Minimizing Injustice in the College Admissions Process

In the 21​st​ century, a college education is more of a necessity than ever before. In 2015,
the expected earnings of a full-time worker with a bachelor’s degree were 84 percent more than
those of a full-time worker without one.​1​ Further, it is estimated that over 60 percent of national
job openings in 2020 will require at least some college or an associate’s degree.​2​ Attainment of a
college degree has become one of the most effective means of socioeconomic mobility. Among
those born into the lowest economic quintile, those without a college degree have a 47 percent
chance to remain there throughout life.​3​ On the other hand, this number is reduced to only 10
percent for those with a degree.​4

As college education becomes more important, it is also becoming more expensive. The
average American family spends about $30,000 per college student each year, the most of any
major country in the world.​5
Consequently, many students are forced
to apply exclusively to schools which
offer generous financial aid packages.
Unfortunately, these schools tend to be
some of the country’s most selective: The
Princeton Review’s list of the schools
with the best financial aid includes top
universities like Yale, Stanford, and
Princeton.​6

Because of these factors, the college admissions process is more competitive than ever
before. Between 2002 and 2017, the total number of college applications submitted more than
doubled from 4.9 to 10.2 million.​7​ This represents an increase in both the number of students
applying (about 21%) and the average number of colleges students apply to.​8​ The admissions
statistics from top schools reflect this increase: In 2019, Yale and USC (among others)
announced that their acceptance rates had dropped to an all-time low.​9
 Piazza 2

These two simultaneous trends in college admissions seem to conflict with each other. An
American teenager may need to attend college for financial reasons, but their ability to do so is
diminishing year after year. This strange situation illustrates the flaws of the college admissions
system, and demonstrates a need for it to be fundamentally changed. In order to make the process
more fair, there should be systematic changes to the way that applicants’ backgrounds (including
their race, gender, family income, and legacy status) are considered.

Inequality of Admissions in the Status Quo

The main problem with college admissions is its failure to provide socioeconomic
mobility. The need for this kind of mobility comes from systemic inequalities in American life.
For instance, consider institutional racism in the United States. In the last couple of decades,
wealthy and predominantly white parents have moved their children from poorer city schools to
more affluent suburban schools. This movement results in minority children, particularly those
with low socioeconomic status, being worse off in terms of their primary and secondary
education.​10​ It also causes class and race-based segregation to occur in these schools.​11​ Systemic
inequality is also visible in the issue of housing. American history has been plagued by centuries
of racist housing laws with the purpose of separating Americans by race.​12​ The effects of these
laws continue today: people of color are significantly more likely to report racial discrimination
when finding housing.

Inequality is not independently caused by race, gender, or class. For instance, in 2017 the
average Hispanic and black American household made $10,000 and $20,000 less than the
national average, respectively.​13​ In other words, those who are affected by racial inequality are
more likely to be affected by economic inequality. For this reason, the need for upward
socioeconomic mobility is even more crucial. Since a college education is one of the ways to
achieve this mobility, the college admissions process is a key area where inequality can be
lessened.​14
 Piazza 3

Unfortunately, the increased competition and cost of college shows that the college
admissions process has failed to create an even playing field for all applicants. With the number
of applications skyrocketing, the demand for college has steadily increased over the last few
decades.​15​ On the other hand, the supply remains stagnant: in the next decade, the number of
students enrolled in college is expected to increase by less than 5 percent.​16​ It is increasingly
common that a student cannot be afforded a spot at a university. Therefore, colleges are forced to
design a process which accepts only the most qualified applicants. However, the current system
has many flaws which prevent this from occurring.​17​ Wealthier applicants typically attend better
high schools, have more access to private admissions counseling and tutoring, and are able to
pay the application fee for more schools.​18​ Another major factor which benefits wealthy
applicants is legacy admissions: the boost many top schools give to the applicants whose parents
attended the school.​19​ Legacy admissions are estimated to nearly double students’ chances at
some top schools, and predominantly give an advantage to wealthy applicants because of their
parents’ educational and career success.​20

