College application season is here once again. But something is expected to be different this year.
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed race-conscious admission policies to be unlawful and discriminatory. The plaintiffs in this action, the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), filed separate lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that their race-based admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does “not permit any distinctions of law based on race or color.”
So, the big question mark this season is — how will this change affect college applications and, most importantly, college essays? Should students write about race or skip it altogether? What about those students who had already crafted essays around their racial identity? And what will colleges be looking for?
As a former Columbia Business School and NYU admissions officer and as a Harvard Business School MBA graduate, respectively, our verdict is that this SC ruling affects college admissions far less than one might think. Before we delve into how, let’s understand what unfolded earlier this summer.
The Ruling
According to the Justices’ opinions on the ruling, Harvard completes an initial screening of each applicant by giving them a numerical score in six categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall. In the “overall” category, admissions committee members can and typically will consider race among other differentiators. After this stage, the entire committee begins the decision process and discusses the breakdown of applicants according to race.
The objective, as indicated by the director of admissions, is to avoid a “dramatic drop-off” in minority admissions. UNC has a similar admissions process, suggesting race could give certain students, namely African American and Hispanic students, a significant boost in the admissions process.
The same focus applies to other unique attributes such as the LGBT flutist whose GPA may be underwhelming yet their talent is what admissions committees determine will make the incoming class more representative. Yes, high academics are key but something special is always sought. So, the applicant who is just smart by the standard guidelines will be consigned to the wait list or worse, denied.
After closer examination of these admission policies, SFFA revealed some concerning statistics. At UNC, over 80% of Black students and under 70% of white and Asian applicants in the top academic decile were admitted and 77% of Black students, 48% of white, and 34% of Asian applicants were admitted from the third highest decile.
Harvard revealed similar findings, with Black applicants in the top four academic deciles being four to ten times more likely to be offered acceptances than Asian applicants in the same deciles. Again, we must be aware that numbers lie and the 80% of Black applicants could deliver 15 students while the actual number of Asian/white students on campus could be noticeably larger. Equality is an ephemeral concept steeped in a history that denied black/brown individuals and even Jewish applicants access without regard to admissibility.
In light of these pronounced disparities, the authenticity of these “diversity efforts” has come under scrutiny. If certain racial groups continue to face uneven or previously denied educational opportunities due to admissions policies that prioritize “racial balancing”, can they truly foster genuine inclusivity and equality?
Unraveling Decades of Tension
Although this case marks the court’s inaugural ruling in favor of the plaintiff, it certainly isn’t the first time the ethical implications of race-based admissions have been brought to the court’s attention. The SFFA Petitioner v. President and Fellows of Harvard College is the latest case in a nearly half-century deliberation on affirmative action.
The concept of equitable education first came to light in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling where the Court overturned the “separate but equal” regime, mandated schools to admit students without racial discrimination, and abolished segregation in public schools creating the concept of ‘white flight’ to private, exclusionary, white academies.
This case marked a pivotal juncture in racial history, leaving indelible imprints on almost every aspect of life. Following this transformative shift and the subsequent lawsuits invoking the Equal Protection Clause, specific parameters were established: any deviations from the clause would undergo rigorous examination via “strict scrutiny” would never use race as a stereotype or negative, and would eventually end. However, as time would tell, these expectations would fall short on every front.
We first saw it in the 1978 Regents of University of California v. Bakke case, when its medical school held 16 out of its 100 seats for members of certain minorities. Bakke was denied admission twice, despite having a higher MCAT and GPA than the minority applicant, prompting him to file a discrimination lawsuit. Twenty-five years later the nearly identical Grutter v. Bollinger case took place. The plaintiff claimed she was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School due to its goal to enroll a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students. It was expected that 25 years after the Grutter case, the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary, but this has not proven to be true.
Today, as we near the 25-year milestone, neither Harvard nor UNC believe this. Thus, with no end in sight, the SC jury ruled in favor of eliminating race-based admissions decisions to truly abide by the Equal Protection Clause.
How Does This Impact Your College Application
Although the ruling might seem like a significant change to the admissions process, as professionals who work with students of all colors, sexual orientations, disabilities, ages and talents, we strongly believe that this will not disrupt students’ application journey. In the last twenty-five years of working closely with students on the college admissions process, we have never advised students to explicitly mention race or to lean on it. Rather, in line with what even the most prestigious universities are looking for, we encourage them to focus on their personal strengths, meaningful experiences, achievements and unique attributes that have shaped their characters, and as an outcome, if race is one of them, so be it.
For instance, let’s say a student shares in their college essay that ever since they were five years old, they read and were later deeply influenced by poetry by Langston Hughes — an author who grew up in the same neighborhood as them (now gentrified). This anecdote, which is central to this student’s intellectual growth — provides context into their background without focusing on race. In essence, you should highlight the impact of your experiences rather than their implications.
The ruling states “Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”
What does become more critical now is students paying attention to their personal scores to stand out, and this will require greater effort. Students will have to explore alternative avenues through which they can contribute to the diversity of their school communities. They’ll need to contemplate everything outside of their academics — sports, volunteering, or transformative life experiences. Admissions criteria have far evolved past AP classes or perfect GPAs. The imperative continues to demand representations of who you are, and your story, presenting that authentic, individualistic persona that is both unique and compelling.
A Balancing Act
Taking all factors into account, this ruling has been criticized for its potential to dissuade Black students from pursuing higher education or possibly reduce the presence of Black professionals in the workforce. Simultaneously, it is also being hailed as a significant triumph for Asian students who have long grappled with feelings of exclusion from esteemed academic institutions, despite having the right academics.
Since Chinese students were at the heart of the SC ruling, the hope is they will no longer be “overlooked” and will be recognized for their accomplishments and commitments which will be measured holistically against a pool of potential competitors.
As for applicants hoping to apply to schools other than Harvard or UNC, it may be reassuring to note other prestigious universities seem to have adopted more comprehensive diversity initiatives that extend beyond racial considerations.
Take MIT, for instance, which not only takes race into account but also factors in gender, geographic region, regional graduation rates, and socio-economic backgrounds. This approach acknowledges that students from diverse racial backgrounds can share common experiences, with the assumption that one group’s experience isn’t inherently superior to another. Poverty, for example, isn’t just a Black or brown issue; it is very much a colorblind issue. This type of inclusive strategy acknowledges this reality.
Likewise, the University of California has gone a step further in its commitment to fostering equity by removing barriers like mandatory ACT, SAT, and GMAT scores which some will argue penalize Asian applicants. This progressive step widens the door for students from historically marginalized groups that have long been excluded from prestigious universities based largely on test scores. These inclusive policies serve as a testament that it’s not all negative. There may be sincere intention for positive change within these academic powerhouses, even if some haven’t executed it perfectly.
While the verdict remains untested and will yield more results in this upcoming admissions cycle, two clear facts emerge—the ruling has sparked an important conversation about race, and the impact of this ruling on the application process is far less disruptive than anyone might assume. Students will continue to compete on an inherently uneven playing field with students’ admission success and failure determined by impartial professionals who are implementing the mission and values of their college or University.
