How Will Universities Pursue Diversity After the End of Affirmative Action?

Today, I will post about how universities can maintain diversity following the end of affirmative action.

Even after the abolition of affirmative action, universities are making significant efforts to maintain diversity. Let’s explore how this will impact Korean students and how we, as Asians, can respond based on various research findings.

Affirmative action, a policy that favored minority groups, has been abolished. This policy used to allow universities to admit Black or Hispanic students based on slightly lower standards, but this system, which played a significant role in maintaining diversity, was ruled as violating fairness, leading to its end.

However, despite the end of affirmative action, there are clear signs that universities are still committed to maintaining diversity. Harvard University, in its official statement regarding the affirmative action ruling, mentions the words "race" and "ethnicity" around 20 times in its 20-page document outlining the criteria for its admissions process. While they state that they will no longer consider race during admissions, they also emphasize their efforts to uphold diversity.

Similarly, Yale University, following the affirmative action ruling, updated its website twice, stating that it will not consider race when evaluating applicants. Yet, it also provides a lengthy explanation on how it plans to maintain diversity. At the same time, Yale assures that the admissions committee will not have access to any information about applicants' race.

Yale has created a webpage specifically to emphasize that it will continue to promote diversity through various means, looking at factors such as race and socioeconomic status to ensure diverse admissions.

Universities now face a challenge: they are not allowed to consider race during admissions, yet the resulting student body must still reflect a diverse range of backgrounds. Solutions to this dilemma are gradually emerging.

I would like to introduce a hypothesis proposed by Sean Reardon, a professor at Stanford's Graduate School of Education. I believe everyone should be aware of this, so I’ve prepared the following explanation.

He conducted a study tracking 10,000 students and created a graph based solely on SAT scores, leaving other factors aside to simplify the variables. The X-axis represents parental income, with lower incomes on the left and higher incomes on the right. The Y-axis represents SAT scores, with lower scores at the bottom and higher scores at the top.

The research shows a clear trend: students from lower-income families tend to have lower SAT scores, while students from higher-income families tend to score higher. When looking at the distribution of Black and Hispanic students, who are crucial for maintaining diversity, it becomes evident that they are clustered in the lower SAT and low-income areas.

If universities set a threshold of 1300 SAT points for admissions, the number of Black and Hispanic students, represented by red dots, would be significantly reduced. This would result in less diversity, leading to the conclusion that universities must make adjustments in their selection criteria.

So, what happens if we differentiate by income? If income is considered, the selection threshold becomes a diagonal line rather than a straight line, allowing students from low-income backgrounds to be admitted even with lower scores, while students from high-income backgrounds would need higher SAT scores to be admitted.

Universities’ concerns about diversity are driving studies on the potential effects of such approaches. The graph below illustrates parental income and SAT scores, with White and Asian students represented by blue dots and Black and Hispanic students by red and yellow dots.

When the sorting process is applied, only students who applied to the top 80 universities remain, leaving only a few dots on the graph.

Now, if we assume that only the top 500 students are selected based on scores, a straight threshold line appears. With the end of affirmative action, many believed that White and Asian students would have an easier time gaining admission under this system.

However, the reality is that universities have no reason to adopt this kind of purely score-based selection process. If they did, Black and Hispanic students would only make up 10-11% of the total student body.

Since selecting only 500 students based purely on scores would not ensure sufficient diversity, universities will likely adopt other methods. If they adjust admissions so that students from low-income households are admitted even with lower scores, and students from high-income households must have higher scores to be admitted, we get different results.

In this scenario, students in the upper right circle are rejected, while those in the lower left circle are accepted. The graph on the right shows the changes based on income and race.

When low-income preference is used as a variable, White students from the top 25% of income levels see a 9% rejection rate, Asians see 2% rejected, and Hispanics see only 1% rejected. Under this low-income preference scenario, the student body ends up with 13% Black and Hispanic students, 10% low-income students, and an average SAT score of 1390.

While this result indicates some level of diversity, it is still far below the 30% Black and Hispanic representation that existed under affirmative action. Therefore, other variables must be added to further increase diversity. One such variable is "school poverty," which considers students attending schools with high rates of free lunch recipients in economically disadvantaged areas.

When this variable is added, the number of Black and Hispanic students, represented by red and yellow dots, increases. The graph shows that when both variables—low-income preference and school poverty—are applied, the percentage of Black and Hispanic students rises to 18%, and low-income students rise to 11%.

However, this still does not reach the diversity levels seen before affirmative action was abolished.

The third variable introduced is "selecting academic outliers," where high-performing students from neither wealthy nor poor areas are selected. When this criterion is added, 27% of the top 25% income-level White students are rejected, and 5% of Asians are rejected.

As a result, Black and Hispanic students make up 25% of the student body, and low-income students account for 17%. This level of diversity is something universities may find satisfactory. However, the average SAT score drops from 1390 to 1340, as lower-scoring students are admitted in these scenarios.

When all three variables are applied, and universities cast an even wider net, 31% of White students in the top 25% income bracket, 4% of Asians, and 2% of Hispanics are rejected. In this scenario, Black and Hispanic students make up 32% of the student body, low-income students 23%, and the average SAT score is 1320—similar to the levels seen under affirmative action.

The progression is clear:

• If income preference is applied, Black and Hispanic students make up 13% of the student body.

• With school poverty added, that number rises to 18%.

• When selecting academic outliers is applied, it rises to 25%.

• Finally, by expanding the pool further, it increases to 32%.

With each additional variable, diversity increases. The fourth scenario, which closely mirrors the diversity seen under affirmative action, results in a 5-6% decrease in admissions for high-income Asian students.

Ultimately, whether affirmative action is in place or not, Asians will face similar or potentially more difficult odds in gaining admission to top universities.

Universities will continue to strengthen their efforts to promote diversity. Therefore, Asian students must be vigilant and think carefully about how to stand out as universities pursue diversity through various methods.

In conclusion, I wanted to highlight that most cities with large Asian populations are not in areas classified as low-income. So, it’s unlikely that many Asians will benefit from low-income preferences.

Today, I’ve discussed how the end of affirmative action might affect Asian students based on research into how universities can maintain diversity.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at A-One Institute. Thank you.