ReportWire

Tag: College admissions

  • Powering college readiness through community partnerships

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    Texas faces a widening gap between high school completion and college readiness. Educators are already doing important and demanding work, but closing this gap will require systemic solutions, thoughtful policy, and sustained support to match their efforts.

    A recent American Institutes for Research report shows that just 56.8 percent of Texas’ graduating seniors met a college-readiness standard. Furthermore, 27 percent of rural students attend high schools that don’t offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses. This highlights a significant gap in preparedness and accessibility.

    This summer, distinguished K-12 educators and nonprofit leaders discussed how to better support college-bound students.

    The gap widens

    Among them was Saki Milton, mathematics teacher and founder of The GEMS Camp, a nonprofit serving minority girls in male-dominated studies. She stressed the importance of accessible, rigorous coursework. “If you went somewhere where there’s not a lot of AP offerings or college readiness courses … you’re just not going to be ready. That’s a fact.”

    Additional roundtable participants reminded us that academics alone aren’t enough. Students struggle considerably with crucial soft skills such as communication, time management, and active listening. Many aspiring college-bound students experience feelings of isolation–a disconnect between their lived experiences and a college-ready mentality, often due to the lack of emotional support.

    Says Milton, “How do we teach students to build community for themselves and navigate these institutions, because that’s a huge part? Content and rigor are one thing, but a college’s overall system is another. Emphasizing how to build that local community is huge!”

    “Kids going to college are quitting because they don’t have the emotional support once they get there,” says Karen Medina, director of Out of School Time Programs at Jubilee Park. “They’re not being connected to resources or networking groups that can help them transition to college. They might be used to handling their own schedule and homework, but then they’re like, ‘Who do I go to?’ That’s a lot of the disconnection.”

    David Shallenberger, vice president of advancement at the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Dallas, indicates that the pandemic contributed to that soft skills deficit. “Many students struggled to participate meaningfully in virtual learning, leaving them isolated and without opportunities for authentic interaction. Those young learners are now in high school and will likely struggle to transition to higher education.”

    Purposeful intervention

    These challenges–academic and soft skills gaps–require purposeful intervention.

    Through targeted grants, more than 35,000 North Texas middle and high school students can access college readiness tools. Nonprofit leaders are integrating year-round academic and mentorship support to prepare students academically and emotionally.

    Latoyia Greyer of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Tarrant County introduced a summer program with accompanying scholarship opportunities. The organization is elevating students’ skills through interview practice. Like ours, her vision is to instill confidence in learners.

    Greyer isn’t alone. At the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, Development Officer Elizabeth Card uses the grant to advance college readiness by strengthening its high school internship program. She aims to spark students’ curiosity, introduce rewarding career pathways, and foster a passion for STEM. She also plans to bolster core soft skills through student interactions with museum guests and hands-on biology experiments.

    These collaborative efforts have clarified the message: We can do extraordinary things by partnering. Impactful and sustainable progress in education cannot occur in a vacuum. Grant programs such as the AP Success Grant strengthen learning and build equity, and our partners are the driving force toward changing student outcomes.

    The readiness gap continues to impact Texas students, leaving them at a disadvantage as they transition to college. School districts alone cannot solve this challenge; progress requires active collaboration with nonprofits, businesses, and community stakeholders. The path forward is clear–partnerships have the power to drive meaningful change and positively impact our communities.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Jeffrey A. Elliott, UWorld

    Source link

  • Making career readiness meaningful in today’s classrooms

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    As a high school STEM teacher at Baldwin Preparatory Academy, I often ask myself: How can we make classroom learning more meaningful for our students? In today’s rapidly evolving world, preparing learners for the future isn’t about gathering academic knowledge. It is also about helping all learners explore potential careers and develop the future-ready skills that will support success in the “real world” beyond graduation.

    One way to bring those two goals together is by drawing a clear connection between what is learned in the classroom and future careers. In fact, research from the Education Insights Report shows that a whopping 87 percent of high school students believe that career connections make school engaging–and as we all know, deeper student engagement leads to improved academic growth.

    I’ve tried a lot of different tactics to get kids engaged in careers over my 9 years of teaching. Here are my current top recommendations:

    Internship opportunities
    As many educators know, hands-on learning is effective for students. The same goes for learning about careers. Internship opportunities give students a way to practice a career by doing the job.

    I advise students to contact local businesses about internships during the school year and summer. Looking local is a wonderful way to make connections, learn an industry, and practice career skills–all while gaining professional experience.

    Tallo is another good internship resource because it’s a digital network of internships across a range of industries and internship types. With everything managed in Tallo, it’s easy for high school students to find and get real-world work experience relevant to school learning and career goals. For educators, this resource is helpful because it provides pathways for students to gain employable skills and transition into the workforce or higher education.

    Career events
    In-person career events where students get to meet individuals in industries they are interested in are a great way for students to explore future careers. One initiative that stands out is the upcoming Futures Fair by Discovery Education. Futures Fair is a free virtual event on November 5, 2025, to inspire and equip students for career success.

    Held over a series of 30-minute virtual sessions, students meet with professionals from various industries sharing an overview of their job, industry, and the path they took to achieve it. Organizations participating in the Futures Fair are 3M, ASME, Clayco, CVS Health, Drug Enforcement Administration, Genentech, Hartford, Honda, Honeywell, Illumina, LIV Golf, Meta, Norton, Nucor, Polar Bears International, Prologis, The Home Depot, Verizon, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

    Students will see how the future-ready skills they are learning today are used in a range of careers. These virtual sessions will be accompanied by standards-aligned, hands-on student learning tasks designed to reinforce the skills outlined by industry presenters. 

    CTE Connections
    All students at Baldwin Preparatory Academy participate in a career and technical education pathway of their choosing, taking 6-9 career specific credits, and obtaining an industry-recognized credential over the course of their secondary education. As a STEM teacher, I like to connect with my CTE and core subject colleagues to learn about the latest innovations in their space. Then I connect those innovations to my classroom instruction so that all students get the benefit of learning about new career paths.

    For example, my industry partners advise me about the trending career clusters that are experiencing significant growth in job demand. These are industries like cybersecurity, energy, and data science. With this insight, I looked for relevant reads or classroom activities related to one of those clusters. Then, I shared the resources back with my CTE and core team so there’s an easy through line for the students.

    As educators, our role extends beyond teaching content–we’re shaping futures. Events like Futures Fair and other career readiness programs help students see the relevance of their learning and give them the confidence to pursue their goals. With resources like these, we can help make career readiness meaningful, engaging, and empowering for every student.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Stanford, RN, Baldwin Preparatory Academy

    Source link

  • They love me, they love me not: Smart strategies to help students find the perfect college

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    You’ll often hear two words come up in advising sessions as students look ahead to college: match and fit. They sound interchangeable, but they’re not.

    Match refers to what colleges are looking for from students. It’s mostly determined by admissions requirements such as GPA and test scores, and in some cases, other criteria like auditions, portfolios, or athletic ability. Fit is more of an art than a science; it refers to what the student is looking for in a college, including personal preferences, social and cultural environment, financial factors, and academic offerings. When we talk to students about college fit, it’s an opportunity for them to ask themselves whether they like what a certain institution offers beyond being admitted.

