Race in the Admissions Process

This essay was assigned to be written from the perspective of a race advocate, and does not necessarily represent the views of the author.

Colin Cahill

10/1/13

Color and Money

Race in Admissions Considerations

“The issue of affirmative action at our nation’s top universities excites much interest and controversy in part because it goes to the very heart of what Americans mean by equal opportunity and meritocracy.” [1] For citizens of the United States today, admission to college, and more specifically an elite university, is the gateway to the American dream.[2] A degree from an elite institution brings with it not only prestige, as well as increased employment and wage opportunities, but is what Americans view as the driving force behind social mobility today. However, even with the continued use of affirmative action at elite schools, there is still little racial diversity; calling into question whether the current system of college admissions today allows for higher education to be the great equalizer, or in contrast, acts as a format to benefit wealthier and predominately white applicants.  In the last several weeks, our seminar class was given an intimate look at the college process from the admission’s officer’s viewpoint. We undertook the challenge of reading through the applications of fifteen students applying to “The College,” placing a numerical ranking on them, and deciding whom to admit, deny or waitlist. We created a rating system by which each application was given a series of points correlating with various traits such as: GPA, test scores, extracurricular activities, race, demographics, etc. As an admissions team, we did not create as diverse of a class as we had hoped, but we did succeed in creating equal opportunity for minority students, and constructed a process for legally considering diversity in our admission system.

College admissions officers today face a daunting task. Hundreds of thousands of students apply to American universities each year, and it is the task of these officers to utilize an incredibly complex system of variables to decide the fate of each applicant. In the United States, about 15 percent of all students who graduate from high school are black; however, out of the colleges contacted in a recent New York Times poll, just one institution boasted a graduation rate above 70 percent with as many black students enrolled in its freshman class.[3] Hispanics are even more underrepresented at elite institutions, as they are more likely to attend two year, community colleges.[4] To remedy this, colleges across the United States have made use of affirmative action to place more priority on minority applicants.

As an admissions team, we were also presented with the challenge of creating an admissions system that factors diversity into our decisions. As we learned from Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, it is illegal to have a set percentage of minority students that gain acceptance in collegiate institutions, as any fixed percentage or number is a quota system. [5] However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the judges upheld that the use of a “plus system” was in fact legal, and the importance of affirmative action was also reaffirmed.[6] We ultimately created a more advantageous approach to color conscious admissions by utilizing our own “plus system.” To do this, we assigned a numerical value from one to three, to be used in the applicants’ total points ranking, based on racial diversity. This allowed one’s ethnic background, and other diversifying traits such as sexuality and nationality, to benefit minority applicants in the admissions process.

After analyzing the data used in our admissions process, it is evident that the value given to applicants’ diversity was a deciding factor in how applicants were ranked, and ultimately, in whom we chose to admit. By eliminating the diversity value placed on each applicant, I found that thirteen of the fifteen applicants would have had different rankings. Only two of the top five ranked applicants were still present in the top five, while the fifth applicant’s cumulative ranking placed him tied for eighth with what was previously the twelfth ranked applicant.[7] This further reinforced the necessity to include a diversity quotient in admission considerations as the average diversity value of the top five rated applicants was 2.2, while the average diversity value of the top five rated applicants without the diversity quotient included was just 1.7. [8]

Our admissions team offered nine applicants admission, with three being admitted outright in the first round and six off the waitlist. In the initial rounds of waitlist applicants, diversity was of foremost consideration. We took into account that many of the minority students applying were from low socioeconomic backgrounds and attempted to create as much equal opportunity as possible.[9] However, as we progressed, our team became less concerned with diversity or equal opportunity and more concerned with accepting the best holistic applicant that would accept our offer of admission, and therefore diversity was not as strongly emphasized. However, we were left with a substantial financial aid budget, and realized that applicants that were of low socioeconomic backgrounds and required ample financial aid were more likely to accept.[10] Therefore, we did put added emphasis on those who were of lesser means, and in doing so strove to create more equal opportunity for those of lower financial standing in our applicant pool. Nonetheless, two of the three applicants that enrolled, Caitlin Quinn and Jazmine Hope-Martin, had diversity quotients of one and were from upper and middle class financial standing.[11] This is not to say that the incoming freshman from this pool of applicants are not diverse, as diversity is constituted by many variables from ethnicity to geographical location and even political beliefs, but the diversity score of the applicants that were enrolled is lower than what we had hoped.

Our admission’s team unfortunately did not succeed in creating as diverse of a class as we had intended, however we attempted to admit as many students of a diverse background as possible and create equal opportunity for the students in our applicant pool. Future admissions officers of “The College” may be better served to assign a higher quotient range for diversity in their ranking systems. This would allow diversity to then play a larger role in admissions decisions and create more opportunity for students of diverse backgrounds to be ranked higher and thereby have a greater chance of being accepted in the first round.[12] Although the diversity quotient of our freshman class was lower than what we had hoped, we succeeded as an admissions team in creating an admissions process that legally factored diversity into admissions considerations. We drew up our own “plus system” after learning, from the Grutter v. Bollinger case, that it is legal to use race as a factor in admissions.[13] In addition, we attempted to create as much equal opportunity as possible by using race and socioeconomic standing as deciding factors in our decisions. Even though our admissions team may not have succeeded in creating the most diverse freshman class, I feel that those who did enroll in “The College” have much to offer both the school and its community.