There is already one major measure in place to address inequity in the admissions
process: affirmative action. Affirmative action was first implemented by the Kennedy
 Piazza 4

administration in 1961 to “ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color,
​ In its current state, affirmative action is the process of giving
religion, sex, or national origin.” 21​
preferential treatment to applicants from underrepresented backgrounds.​22​ As it stands,
affirmative action is employed predominantly as a result of an applicant’s race, and does not
apply to an applicant’s economic status.​23

Affirmative action has caused significant controversy in the last decade. One notable case
is ​Fisher v. University of Texas,​ where a woman argued she was rejected in favor of worse
applicants because she was white.​24​ Another recent example is ​SFFA v. Harvard,​ where an
advocacy group accused Harvard of discriminating against Asian American applicants through
​ With no agreed-upon
an interview process based on a subjective measure of “personality.” 25​
metric to evaluate students for spots at top colleges, reform to make the college admissions
process more equitable is essential.

Analysis of Affirmative Action

In addition to being controversial because of how it treats races differently, affirmative

action has also received criticism for not doing enough to help people of color. Despite
affirmative action being active since 1961, black and Hispanic students are still more
underrepresented at top colleges now than they were in 1980.​26​ For this reason, a number of
alternatives to affirmative action have been proposed in the last couple of years.​27​ Chief among
them is the notion that affirmative action should be based purely on a student’s financial
situation, not their race or gender.​28​ This alternative has gained traction among Americans: 61
percent are in favor of consideration of economic status in admissions, yet only 37 percent are in
favor of consideration of race.​29

The question remains of whether class-based affirmative action would address the issues
of racial inequality that affirmative action attempts to address in the status quo. Since the average
person of color makes significantly less than the average American, this system would
proportionately help minority Americans more than if it did not exist at all​.30​
​ However, this plan
would do less than purely race-based affirmative action does in the status quo. An analysis of
 Piazza 5

American students’ SAT scores shows that if economic status were the only factor considered in
affirmative action, it is likely that almost no spots at America’s top universities would be filled
by black students.​31​ Additionally, there are three times as many low-income white Americans as
there are low-income black Americans.​32​ The result of this fact is that while a class-based
affirmative action would help people of color compared to a ​random a​ ssignment of which
applicants to help, it is still much less helpful than one which explicitly factors in race.

Both class and race-based affirmative actions lessen inequity in admissions somewhat but
fail to fully address the problem of underrepresentation. However, there is a more compelling
third option: an affirmative action which holistically evaluates applicants based on their financial
status as well as their race and gender. Applicants would be considered for affirmative action
based on a combination of their societal “disadvantages.” While some may say this process
would leave too much freedom to college admissions officers, it gives colleges no more freedom
regarding how to weigh certain demographics than they already have with race-based affirmative
action. This option shares the advantages of the other two. By considering race, the option would
help address the underrepresentation of minorities at top schools. Adding in economic status
would further address this because of the correlation between race and socioeconomic status. It
would also help those who come from low-income families but can’t take advantage of
affirmative action as is, providing broader coverage which acknowledges institutional racism as
well as class inequalities.

Alternative Changes to the Admissions Process

The current admissions system has many aspects which favor wealthier students. Top
public and private schools are most likely to go to wealthy high schools to market themselves
because those students are more desirable for the colleges financially.​33​ In addition to providing
the students information about the schools, this marketing makes a difference in the success of a
student’s application. Many schools use a “demonstrated interest” program where visiting a
university or going to an info session at your high school gives you preferential treatment in
admissions.​34​ Wealthier students are more likely to have the means to make these sorts of visits.
Another imbalanced component of the process is application fees. College applications can cost
 Piazza 6

as much as $100 per application, and while there are fee waivers available, they often require
external applications for each school to complete which give low-income students a significant
extra barrier.​35​ Other factors which benefit the wealthy include increased access to private
tutoring and legacy applications, which can cause rich students to have stronger applications on
paper through no means of their own.​36