    In the college admissions process, both terms matter. A strong match without a good fit can leave a student disengaged and negatively affect their chances of graduating from college. Nearly a quarter of undergraduate freshmen drop out before their second year, and it seems likely to me that a lot of these cases boil down to bad fits. On the other hand, a great fit that isn’t a match could be difficult for admission in the first place, and if a student is admitted anyway, the rigorous coursework they encounter might be more than they’re ready for. To maximize postsecondary success, advisors, families, and students alike should fully understand the difference between match and fit and know how to approach conversations about each of them.

    Match: Reach, target, and solid

    As I’ve worked with advisors over the years, one of the best ways we’ve found to guide students on match is using the categories of “Reach,” “Target,” and “Solid” schools. We can determine which schools belong to what category using the data that colleges share about the average incoming GPAs and test scores of admitted classes. Typically, they report weighted GPAs and composite test scores from the middle 50 percent of accepted applicants, i.e., from the students who fall anywhere from the 25th to 75th percentile of those admitted.

    • Reach: These are schools where admission is less likely, either because a student’s test scores and GPA are below the middle 50 percent or because the school traditionally admits only a small percentage of eligible applicants.
    • Target: These are schools where either GPA or test scores fall in the middle 50 percent of admitted students.
    • Solid: These are schools where students are well within the middle 50 percent for both GPA and test scores.

    Building a balanced college list across these categories is essential in the college planning process. Often, I see high-achieving students over-index on too many Reach schools, which may make it hard for them to get accepted anywhere on their list, simply because their preferred schools are ultra-selective. Meanwhile, parents and guardians may focus heavily on fit and overlook whether the student actually meets the college’s admission criteria. Advisors play a key role in keeping these data-informed conversations grounded with the goal of a balanced list of college options for students to pursue.

    The importance of early planning

    Timing matters. In general, if you meet with students early enough, conversations about fit are productive, but if you’re meeting with students for the first time in their senior year, the utmost priority should be helping them build a balanced list. Ideally, we want to avoid a situation where a student thinks they’re going to get into the most competitive colleges in the country on the strength of their GPA and test scores, only to find out that it’s not that easy. If advisors wait until senior year to address match, students and families may already have unrealistic expectations, leading to difficult conversations when options are limited.

    On the other hand, we would stress that although GPA is the factor given the most weight by admissions offices, there are ways to overcome match deficits with other elements of a college application. For instance, if a student worked part-time to support their family or participated in co-curricular activities, colleges using holistic review may see this as part of the student’s story, helping to balance a GPA that falls outside the typical range. These experiences highlight a student’s passions and potential contributions to their chosen major and campus community. We don’t want students to have unrealistic expectations, but we also shouldn’t limit them based on numbers alone.

    In any case, advisors should introduce both match and fit concepts as early as 9th grade. If students have a specific college in mind, they need to be aware of the match requirements from the first day of freshman year of high school. This allows students to plan and track academic progress against requirements and lets families begin exploring what kind of environment, resources, and financial realities would make for the right fit.

    Fit: A personal process

    Once match is established, the next step is making sure students ask: “What do I want in my college experience?” The answers will involve a wide range of factors:

    • Institutional type: Public or private? Small liberal arts college or large research university?
    • Academic considerations: What majors are offered? Are there study abroad programs? Internship opportunities?
    • Student life: What is the student body like? What kind of extracurriculars, sports, and support services are offered? Are there fraternities and sororities? What is the campus culture?
    • Affordability: What financial aid or scholarships can I expect? What is the true net cost of attendance?
    • Outcomes: What a student hopes to gain from their postsecondary experience, including specific degrees or credentials, career preparation, financial benefits, personal growth, and skill development.

    Fit also requires conversations within families. I’ve found that open communication can reveal misunderstandings that would otherwise falsely limit students’ options. Sometimes students assume their parents want them close to home, when in fact, parents just want them to find the right environment. Other times, families discover affordability looks very different once they use tools like free cost calculators. Ongoing dialogue about these topics between advisors, students, and families during the high school years helps prepare for better decisions in the end.

    Bringing it all together

    With more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. alone, every student can find a college or university that aligns with their goals and abilities. Doing so, however, is both an art and a science. Advisors who help families focus on both dimensions, and start the conversation early, set students up to receive those treasured acceptance letters and to thrive once they arrive on campus.

    For school districts developing their proficiency in postsecondary readiness factors, like advising, there is an increasing amount of support available. For one, TexasCCMR.org, has free guidance resources to strengthen advising programs and other aspects of college and career readiness. While Texas-focused, many of the insights and tools on the site can be helpful for districts across the country in building their teams’ capabilities.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Donald Kamentz, Contigo Ed

    Source link

  • Why mentorship networks are essential in the college admissions process

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    As the vice president of academic affairs and a member of the admissions committee at SSP International (SSPI), a nonprofit organization offering immersive scientific experiences, I review hundreds of applications each year from rising seniors for our flagship program, Summer Science Program. What we’ve learned is that many of our bright and talented students are navigating their academic careers without access to the same supports as similarly high-achieving students.

    Where other Summer Science Program applicants might benefit from private tutors, college consultants, or guidance from parents familiar with the college application process and the high stress of today’s competitive college market, these students rise to the top of the applicant pool without leaning on the same resources as their peers.

    This is especially true for first-generation students who will be the first in their families to graduate from high school, go through the college admissions process, apply for financial aid, and enroll in college. Not only do they need to be more resourceful and self-reliant without the support of their personal networks, but they also often take on the responsibility of guiding their parents through these processes, rather than the other way around.

    School counselor shortage

    For many students who are underrepresented in academia, their exposure to different colleges, careers, and networks comes from their school counselors. While the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommends a minimum student-to-school counselor ratio of 250:1, the nationwide shortage of counselors led to a national average ratio of 385:1 between 2020-2023. That is a lot of strain on counselors who already serve as jacks of all trades–needing to keep up with evolving college admissions processes, understand the financial circumstances of hundreds of families, provide emotional support, and stay on top of the job market to advise accordingly. This ultimately affects the level of personalized counseling students receive.

    Making the college admissions process accessible

    In 2020, SSPI launched College Link, a mentorship program offering Summer Science Program alumni access to one-on-one or group mentoring. Mentors support students during their transition from high school to college through guidance on financial aid, early decision/early action processes, college applications, personal essay writing, resume workshopping, and more. To date, College Link has served over 650 mentees and recruited over 580 mentors sourced from SSPI’s 4,200 alumni network.

    This mentorship network comprises individuals from various backgrounds, leading successful and diverse careers in academia and STEM. Mentors like Dr. Emma Louden, an astrophysicist, strategist, and youth advocate who also helped develop the program, provided SSPI’s recent alumni with insights from their real-world professional experiences. This helps them explore a variety of careers within the STEM field beyond what they learn about in the classroom.

    Demographic data from last year’s Summer Science Program cohort showed that 37 percent of participants had parents with no higher education degree. That is why College Link prioritizes one-on-one mentoring for first-generation college alumni who need more personalized guidance when navigating the complexities of the college application and admission process.

    College Link also offers group mentoring for non-first-generation students, who receive the same services from several mentors bringing great expertise on the varying topics highlighted from week to week.

    With the support of College Link, nearly one hundred percent of Summer Science Program alumni have gone on to attend college, including MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Caltech and other prestigious institutions.

