. 
  1. Selingo, Jeffrey. “The College-Admissions Process Is Completely Broken.” The Atlantic, 23 Mar. 2022, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/change-college-acceptance-application-process/627581/. 
  1. Potter, Halley. “Affirmative Action Alternatives.” The Century Foundation, 13 Mar. 2013, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/affirmative-action-alternatives/.  
  1. Marshall, Alexis. “HBCUs Have Been Underfunded by $12 Billion, Federal Officials Reveal.” NPR, 9 Oct. 2023, www.npr.org/2023/10/09/1204614576/hbcus-have-been-underfunded-by-12-billion-federal-officials-reveal. 
  1. “Wolverine Pathways: About the Program.” University of Michigan, https://wolverinepathways.umich.edu/about-the-program/.  

Leave a comment