While affirmative action is the most discussed feature in college admissions to resolve
inequality, there are other solutions which may accomplish the same goals. One such solution is
to put a limit on how selective colleges can be. Currently, a school’s selectivity is seen as a
badge for its alumni, equated directly with institutional pride.​37​ However, the increased
competition that fuels this pride impedes the possibility of socioeconomic mobility in the
admissions process. Therefore, limiting the number of applications that a given college can
receive would help even the playing field for low-income students. As it stands, college
counseling organizations advise students to apply to somewhere between seven to ten colleges to
maximize their chances at getting in.​38​ Setting a limit on this number would stop the trend of
declining acceptance rates, but it would also help curb inequality. This change would primarily
impact those students who are able to apply to many schools, which tend to be wealthier than
those who don’t.​39​ Therefore, setting a limit on
application numbers would help raise the
representation of low-income applications a
given school receives, which would
consequently lessen underrepresentation in the
accepted class.

Another option is to eliminate

universities’ legacy programs altogether.
Almost half of private institutions currently
consider legacy status as a factor in admissions
– a practice which tends to favor wealthy and white students.​40​ At schools like Harvard, legacy
students are more than six times as likely to be admitted compared to their non-legacy
 Piazza 7

counterparts, which means about a third of the school’s entering class could be occupied by
legacy students.​41​ Eliminating legacy altogether would immediately make the process more
equitable, getting rid of one of the many advantages that privileged students have at their
disposal.

Implementation and Feasibility of Solutions

As the previously discussed solutions vary in their scope and scale, they also vary in their
difficulty to implement. The broadest and most challenging of the changes is the holistic
approach to affirmative action. Affirmative action in the U.S. today has been shaped by laws,
executive orders, and supreme court cases dating back to the middle of the 20​th​ century.​42​ The
suggested change to affirmative action thus demands new federal laws which would apply to all
public and private schools in order to be enacted. The historical controversy surrounding
affirmative action would make this sweeping change even more difficult.​43​ An additional factor
which may make colleges hesitant to accept such a change is the existence of need-blind
admissions. 108 schools in the U.S. have admissions which are need-blind, meaning a student’s
income is not factored at all into the admissions decision.​44​ Need-blind admissions are designed
so that schools don’t intentionally choose many wealthy students.​45​ While this is also the goal of
the proposed reform, the change to affirmative action would prohibit admissions from being
need-blind. This would represent a significant change to the way that many admissions offices
operate, which is an additional barrier to this solution.

A nationwide ban on legacy admissions would also need to be a result of a federal law.
While this may be less significant and easier to get passed in Congress, there are a number of
reasons that it may not succeed. First and foremost is the reason why legacy admissions exists in
the first place: to incentivize alumni to donate to their alma maters.​46​ Most schools would not be
likely to agree with a ban on legacy admissions since they rely to some extent on these donations
for their continued operation.​47​ Another potential issue with the implementation of this solution
is that wealthy parents may still find a way to seek an advantage in admissions. These sorts of
advantages have appeared in the past through events like the 2019 admissions scandals where
parents privately paid admissions officers to be let in.​48​ With that said, a ban on legacy
 Piazza 8

admissions would be likely to reduce the net total of students who are admitted to top schools
primarily because of their wealth.

The most straightforward solution is the limitation on the number of schools students can
apply to. Almost 900 universities currently use the Common Application to receive applications
– an interface which allows students to complete all of their applications in one place.​49​ While a
strict federal restriction on the number of colleges students can apply to would be difficult
because it would require a centralized system through which all applications pass, the Common
App alone could make a significant change by restricting the schools one can apply to on their
platform. Other less popular “central” application services like the Universal College Application
could implement the same changes.​50​ Since the Common App and other interfaces like it provide
schools with advertising and increase the number of applications they receive, schools would
likely opt to remain in the Common App system.​51​ Therefore, this would be a comparatively easy
and effective change to be made on the part of the Common App, and could significantly reduce
inequality and therefore promote socioeconomic mobility.