    Using College Link as a blueprint

    As the U.S. continues to face a counselor shortage, schools can further support students, especially first-generation students, through the college admissions process by creating mentorship networks using the College Link model. Schools can tap into their alumni network and identify successful role models who are ready to mentor younger generations and guide them beyond the admissions process. With the widespread implementation of Zoom in our everyday lives, it is now easier than ever to build networks virtually.

    Mentorship networks in schools can provide additional support systems for high school students and alleviate the pressures school counselors experience daily during college admissions season. Let’s continue to ensure the college admissions process is accessible to all students.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Dr. Mike Manzella, SSP International

    Source link

  • Amid the many problems with the new FAFSA, ‘every student’ should appeal for more financial aid, one expert says

    Amid the many problems with the new FAFSA, ‘every student’ should appeal for more financial aid, one expert says

    [ad_1]

    PeopleImages | E+ | Getty Images

    Above all else, the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid was designed to improve college access.

    However, problems with the rollout have left many students and their families frustrated with fewer students applying overall. As of the last tally, nearly 4 million students have submitted the 2024-25 FAFSA form so far.  

    That’s a fraction of the 17 million students who use the FAFSA form in ordinary years, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

    More from Personal Finance:
    How the affirmative action decision affects college applicants
    Biden administration forgives $4.9 billion in student debt
    College enrollment picks up, but student debt is a sticking point

    Higher education already costs more than most families can afford, and college costs are still rising. Tuition and fees plus room and board for a four-year private college averaged $56,190 in the 2023-2024 school year; at four-year, in-state public colleges, it was $24,030, according to the College Board.

    For most students and their families, the amount of financial aid offered and the breakdown between grants, scholarships, work-study opportunities and student loans are key to covering the tab.

    This year, those award letters will likely to look a lot different — and those changes open the door for families to ask for more college aid, experts say.

    “Every student should anticipate doing an appeal this year,” said Bethany Hubert, a financial aid specialist with Going Merry by Earnest.

    What’s changed with the new FAFSA

    ‘Sibling discount’ change makes a ‘good case’ to appeal

    How to appeal for more college aid

    “If the new FAFSA impacted you, for example, you no longer qualify for the sibling discount, colleges do have the ability to take that into account,” Hubert said. “That is something families can reasonably ask for.”

    “The first step is always going to be reach out to the financial aid office and ask them about their process,” Hubert advised. Then, start preparing your appeal.

    If there are need-based issues beyond what was noted in the financial aid paperwork, such as another sibling in college or changes in your financial circumstances, that should be explained to the school and documented, if possible.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Survey Reveals Key Insights Into Today’s College Admissions Landscape

    Survey Reveals Key Insights Into Today’s College Admissions Landscape

    [ad_1]

    AcceptU’s recent national survey of more than 400 high school students and parents provides 10 key takeaways on what matters to college applicants today and how they – and their families – are approaching the admissions process at a time of significant change

    At a time of significant change in higher education, gaining insight into the mindset, attitudes and perspectives of today’s college applicants is crucial. How are they approaching the admissions process? What matters to them (and their parents)? What are their priorities, concerns and opinions – and how is that shaping their college decisions? 

    The Parent & Student College Admissions Survey, conducted nationally in December 2023 by AcceptU, a leading college consulting firm, provides insights into these questions – and more. With more than 400 high school parents and students participating, the survey captures a diverse range of viewpoints on key issues, such as affordability, diversity, mental health and college choice. 

    Our findings reveal a complex and multifaceted picture of the current college admissions playing landscape, offering a glimpse into the trends that may redefine the future of higher education – for both students and universities. We have distilled responses into 10 key takeaways, each offering unique insights and implications for applicants, parents and academic institutions. 

    1. Half of applicants want to ban legacy admission; one-third support affirmative action 
    2. Families are divided on the impact of political and social issues on college choice 
    3. COVID-19 no longer impacts college planning for the majority of families 
    4. Eighty percent of students cite cost as the dominant factor influencing their college decisions 
    5. Students are stressed about the college process and the majority say their parents are the cause 
    6. Parents are deeply involved – and many say it’s because schools are falling short 
    7. College rankings still matter a lot and one-third of applicants will apply to 20+ colleges 
    8. Applicants are taking a pragmatic approach, prioritizing academics, cost and career 
    9. Career prospects drive major choice and indicate a paradox for non-STEM majors 
    10. Twenty-five percent of students are opting for test-optional; many are skeptical of testing efficacy 

    “Our recent survey illuminates the evolving dynamics in college admissions, offering invaluable insights directly from families navigating this complex journey,” said Marc Zawel, CEO of AcceptU. “The diverse responses not only open a window into today’s applicant priorities and concerns but also highlight evolving trends.”

    “The insights from our survey highlight a transformative period in college admissions,” said Stephen Friedfeld, COO of AcceptU. “We’re seeing a paradigm shift in applicant behavior, priorities and strategies, fundamentally altering the landscape for students, parents and educational institutions alike.”

    AcceptU is the #1 rated college consulting group. Its team, composed entirely of former college admissions officers, advises families on all aspects of the college planning process, enabling students to stand out and realize their full potential. Since 2010, AcceptU has supported nearly 7,000 applicants in the process; more than 90% are admitted to one, or more, of their top three choices. 

    ###

    Source: AcceptU

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • OPINION: Legacy admissions are unnecessary, raise moral concerns and exclude deserving students

    OPINION: Legacy admissions are unnecessary, raise moral concerns and exclude deserving students

    [ad_1]

    The end of affirmative action has triggered a reconsideration of legacy admissions. When universities extend advantages to the families of donors and alums, they discriminate against others, especially lower-income and Black students.

    Legacy admissions began to get more attention after the Department of Education initiated a civil rights investigation in July 2023 into Harvard’s legacy practice. That was a good beginning, but donors and alums are also responsible for legacy preferences.

    Let’s be clear: If it is wrong for universities to give preference to alums and donors, it is wrong for alums and donors to seek those privileges.

    When donations to a university are followed by preferential admissions, donors are complicit in the discrimination, inequality and injustice that follow. When donors give with an eye toward future privileges for themselves or for their offspring, they may be engaging in moral licensing: doing good to do bad. Their generosity does not entitle them to advantages that deprive others of opportunities.

    It is not surprising that many elite institutions still offer legacy advantages. The policy is a win-win — for donors, alums and the receiving institutions.

    Related: PROOF POINTS: Why elite colleges won’t give up legacy admissions

    But there are losses for the students not admitted, for our sense of justice and for other universities that might have received the donations.

    To be fair, not all donors are looking for a win-win. Some are guided by a moral compass. They give to colleges and universities that promote diversity and equality, with a focus on Black students and middle- and lower-income students.

    In 2020 for example, MacKenzie Scott donated $560 million to 23 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

    If it is wrong for universities to give preference to alums and donors, it is wrong for alums and donors to seek those privileges.

    In August of that year, Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research — even though Dorsey didn’t finish college and didn’t attend Boston University.

    In the fall of 2022, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $100 million to the United Negro College Fund and to other institutions that promote higher education as a means to equality for lower income, Black, Latinx and Indigenous students.

    This fall, Blue Meridian Partners’ gave $124 million to 40 HBCUs.

    All of this hints at a change in giving norms.

