After the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action could not be used in college admissions in June of 2023, experts predicted that history would repeat itself and colleges would become less racially diverse.
When California banned affirmative action in 1998, it experienced an immediate 40-50% decline in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its highest-ranked state universities, the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA.
However, when examining the demographics of freshmen arriving at colleges across the country in the fall of 2024, early evidence is mixed. This is the first admissions class affected by the Supreme Court decision.
Schools like MIT, Amherst and UNC Chapel Hill all experienced a substantial drop in minority student enrollment. On the other hand, some schools seemed to be unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling. At Dartmouth, the number of Hispanic students enrolled in the class of 2028 increased by three percentage points, while the enrollment of every other racial group decreased slightly. Yale and Princeton saw no change at all in Black student enrollment. Hispanic student enrollment increased by 1 percentage point at Yale and decreased by 1 percentage point at Princeton, both negligible changes.
At UM, though Black student enrollment in the class of 2028 plummeted from 9% to 5%, Hispanic student enrollment jumped from 24% to 28%.
The data suggests that school-specific policies on diversity have the potential to have an impact great enough to compensate for and maybe even surpass the loss of affirmative action. Just because affirmative action is no more, diversity at UM and other institutions is not doomed. Universities should take into account applicants’ entire backgrounds, implement targeted outreach programs through the admissions process, and reconsider admissions policies proven to hinder diversity. By doing so, universities can ensure that they are admitting a diverse class of students.
According to the Department of Education and Department of Justice’s Questions and Answers resource regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, “Universities may continue to embrace appropriate considerations through holistic application-review processes and (for example) provide opportunities to assess how applicants’ individual backgrounds and attributes—including those related to their race, experiences of racial discrimination, or the racial composition of their neighborhoods and schools—position them to contribute to campus in unique ways.”
When making admissions decisions, colleges already claim to use “holistic review” to evaluate each student in the context of their experiences. However, a study done in 2017 found that at 38 colleges in the U.S., including five in the Ivy League, more students came from the top 1% of the income scale than the bottom 60%.
This enormous disparity shows that many top colleges largely choose to admit privileged students who, prior to attending college, have had much greater access to educational opportunities, in the classroom and beyond, over their equally-talented, less-privileged peers.
Furthermore, 88% of people in the top 1% of the income scale identify as white, as opposed to 68% of those in the bottom 99%, illustrating a connection between wealth and racial inequality.
Colleges need to acknowledge and take steps to remedy this clear disparity.
Many selective institutions worsen the problem by recruiting heavily from private and public high schools that have predominantly wealthy students. One solution is to implement targeted recruitment programs where colleges could connect with students in communities with higher proportions of low-income students and students of color.
Another solution could address the fact that underrepresented minority students disproportionately attend under-resourced institutions. Through transfer partnerships with community colleges, which are more likely to enroll underserved students, four-year institutions can admit a more diverse class.
However, to truly have holistic admissions policies, colleges must consider applicants’ achievements in the context of the high school and neighborhood of the applicant. Colleges must consider how applicants’ backgrounds affect their access to resources and education. Moreover, admissions policies that mainly bolster the privileged should be eliminated.
Legacy admissions is one such policy. At Ivy League and “Ivy-Plus” institutions (University of Chicago, Duke, MIT, and Stanford), a 2023 study suggests that high-income legacy applicants are five times more likely to be admitted than non-legacy applicants with similar qualifications. 32% of Harvard’s 2027 class are legacy students.
Since there are so few spots at selective institutions, prioritizing children of alumni penalizes students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. After Johns Hopkins University ended legacy admissions in 2014, the university increased its percentage of federal Pell Grant recipients, which are students who have demonstrated exceptional financial need, from 13% to 22% and increased the percentage of Black, Latino and Native American students from 18% to 34%.
The use of standardized tests in admissions can also bolster high-income students, though the effect is not as pronounced as legacy admissions. Applicants with substantial economic means are able to take standardized tests multiple times and are more likely to attend high schools that offer advanced coursework and test preparation. Additionally, these applicants are also able to hire a private tutor or obtain additional support outside of their high school.
Preliminary research on the effect of test-optional admissions policies shows a 3 to 4 percent increase in federal Pell Grant recipients and a 10 to 12 percent increase in students of color admitted.
Another solution is an increased focus on personal statements and supplemental essays, which allow colleges to assess not only quantitative experiences but qualitative ones. UM changed its supplemental essay prompt in 2023 to give applicants a place to write about their unique experiences, challenges, or skills. Admissions officers use responses to this new prompt to help evaluate applicants holistically.
Another policy that benefits wealthy students is the early decision program. When scrolling through various “UM Class of 2028” Instagram pages designed to connect incoming UM students, I noticed that many students claim to be committed to the university through early decision. Research shows that students enrolling through an early admissions program are more likely to be from a higher socioeconomic background, receive private college counseling and attend a high-resourced high school. At the time of application, a student applying through early decision does not know how much they will be asked to pay and will not be able to compare financial aid packages across institutions. For low-income students, making such a commitment is simply not a possibility.
Many of UM’s admissions policies promote diversity. However, wealth inequality is still present. According to a 2017 study, 60% of students attending UMiami are from the top 20% of the income scale and only 5.5% of students are from the bottom 20%. The same study shows that 13% of students attending UMiami are from the top 1% of the income scale. Though UM meets 100% of demonstrated financial need, the nearly six-figure yearly full cost of attendance for students who live on campus of $93,892 can discourage lower-income students from even applying.
To promote diversity, colleges must reconsider how they evaluate applicants. Though the data regarding the effects of the ban on using affirmative action in admissions is inconclusive, the data regarding the benefits of diversity in colleges is most decidedly not. Diversity in colleges encourages self-reflection, better prepares all students for career opportunities and promotes creative thinking. With inclusive admissions policies, a diverse college class is achievable, even without affirmative action.