Conclusion

The institution of college admissions is one which desperately needs a reformed sense of
justice and opportunity. The advantages given to students who are born into more fortunate
circumstances add up, and result in continued underrepresentation of people of color and other
minority groups at top schools. A variety of solutions are available which could reduce these
advantages and make the system more fair. The implementation of all of these solutions
ultimately falls in the hands of the federal government and organizations like the College Board
and the Common Application to implement these changes. All of these solutions, ranging from
expanding the way affirmative action works to preventing students from a ban on legacy
admissions, would be instrumental in minimizing inequality in the United States.
 Piazza 9

Endnotes
1. Mark A. Heckler, “The importance of a college education,” ​Chicago Tribune,​ Sep. 11, 2018
(https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-heckler-guest-column-st-0912-story.html).
2. Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith, Jeff Strohl, ​Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements Through
2020,​ McCourt School of Public Policy,
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/recovery-job-growth-and-education-requirements-through-2020/ (Apr. 13,
2020).
3. Andrew P. Kelly, ​Does College Really Improve Social Mobility?​, Brookings,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/11/does-college-really-improve-social-mobility/
(Apr. 13, 2020).
4. Ibid.
5. Amanda Ripley, “Why is College in America So Expensive?”, ​The Atlantic,​ Sep. 11, 2018
(https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/09/why-is-college-so-expensive-in-america/569884/).
6. Princeton Review, ​Best Financial Aid,​
https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-financial-aid (Apr. 13, 2020).
7. Drew Desilver, ​A Majority of U.S. Colleges Admit Most Students Who Apply,​ Pew Research Center,
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/09/a-majority-of-u-s-colleges-admit-most-students-who-apply​ (Apr.
13, 2020).
8. Ibid.
9. Anemona Hartocollis, Kate Taylor, “Elite Colleges Announce Record Low Admission Rates in Wake of College
Cheating Scandal,” ​The New York Times,​ Mar. 29, 2019
(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/college-admissions-rates.html).
10. Jack Schneider, “The Urban-School Stigma,” ​The Atlantic,​ Aug. 25, 2017
(https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-urban-school-stigma/537966/).
11. Ibid.
12. Danyelle Solomon, Connor Maxwell, ​Systemic Inequality: Displacement, Exclusion, and Segregation,​ Center
for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusi
on-segregation/ (Apr. 13, 2020).
13. U.S. Census Bureau, ​Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2017,​
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf (Apr. 13, 2020).
14.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/11/does-college-really-improve-social-mobility/.
15. ​https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/09/a-majority-of-u-s-colleges-admit-most-students-who-apply​.
16. Erin Duffin, ​College enrollment in the United States from 1965 to 2018 and projections up to 2029 for public
and private colleges,​ Statista,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/
(Apr. 13, 2020).
17. Catherine Van Weele, “College Admissions Favor Wealthy Applicants,” ​The Daily Aztec,​ May 1, 2019
(https://thedailyaztec.com/94550/opinion/college-admissions-favor-wealthy-applicants/).
18. Abigail Hess, ​Rich students get better SAT scores - here’s why​, CNBC,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html (Apr. 13, 2020).
19. Joe Pinsker, “The Real Reasons Legacy Preferences Exist,” ​The Atlantic,​ Apr. 4, 2019
(https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/legacy-admissions-preferences-ivy/586465/).
20. Ibid.
21. UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, ​A Brief History of Affirmative Action​,
http://www.oeod.uci.edu/policies/aa_history.php (Apr. 13, 2020).
22. Louis Menand, “The Changing Meaning of Affirmative Action,” ​The New Yorker,​ Jan. 13, 2020
(https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/20/have-we-outgrown-the-need-for-affirmative-action).
23. Richard Kahlenberg, “Affirmative action should be based on class, not race,” ​The Economist,​ Sep. 4, 2018
(https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/04/affirmative-action-should-be-based-on-class-not-race).
24. Oyez, ​Fisher v. University of Texas​, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981 (Apr. 13, 2020).
 Piazza 10