    Simply put: There are people in the world who will give generously to support racial equality in higher education. Their giving doesn’t target their alma mater. They don’t anticipate legacy advantages. Their gifts promote the right to education, and do so without deepening inequality.

    When donors choose this path, their donations will have a positive impact on a greater number of students, many of whom have endured bias and discrimination. Although these donations cannot compensate for past wrongs, they can promote future good.

    Philanthropy is an important mechanism for achieving justice. It gives those who have benefited from collective efforts an opportunity to give back, and some donors agree. As MacKenzie Scott said, “There’s no question in my mind that anyone’s personal wealth is the product of a collective effort, and of social structures which present opportunities to some people, and obstacles to countless others.”

    This is not to say that it is always wrong to benefit from one’s charitable actions. Certainly, the warm glow of generosity is a reward in and of itself. But that is very different from a pay-to-play scenario in which giving entails a benefit to the donor at a cost to others.

    It is true, however, that legacy preferences can build a sense of community and generate the donations universities need to do the work they want to do. Some donors might not give but for legacy advantages.

    Also, an “all in the family” approach to admissions creates a community, one that enhances college life. But who is excluded from that community? And what are the consequences for those left out?

    In other contexts, when a donation is linked to a wrong, or a human rights violation, the donor is seen as complicit in that wrong. Donors who give to anti-LGBTQ+ nonprofits are complicit in discrimination against members of the queer community, and those who give to the NRA share responsibility for gun violence.

    In the case of legacy admissions, elite universities are effectively discriminating against less privileged students for the benefit of the wealthy — and some donors are enabling them.

    Related: OPINION: The Supreme Court just revealed what we already know — Meritocracy is a myth

    Fortunately, some universities have already taken legacy preferences off the table. MIT and Wesleyan, for example.

    Their actions and the recent donations to HBCUs signal an important change in giving norms and perhaps a bandwagon effect. Hopefully, others will follow the money and legacy practices will soon be a thing of the past. Donors are the engine that drive legacy admissions. They can end them swiftly. Why wait for universities to end legacy admissions, when donors have the power to do so?

    Patricia Illingworth is a professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Her most recent book, “Giving Now: Accelerating Human Rights for All,” argues that philanthropy can and should protect human rights.

    This story about donors and legacy admissions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Patricia Ilingworth

    Source link

  • Harvard reworks essay requirements after affirmative action ban, emphasizes life experiences

    Harvard reworks essay requirements after affirmative action ban, emphasizes life experiences

    [ad_1]

    Harvard College is changing its essay requirements for high school seniors applying for admission, nodding to the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions.

    Under the new guidelines, applicants will be required to answer five questions instead of the previous single optional essay. Students will be asked to share how their life experiences, academic achievements and extracurricular activities have shaped them, and describe their aspirations for the future, according to Harvard spokesman Jonathan Palumbo.

    US college admissions offices face a challenging task as the application period begins this month. School officials will need to juggle the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions with still finding ways to promote diversity in the student population.

    The Supreme Court’s June ruling, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, said that universities could still take into account an applicant’s views of how race affected their life, as long as it was directly tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university’s community. Roberts cautioned that “universities may not simply establish through the application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”

    Harvard and the University of North Carolina were named defendants in the case.

    The Harvard Crimson previously reported the changes to the school’s essay requirements. Versions of Harvard’s new format existed in previous applications. Now, all applicants will have to answer the same set of questions.

    Other US colleges are also adapting their approach to admissions. The University of Virginia is offering applicants a chance to explain their backgrounds and how those experiences will contribute to the school.

    A revised application offers an optional essay opportunity that gives “all students – not only, for example, the children of our graduates, but also the descendants of ancestors who labored at the university, as well as those with other relationships – the chance to tell their unique stories,” President Jim Ryan and Provost Ian Baucom wrote in a letter this week.

    Sarah Lawrence, a liberal arts college in Bronxville, New York, has even incorporated Roberts’s words into an essay prompt, requesting applicants to reflect on how they believe the court’s decision might impact or influence their goals for a college education.

    Subscribe to Well Adjusted, our newsletter full of simple strategies to work smarter and live better, from the Fortune Well team. Sign up today.

    [ad_2]

    Janet Lorin, Bloomberg

    Source link

  • Republicans Question Legacy Admissions At Top Colleges

    Republicans Question Legacy Admissions At Top Colleges

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON ― Democrats want to eliminate the practice of legacy admissions at universities and colleges in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling overturning affirmative action, arguing that it unfairly benefits wealthy and often white families at the expense of lower-class applicants of color.

    The idea is being well met by a surprising number of Republican lawmakers who cheered the high court’s decision last month, but they stopped short of endorsing federal legislation that would actually ban institutions of higher education from giving preference to students with legacy or donor status.

    “I think legacy admissions, particularly at the super-elite universities, demonstrate even for them a large amount of hypocrisy, but I’m just not convinced we have the authority to tell them not to do it,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Wednesday.

    Legacy-based admissions occur when a college or university gives a preference to applicants based on whether a family member graduated from that institution or is related to a donor or a faculty member. Being a legacy can provide a huge boost to one’s odds of acceptance. The admission rate for legacy applicants at Harvard, for example, is over five times that of non-legacies.

    Legislation offered Wednesday by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oreg.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), which is called the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, would prohibit colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs from engaging in the practice. It would also give the Secretary of Education the ability to give certain exemptions to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

    “In the wake of the Supreme Court’s shameful decision to end race-conscious admissions policies, we’re about to see colleges across the country get even richer and whiter than they already are,” Bowman said in a statement. “It’s now more urgent than ever that we take action to create and support diverse learning environments, including by passing our bill to ban legacy admissions and continuing the fight to bring back affirmative action.”

    The bill has lots of Democratic support but no GOP co-sponsors. However, some Republicans echoed the critiques of legacy admissions.

    “It’s a little bit interesting that the elite universities which have done so much virtue signaling with regard to addressing disparities have this by which to cultivate loyalty among its students,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Health and Education Committee, told HuffPost.

    “Without taking a position, I can’t help but note that irony. If it turns out that that is a major contributor to inequality to our nation, I would expect them to voluntarily end it if they truly mean all those things for which they signal virtue,” he added of colleges and universities.

    Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a Yale Law graduate, agreed and called for “fundamental reform.” He said that admissions decisions should be “based on merit, not on who you knew, who your parents were, and what your race is.”

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who graduated from Harvard Law, said that the idea of eliminating legacy admissions would be “certainly a reasonable policy to consider.” He added, “There’s no doubt that in the wake of the affirmative action decision… there are many ways to ensure diversity in university admissions short of discriminating based on race.”

    Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the Senate and a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, also supports eliminating legacy programs at colleges, urging Harvard University to do so immediately after the Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action last month.

    Bowman urged Scott to support his legacy admissions bill in a chance encounter at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, but the senator was noncommittal, saying only he would “look” at the proposal.

    One argument that has been made against eliminating legacy admissions at top schools like Harvard is that they can also benefit minorities whose parents or grandparents are alumni.

    A Harvard class of 2023 graduate who identified himself only as Wonuola told HuffPost that many of his classmates would be reluctant to give up the practice.

    “As a member of the Black community at Harvard, I’ve talked to a lot of students who also would not want to see legacy admissions removed for their future children, and a lot of Black students from wealthy areas are legacy students,” he said at a Wednesday reception hosted by the Harvard Institute of Politics in downtown Washington, D.C.

    He added: “Students who are admitted through legacy admissions are also qualified to be at Harvard. I think a lot of them would be admitted even if they weren’t legacies.”

    But Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), another proponent of the bill, said that data shows that legacy admissions “overwhelmingly” disadvantage people of color.

    Van Hollen also argued that Congress is well within its rights to legislate on the issue because of the billions of dollars it provides to colleges and universities, including students attending them. Although Harvard is a private institution, for example, nearly 20 percent of Harvard students receive federal Pell Grants.

    “It’s interesting that Republicans who claim they want a fair process, equal admissions process, would be ducking with those kinds of excuses,” Van Hollen said. “I think it’s very clear that the current system is stacked against all students who are not part of that heredity privilege ― but the numbers show it’s especially stacked against students of color.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Education Department Opens Civil Rights Probe Into Harvard Legacy Admissions

    Education Department Opens Civil Rights Probe Into Harvard Legacy Admissions

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Education has launched a civil rights probe into Harvard University’s policy on legacy admissions in what can be seen as the next step in the legal fight over U.S. college admissions.

    Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based nonprofit, filed a federal civil rights complaint earlier this month on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England. The complaint, filed with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, accuses Harvard of engaging in the “discriminatory practice of giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to applicants with familial ties to wealthy donors and alumni.”

    The complaint asks the department to deem practices relating to legacy and donor preferences illegal and to order Harvard to stop such practices if it wants to continue receiving funds from the federal government.

    LCR said that the Education Department contacted the group on Monday about its request to open an investigation under Title VI into Harvard’s legacy admissions. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and institutions receiving federal financial assistance. An Education Department spokesperson separately confirmed the inquiry to HuffPost on Tuesday but declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing investigation.

    Efforts to target the common practice of favoring applicants with “legacy” status in the college admissions process have ramped up since the conservative Supreme Court ruled last month to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions. One of the two universities at the center of that case was Harvard.

    Democrats have since coalesced around the idea of eliminating legacy admissions, with Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.) announcing a plan to reintroduce their bill aimed at targeting policies that give an unfair advantage to college applicants who are the children of alumni and wealthy donors.

    President Joe Biden has not directly supported eliminating legacy admissions. But after the Supreme Court affirmative action ruling, he did argue that the college admissions process does not favor the working class. With studies showing that eliminating legacy preferences would do little to compensate for the loss of affirmative action, however, the White House is also looking at alternative ways to respond to the ruling.

    According to the LCR complaint, nearly 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white. Donor-related applicants are almost seven times more likely to be admitted than non-donor-related applicants, and legacy applicants are almost six times more likely to be admitted.

    A study released Monday by Harvard and Brown researchers found that wealthy students were twice as likely to be admitted to elite colleges as their lower- or middle-income counterparts with similar standardized test scores.

    “There’s no birthright to Harvard. As the Supreme Court recently noted, ‘eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.’ There should be no way to identify who your parents are in the college application process,” said LCR Executive Director Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal.

    “Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” he continued. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats Take Aim At Legacy Admissions After Court Rulings

    Democrats Take Aim At Legacy Admissions After Court Rulings

    [ad_1]

    Democrats are taking aim at the common practice of giving a leg up to the children of alumni and donors in the college admissions practice as a key plank of their response to the conservative Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions.

    The party seems to be coalescing behind the elimination of legacy admissions as it looks for a way to respond to the ruling. Representatives of the influential Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus all endorsed the idea on a call with reporters on Thursday afternoon, and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) are set to introduce legislation eliminating the practice soon.

    Studies have shown eliminating legacy preferences, which inherently favor those whose parents went to college or come from wealthy backgrounds, would do relatively little to change the demographic makeup of college enrollments, however, and Democrats and the White House are also looking at other ways to respond to the ruling.

    President Joe Biden, speaking shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s dual rulings striking down the affirmative action practices of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not directly call for the elimination of legacy admissions, though he argued that college admissions are tilted against the working class.

    “Today, for too many schools, the only people who benefit from the system are the wealthy and the well-connected. The odds have been stacked against working people for much too long,” Biden said. “We need a higher education system that works for everyone, from Appalachia to Atlanta.”

    The White House said it would work with the departments of Education and Justice to help inform colleges about the ways they can still consider race in college admissions and would host a summit next month for college leaders to discuss how to maintain diverse student bodies.

    Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) addresses the audience May 10 before President Joe Biden speaks at SUNY Westchester Community College in Valhalla, New York. Bowman plans to introduce legislation to eliminate legacy admissions in colleges.

    John Minchillo/Associated Press

    None of those steps is likely to generate as much controversy as eliminating legacy and donor admissions, which colleges are likely to fiercely defend. Many universities rely on the practice to help lure in donations from alumni and wealthy, status-seeking parents.

    “It’s unfair to have 25% of your admissions to be based on donations or whether your parents went to that school. To continue that at this point has to be called into question,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), the chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) echoed the point. “If SCOTUS was serious about their ludicrous “colorblindness” claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,” she wrote on Twitter.

    The effect of legacy admissions can be major: Some top universities accept more legacy students each year than Black and Latino students combined, and studies have estimated the value of having an alumni parent is equal to an increase of 160 points on an applicant’s SAT score.

    For example, data revealed in the lawsuit against Harvard found that recruited athletes, legacies, children of donors and children of faculty and staff make up 43% of the student body, compared with just 16% for Black students, Latino students and Asian American students combined.

    Still, a Duke University study looking at that data found simply eliminating legacy and donor admissions would improve racial and economic diversity but that the “increase in diversity resulting from the elimination of legacy and athlete preferences pales in comparison to the diversity benefits stemming from racial preferences.”

    Notably, the admissions policies in question at Harvard and UNC looked at race as one of a number of factors. Others were legacy and recruited athlete status. The other admissions factors, beyond race, remain untouched by the ruling.

    Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee, said those practices have become indefensible in a world without affirmative action to balance them, comparing them to the infamous “grandfather clauses” used to prevent Black citizens from voting after the Civil War.

    “It’s the same discriminatory effect that the grandfather clause had on voting,” Scott said. “The grandfathers and great-grandfathers are much more likely to be white.”

    Scott said he would ask Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate other practices he thought had a racially discriminatory effect on admissions, including racially biased standardized testing.

    Michael Dannenberg, a former education policy aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and a Department of Education official in President Barack Obama’s administration, backed other ideas in a recent Slate essay, including requiring wealthy colleges and universities to fund either historically black institutions or community colleges if they do not admit enough working-class applicants.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: Affirmative Action Is In Danger, Again

    Opinion: Affirmative Action Is In Danger, Again

    [ad_1]

    Barbara Grutter, a white lady from Michigan, filed suit when she was rejected by the University of Michigan Law School, which admitted that it took steps to ensure a racially diverse student body. In Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark case on affirmative action that caught national attention in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court determined the law school’s admissions policies were not unconstitutional.

    However, the companion case, Gratz v. Bollinger, saw a different ruling: The Supreme Court deemed Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action process — in which an automatic 20 extra points were given to Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans on a 150-point admission scale — unconstitutional.