25. Clare Lombardo, Elissa Nadworny, ​Federal Judge Upholds Harvard’s Race-Conscious Admissions Process​,
NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/730386096/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of-harvard-in-admissions-case (Apr.
13, 2020).
26. Jeremy Ashkenas, Haeyoun Park, Adam Pearce, “Even With Affirmative Action, Blacks and Hispanics Are
More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago,” ​The New York Times​, Aug. 24, 2017
(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html).
27. Halley Potter, ​Affirmative Action Alternatives,​ The Century Foundation,
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/affirmative-action-alternatives/ (Apr. 13, 2020).
28. ​The Economist​, Sep. 4, 2018.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, ​Income-Based Affirmative Action Will Do Almost Nothing to
Produce Racial Diversity in Public Schools or in Colleges and Universities​,
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/56_income-based_action.html (Apr. 13, 2020).
32. Ibid.
33. Jillian Berman, ​The lesser-known way wealthy students have an edge in college admissions,​ MarketWatch,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-lesser-known-way-wealthy-students-have-an-edge-in-college-admissions-r
ecruitment-by-top-public-colleges-2019-03-27 (Apr. 13, 2020).
34. Ibid.
35. CollegeBoard, ​College Application Fee Waiver FAQs,​
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/get-in/applying-101/college-application-fee-waivers (Apr. 13, 2020).
36. Scott Jaschik, ​Wealth and Admissions​, Inside Higher Ed,
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/03/18/look-many-legal-ways-wealthy-applicants-have-edg
e-admissions (Apr. 13, 2020).
37. Jacoba Urist, “Is College Really Harder to Get Into Than It Used To Be?”, ​The Atlantic,​ Apr. 4, 2014
(https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/is-college-really-harder-to-get-into-than-it-used-to-be/3601
14/).
38. CollegeVine, ​How Many Colleges Should I Apply To?,
https://blog.collegevine.com/how-many-colleges-should-i-apply-to/ (Apr. 13, 2020).
39.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-lesser-known-way-wealthy-students-have-an-edge-in-college-admissions-r
ecruitment-by-top-public-colleges-2019-03-27.
40. Max Larkin, Mayowa Aina, ​Legacy Admissions Offer An Advantage - And Not Just At Schools Like Harvard​,
NPR,
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/663629750/legacy-admissions-offer-an-advantage-and-not-just-at-schools-like-har
vard (Apr. 13, 2020).
41. Ibid.
42. CNN, ​Affirmative Action Fast Facts,​
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/us/affirmative-action-fast-facts/index.html (Nov. 13, 2019).
43. Claire Andre, Manuel Velasquez, Tim Mazur, ​Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy​, Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics, https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html (Apr. 13, 2020).
44. Ashley Robinson, ​All 108 Need-Blind Colleges in the US: A Complete Guide​, PrepScholar,
https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list (Apr. 13, 2020).
45. Ibid.
46. BuzzFeed News, ​I Worked In College Admissions And Had To Admit A Bunch Of Mediocre Rich Kids,​
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/anonymousadmissions/college-admissions-scam-felicity-huffman-lori-loughl
in-ivy (Apr. 13, 2020).
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Common App, ​Member Institutions​, https://www.commonapp.org/members (Apr. 13, 2020).
50. Universal College Application, ​Universal College Application,​ https://www.universalcollegeapp.com/ (Apr. 13,
2020).
51. Common App, ​Common Application​, https://www.commonapp.org/ (Apr. 13, 2020).