    I was in my senior year at Michigan in 2003, and I remember all the eyes on us. As I was wrapping up an enriching and life-changing scholastic career at the university, I’d hoped against hope that the high court — and the rest of the world — saw the value in having more people who looked like me matriculate at such a prestigious university.

    Two decades later, we’re back at it as bored septuagenarian Edward Blum continues his tireless crusade toward keeping universities as white as possible with not one but two lawsuits by his nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions against the University of North Carolina and Harvard University.

    Perhaps the most visible and vocal plaintiff in these cases is Jon Wang, a Chinese American teenager who believes he was rejected by Harvard and five other top universities despite stellar grades and a 1590 SAT score because of affirmative action.

    However, one of those six schools, the University of California, Berkeley, cannot employ race-based affirmative action in its admissions policies, making Wang one of the many qualified applicants who simply didn’t get in.

    Considering we have the most conservative Supreme Court in generations, no one is optimistic about the future of affirmative action as a means of diversifying American universities. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been engaged in a personal battle against affirmative action despite benefiting from it as a highly successful Black man born in the 1940s South, will almost certainly disappoint the ancestors (once again) by voting against it later this month.

    My personal experiences may seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of the affirmative action discussion, but, while whole books have been written about affirmative action in scope, not enough ink has been spilled about what diversity, or lack of it, feels like.

    The University of Michigan had a roughly 6% Black student population when I started attending in 1999. At a bit under 50,000 students, that’s roughly 3,000 Black folks — less than the population of my entire high school.

    We kept things tight — there was never more than a degree of separation between any Black student — because culture dictated that we do so. Our parties were policed harder than others’ and we leaned hard on each other, as well as the university’s Black support staff, to make it to caps and gowns at one of the most challenging state universities in the country.

    We had our Black homecomings, our Black graduation ceremonies, a Black Student Union and even “Black dorms” (word to Markley Hall in the mid-1990s). I’m a core member of a Black male support group that exists to this day; I remain connected to current students after 20 years away.

    I couldn’t give you exact numbers, but most of the Black folks with whom I attended Michigan are unqualified winners in life. Even in my immediate crew of close Black male friends, I’m the only liberal arts chump among engineers and a medical doctor.

    There’s a good chance a lot of us wouldn’t have even made it to Michigan without affirmative action.

    My high school GPA wasn’t mind-blowing. But my ACT score was decent, I wrote a damn good essay for my application and I attended a selective enrollment Detroit public school with a 90-plus-percent Black student population that fed to the University of Michigan — at some other school with the same grades, I might not have been accepted.

    Considering it’s a state institution a half-hour drive from Detroit, one of the Blackest major U.S. cities, Michigan recognized the importance of race-based admissions policies. But Gratz v. Bollinger made things harder for us: Michigan had only 4% Black enrollment in 2021 — a one-third drop from my time there.

    When I visit the campus today, I can feel the change: The spaces we carved out for ourselves have been either transformed or no longer exist. Testimonies from Black students from the last 15 years suggest that the university is simply … whiter.

    Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. argue in their piece “The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action” for The Atlantic that lower-performing minority students placed in high-performing environments are set up for failure, but I disagree: Michigan didn’t accept the scrubs skipping school four times a week to kick it at McDonald’s just because they were Black. The 20 points it added were for students who took care of business in high school … the valedictorians and folks active in extracurriculars.

    Some beneficiaries of affirmative action did flame out of Michigan, but so did many of the white students who made it in — depending on your major, the university can be brutally difficult, and the work requires discipline regardless of how you got admitted.

    Few opponents of affirmative action account for the positive effects a diverse student body has on everyone: Nothing bad will come of exposing students and staff to multiculturality on a collegiate level. To that end, the abolition of affirmative action in schools could also have a detrimental effect on the job market as it pertains to corporate diversity programs and the fact that businesses could again suffer the consequences of having C-suites that resemble a frat from “Animal House.”

    Harvard has admitted that there’s no more efficient means of diversifying its student population than affirmative action policies; if the Supreme Court ruling goes badly, hopefully, universities can get creative and backdoor their ways into affirmative action.

    Black matriculation and graduation from four-year universities remain frustratingly lower than for any other ethnicity, and data suggests that white women (who tend to push back against affirmative action) have historically been affirmative action’s biggest beneficiary.

    The sad irony is that many right-wing Black folks and other underrepresented minorities love to suggest that racism is all gone because … hey, they worked really hard and became winners without handouts! A very notable exception is Colin Powell, who became the first Black secretary of state following a storied military career that began in a U.S. Army that had just been desegregated.

    Powell was a Republican, and he wasn’t exactly loud on behalf of Black folks, but even he recognized the value of affirmative action.

    I’ve always empathized with the classic affirmative action counterpoint: the idea that a white male can work hard his entire life to get accepted to a prestigious school, only to “lose” his spot to an underrepresented minority whose grades weren’t as good as his.

    However, as is the case with Wang, one cannot prove that affirmative action is the explicit reason they aren’t accepted to one or several schools that weigh several factors to determine who gets in. Sometimes, you just get a bad break, and it’s easier to point the finger at Black and brown folks.

    Also, to understand socioeconomic and ethnic disadvantages is to realize why two candidates with different ethnicities and high school scores might be more comparable than what we see on paper. Since I’m sure Black Americans will be given the runaround for reparations until our great-grandkids are pushing daisies, I’ll take whatever academic bonuses we can get — especially when applied to someone who will do them justice.

    If you don’t view this as a greater social good, then chances are you feel like your “spot” in society is in danger. Or perhaps you’re simply a delusional “I get mine out the mud” ethnic minority.

    If you fit in either category, I encourage you to read a book or three.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mastermind Of College Admissions Bribery Scandal Faces Sentencing

    Mastermind Of College Admissions Bribery Scandal Faces Sentencing

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON (AP) — The mastermind of the nationwide college admissions bribery scandal is set to be sentenced on Wednesday after helping authorities secure the convictions of a slew of wealthy parents involved in his scheme to rig the selection process at top-tier schools.

    Federal prosecutors are asking for six years behind bars for Rick Singer, who for more than a decade helped deep-pocketed parents get their often undeserving kids get into some of the nation’s most selective schools with bogus test scores and athletic credentials.

    The scandal embarrassed elite universities across the country, put a spotlight on the secretive admissions system already seen as rigged in favor of the rich and laid bare the measures some parents will take to get their kids into the school of their choice.

    William “Rick” Singer masterminded the nationwide college admissions bribery scandal.

    Singer, 62, began secretly cooperating with investigators and worked with the FBI to record hundreds of phone calls and meetings before the arrest of dozens of parents and athletic coaches in March 2019. More than 50 people — including popular TV actresses and prominent businessmen — were ultimately convicted in the case authorities dubbed Operation Varsity Blues.

    In the nearly four years since the scandal exploded into newspaper headlines, Singer remained out of jail and kept largely silent publicly. He was never called as a witness by prosecutors in the cases that went to trial, but will get a chance to address the court before the judge hands down his sentence in Boston federal court.

    In a letter to the judge, Singer blamed his actions on his “winning at all costs” attitude, which he said was caused in part by suppressed childhood trauma. His lawyer is requesting three years of probation, or if the judge deems prison time necessary, six months behind bars.

    “By ignoring what was morally, ethically, and legally right in favor of winning what I perceived was the college admissions ‘game,’ I have lost everything,” Singer wrote.

    Singer pleaded guilty in 2019 — on the same day the massive case became public — to charges including racketeering conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. Dozens of others ultimately pleaded guilty to charges, while two parents were convicted at trial.

    Authorities blew the lid off the scandal after an executive under investigation for an unrelated securities fraud scheme told investigators that a Yale soccer coach had offered to help his daughter get into the school in exchange for cash. The Yale coach led authorities to Singer, whose cooperation unraveled the sprawling scheme.

    For years, Singer paid off entrance exam administrators or proctors to inflate students’ test scores and bribed athletic coaches to designate applicants as recruits for sports they sometimes didn’t even play, seeking to boost their chances of getting into the school. Singer took in more than $25 million from his clients, paid bribes totaling more than $7 million, and used more than $15 million of his clients’ money for his own benefit, according to prosecutors.

    “He was the architect and mastermind of a criminal enterprise that massively corrupted the integrity of the college admissions process – which already favors those with wealth and privilege – to a degree never before seen in this country,” prosecutors wrote in court documents.

    If the judge agrees with prosecutors, it would be by far the longest sentence handed down in the case. So far, the toughest punishment has gone to former Georgetown University tennis coach Gordon Ernst, who got 2 1/2 years in prison for pocketing more than $3 million in bribes.

    One parent, who wasn’t accused of working with Singer, was acquitted on all counts stemming from accusations that he bribed Ernst to get his daughter into the school. And a judge ordered a new trial for former University of Southern California water polo Jovan Vavic, who was convicted of accepting bribes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US Rhodes scholars chosen to begin Oxford studies in 2023

    US Rhodes scholars chosen to begin Oxford studies in 2023

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A new group of Rhodes scholars from the U.S. has been selected for the prestigious academic program in a selection process that was conducted online for the third consecutive year.

    The class of 32 scholars for 2023 was “elected entirely virtually, with both candidates and selectors participating remotely, safely, and independently,” American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust Elliot F. Gerson said in a statement early Sunday. “As successful as the process was, we of course hope to return to in-person interviews and selection next year in cities across the country, as had been done for over a century.”

    Interviews for the 2021 and 2022 scholarship classes were conducted virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The 2023 class is expected to begin studies at the University of Oxford in England in October in pursuit of graduate degrees in social sciences, humanities and biological and physical sciences, the trust said.

    The U.S. scholars, who are among students selected from more than 60 countries, were vetted by 16 independent district committees from a pool of more than 2,500 applications. From those applicants, 840 were endorsed by 244 U.S. colleges and universities.

    After receiving the endorsements of their schools, most of the district committees chose 14 or more applicants for online interviews. The committees met separately between Nov. 10 and 12 through a virtual platform and promoted 235 finalists from 73 colleges and universities, including nine schools that have not previously had a student win the scholarship, the trust said.

    The scholars’ financial expenses for two to three years of study – averaging about $75,000 per year – are covered by the Rhodes Trust, a British charity established to fulfill the bequest of Cecil Rhodes, a founder of diamond mining and manufacturing company De Beers.

    The scholarships were created in 1902, with the inaugural class entering Oxford in 1903 and the first U.S. Rhodes scholars arriving in 1904, according to the website of the trust’s American secretary.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wash. Supreme Court: Registered sex offender can be a lawyer

    Wash. Supreme Court: Registered sex offender can be a lawyer

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — A divided Washington Supreme Court on Thursday approved a registered sex offender’s application to become an attorney in the state.

    Zachary Leroy Stevens, 35, has been living in Arizona, where since attending law school he has worked for a lawyer who represents American Indian tribes. He grew up in Utah, where he was convicted of voyeurism after sending child pornography to an undercover detective at age 19 and where several years later he was arrested for drunken driving while on probation.

    In a 5-4 decision, the court noted his relative youth at the time of his offenses and said he had demonstrated the “good moral character” necessary to be allowed to practice law. Stevens was previously refused admission to the Arizona bar but said he would move to Washington state if his application there was approved.

    “Like all of us, Stevens is more than the sum of the worst moments of his life,” Justice Mary Yu wrote for the majority. “As an adult, he has abstained from engaging in any unlawful conduct since 2013. In that time, he has graduated from college and law school, he has been steadily employed, and he has developed a supportive network of friends and family. It is apparent from the record that Stevens has taken responsibility for his prior misconduct and shows remorse.”

    The dissenting justices, led by Justice Barbara Madsen, said they were concerned that Stevens had not completed his legal obligations — he must continue to register as a sex offender until 2024 at least; that he had not provided a current mental health evaluation; and that the Arizona bar had rejected his application, a factor that Washington should respect, they said.

    “The fact that Stevens must register as a sex offender until he is eligible to petition for remission is particularly concerning, especially because one of this court’s key responsibilities is to guard the public and its confidence in the judicial system,” Madsen wrote.

    That said, she suggested her analysis might be different once Stevens submitted a current evaluation and was no longer required to register as a sex offender. Under Utah law, sex offenders can petition to have their registration requirements canceled after 10 years.

    Stevens applied to become a lawyer in Washington in 2019, after Arizona rejected his application. A Washington State Bar Association committee reviewed his petition and rejected it 6-5. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

    His attorney did not immediately return an email seeking comment Thursday. The attorney he works for in Arizona, Margaret Vick, supported his application, the majority noted.

    “When asked about Stevens’ criminal history and his bar application, his employer stated, ‘That 19-year-old should not be a lawyer. The . . . 33-year-old that I work with I think is a different person than that 19-year-old was,’” Yu wrote.

    The Washington Supreme Court has previously allowed people convicted of crimes to become lawyers. In 2014, the court ruled that Shon Hopwood, a convicted bank robber who became a “jailhouse lawyer” could take the state bar exam. Hopwood passed, was admitted to the bar and now teaches at Georgetown University Law Center and has been admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court bar.

    He also represented Tarra Simmons, who successfully petitioned the court to take the bar despite convictions for assault and drug and theft charges. In 2020, she became the first formerly incarcerated person elected to the Washington state Legislature, and she now works with the National Justice Impact Bar Association, which helps people with criminal backgrounds become lawyers.

    Simmons said Thursday the organization is aware of about 100 attorneys around the country who have been admitted to practice law despite past convictions — but no others who have ongoing legal obligations such as probation or sex offender registration. She was thrilled for Stevens, but to the extent that criminal history has long been used as a proxy for race, the ruling is about more that just his admission to the bar, she said.

    “This is about furthering justice and advancing policies against systemic racism,” Simmons said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Going To End Affirmative Action In Higher Education

    The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Going To End Affirmative Action In Higher Education

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices appeared ready to end affirmative action on Monday, during arguments in two cases challenging the limited use of race in college and university admissions.

    In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, white and Asian students claim that the use of race in admissions that helps the enrollment of Black, Hispanic and Native American students unconstitutionally discriminates against whites and Asians by violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in both cases and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause granting equal treatment to all persons under the law in the North Carolina case.

    The lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group run by conservative lawyer Ed Blum, who is white and has brought numerous cases before the Supreme Court challenging race-conscious policy-making, argued that any use of race was unconstitutional. They asked the court to overrule its prior precedents authorizing the limited use of race to achieve diversity in the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and the approval of the limited affirmative action program used by the University of Michigan in Grutter v. Bollinger.

    “Grutter is grievously wrong,” Patrick Strawbridge, counsel for Students for Fair Admissions, said in arguing that any consideration of race in admissions is unconstitutional and “divisive.”

    The court’s six-justice conservative supermajority has the votes to overturn Grutter. Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have all previously ruled in favor of ending race-conscious affirmative action programs. While Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have a limited record on the issue, they all aligned with the arguments made by the plaintiffs on Monday.

    Indeed, in their questioning of the lawyers in support of the University of North Carolina, the conservative justices set up a lose-lose situation.

    First, they pressed Ryan Park, North Carolina’s solicitor general, and U.S. solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar to explain how the university measures diversity to know when it has reached a point where it no longer needs to have any kind of race-conscious admissions policy.

    Gorsuch asked Park how the university can know it is reaching its goal of diversity “without taking account of numbers.”

    Alito repeatedly pressed Park on whether the university would believe it met its goal if the percentage of underrepresented racial minorities, like Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, met the percentage of those groups in the broader state population.

    “How do you know you’re done?” Barrett asked.

    The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases seeking to overturn prior court precedents on affirmative action in higher education on Oct. 31.

    OLIVIER DOULIERY via Getty Images

    Since the court banned the use of racial quotas in Bakke, any admission there that the diversity goal was based on a numerical judgment turned it into an impermissible racial quota and, therefore, a violation of precedent.

    When they refused to state that they have a numerical quota to judge success, the conservative justices then argued that they were stating that there is no endpoint. This would be problematic because both Bakke and Grutter suggested that affirmative action programs must be time-limited. Grutter suggested a 25-year time limit, which would end in 2028.

    “I don’t see how you say the program can ever end,” Alito said.

    The lack of an endpoint was part of the reason why “racial classifications are dangerous,” Kavanaugh argued.

    With no end in sight, the conservatives would be right to overturn precedent.

    The three liberal justices pointed out the limited nature of the race-conscious admissions policy used by the University of North Carolina, as the university does not require any applicant to state their race and only uses race as one of many considerations in admissions.

    The existence of the checkbox allowing applicants to voluntarily note their race was only one factor among many that admissions officers can take into account. There were only 1.2% of admissions where race played a role, according to expert analysis provided by the University of North Carolina.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also made the case that ending these policies will result in the same claims of discrimination brought by the plaintiffs.

    Strawbridge argued that admissions officers could consider essays about an applicant’s family background, but not race. Jackson posed a hypothetical about two applicants, one explaining their family history of attending the university for five generations and the other detailing their descendants being enslaved people who were denied access to the university.

    Jackson wanted to know: Would this be an impermissible consideration of race if the admissions office used the second applicant’s argument in deciding on admitting them? And if not, wouldn’t this mean that Black applicants would be disinclined to note their race, family history or life experience when applying to schools?

    No admission could “hinge on” the use of race, including an essay explaining family history, Strawbridge said.

    If that were the case, Jackson followed up, wouldn’t that mean Black applicants would be disinclined to mention their race or any family history or life experience that could reveal their race and, therefore, face the same problem of discrimination that the plaintiffs argue that whites and Asians face now?

    Previous studies of states that banned the consideration of race in admissions found that the implementation of race-neutral policies led to a reduction of Black and Hispanic enrollment in the most highly selective colleges and universities.

    The two cases before the court were originally meant to be heard together, but were split into two separate arguments because Jackson previously served on the Harvard Board of Overseers and recused from the Harvard case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ole Miss honors James Meredith 60 years after integration

    Ole Miss honors James Meredith 60 years after integration

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss. — The University of Mississippi is paying tribute to 89-year-old James Meredith 60 years after white protesters erupted into violence as he became the first Black student to enroll in what was then a bastion of Deep South segregation.

    As it has done on other 10-year anniversaries of integration, the university is hosting celebrations and academic events. On Saturday, Meredith is being honored during the Ole Miss-Kentucky game, two days after he attended the Rebels’ practice to speak to players.

    “He came and revolutionized our thinking. He came to open our closed society,” Donald Cole, who retired in 2018 as the university’s assistant provost and head of multicultural affairs, said during a celebration Wednesday night.

    The enigmatic Meredith, who lives in Jackson, has long resisted the label of civil rights leader, as if civil rights are separate from other human rights. He says his effort to enter Ole Miss was his own battle to conquer white supremacy.

    Meredith being honored at the Ole Miss-Kentucky game is an ironic echo of history.

    Two days before Meredith enrolled on the Oxford campus in 1962, race-baiting Gov. Ross Barnett worked a white crowd into a frenzy at a stadium in Jackson. Ole Miss fans waved Confederate flags to support their Rebels over the Kentucky Wildcats — and to defy any move toward racial integration.

    “I love Mississippi,” Barnett declared. “I love her people! Our customs! I love and I respect our heritage!”

    The next evening, Barnett quietly reached an agreement with U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy to let Meredith enter Mississippi’s oldest public university. Meredith already had a federal court order.

    White mobs of students and outsiders erupted when he arrived on the leafy campus with the protection of more than 500 federal law enforcement officers. The attorney general’s brother, President John F. Kennedy, deployed National Guard troops to quell the violence, and Meredith enrolled on Oct. 1.

    During the event Wednesday at the university, Meredith told an audience: “In my opinion, this is the best day I ever lived. But there’s some more truth. Celebration is good. I don’t think there’s anybody in this house or in the state of Mississippi that think the problem has been solved.”

    Meredith has said for the past several years that he’s on a mission from God, to persuade people to abide by the Ten Commandments. He said Wednesday that he sees a special role for Black women to lead the way in restoring moral order to American society.

    “There’s nothing in Mississippi that God, Jesus Christ and the Black woman cannot fix,” Meredith said.

    Meredith grew up in segregated Mississippi before finishing high school in Florida. He served in the Air Force and attended Jackson State College, a historically Black school in the state capital, before suing to gain admission to Ole Miss.

    A resident and a French journalist were killed in the violence as Meredith enrolled. More than 200 officers and soldiers were wounded and 200 people were arrested.

    Federal marshals provided Meredith with round-the-clock protection until he graduated with a political science degree in 1963. Meredith said Wednesday that most of his knowledge about what was happening on campus came from the marshals.

    “Most of them were scared to death of the Mississippi people with rifles and shotguns,” he said.

    U.S. Marshals Service Director Ronald L. Davis named Meredith an honorary deputy marshal during the ceremony Wednesday. Davis, who is Black, said Meredith brought widespread change to American society.

    “You chose a path that was not traveled — one with much resistance, one with fear and threats and violence, and you went there anyway,” Davis said.

    The University of Mississippi had about 21,850 students on all of its campuses in the 2021 fall semester, with about 12.7% Black enrollment. About 38% of Mississippi residents are Black.

    Ethel Scurlock, the first Black dean of the university’s honors college, said during the keynote speech Wednesday that she had not yet been born when Meredith integrated Ole Miss in 1962 or when he was shot soon after setting out on his March Against Fear in 1966.

    “But Mr. Meredith, I am here today,” Scurlock said. “I am the unborn baby that you were willing to go to war for.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link