Of course. Here is an article on the topic.
Admissions Under Fire: The Scramble for a Fairer System
As traditional pillars of college entry crumble, institutions are in a high-stakes race to redefine merit and equity.
For generations, the path to a top university was framed as a straightforward, if difficult, meritocratic climb. The formula seemed clear: achieve high grades, ace the SAT or ACT, participate in impressive extracurriculars, and write a compelling essay. But that formula, and the very definition of “merit” it promotes, is now facing a seismic reckoning. The ivy-covered gates are not just being stormed; their very foundations are being questioned, forcing a nationwide scramble for a fairer, more defensible admissions system.
The pressure has reached a fever pitch in the wake of two landmark developments. The first was the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which effectively ended race-conscious affirmative action. For decades, universities used race as one factor among many to build diverse student bodies, arguing it was essential for a rich educational environment and a more equitable society. With that tool removed, institutions committed to diversity have been forced back to the drawing board, searching for race-neutral alternatives that can still achieve similar outcomes.
The second pillar to crumble has been the long-reigning dominance of standardized tests. The COVID-19 pandemic threw the SAT and ACT into chaos, forcing nearly every university in the country into a massive test-optional experiment. This move was celebrated by critics who have long argued that the tests are a better measure of a student’s family income than their academic potential, rewarding those who can afford expensive prep courses.
While the pandemic-era necessity has passed, the debate rages on. A growing number of institutions, including the entire University of California system, have remained test-blind or test-optional. However, in a surprising reversal, some of the most elite universities, like Dartmouth, Yale, and MIT, have reinstated their testing requirements. Their justification? Standardized tests, they argue, can help identify high-achieving students from under-resourced backgrounds who might otherwise be overlooked in a sea of perfect GPAs from less-rigorous high schools. This back-and-forth highlights the deep uncertainty at the heart of the issue: no one is quite sure what the best and fairest metrics are anymore.
With affirmative action off the table and standardized testing in flux, other long-standing but controversial practices are now under the microscope—chief among them, legacy and donor preferences. The practice of giving a significant advantage to the children of alumni and wealthy donors has been fiercely criticized as the antithesis of meritocracy, a system of inherited privilege that perpetuates inequality. In the post-affirmative action world, defending legacy preferences has become almost untenable. In response, a growing number of institutions, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University, have eliminated them, while states like Colorado and Virginia have banned the practice at public universities.
So, what does the “scramble” for a new system look like? It’s a patchwork of experiments and a renewed emphasis on a truly “holistic” review.
1. A Focus on Lived Experience: The Supreme Court’s ruling left a small window open: while universities cannot consider race itself, they can consider how a student’s race has affected their life, as detailed in their application essays. This has placed immense weight on the personal statement, prompting students to articulate stories of overcoming adversity and shaping their character.
2. The Rise of “Contextual” Data: Admissions officers are digging deeper into what’s known as an “adversity index” or “hardship score.” They are looking beyond the raw numbers of a GPA or test score to understand the context behind them. Did the student attend a well-funded suburban school or an under-resourced rural one? Are they the first in their family to attend college? Do they come from a low-income neighborhood? Factors like Pell Grant eligibility and first-generation status are becoming powerful, race-neutral proxies for identifying students who have excelled in the face of significant obstacles.
3. Direct Admissions Programs: To combat application anxiety and reach students who might not think a four-year college is for them, some states and platforms are experimenting with direct admissions. In this model, colleges proactively offer admission to students who meet certain criteria (like being in the top 10% of their graduating class), bypassing the traditional application process. It flips the script from students chasing schools to schools recruiting students.
The road ahead is fraught with challenges. Redefining merit is not just a logistical puzzle; it’s an ideological one. The scramble for a new system is an attempt to walk a high-stakes tightrope: how to build a diverse class that reflects the country’s demographics and reward individual achievement, all while navigating legal constraints and public scrutiny.
The era of a one-size-fits-all formula for college admission is over. In its place is a period of intense, often messy, experimentation. For students and their families, this means the process is more uncertain than ever. For universities, it’s a moment of profound self-reflection. The outcome of this scramble won’t just determine who gets a spot in the freshman class; it will define the very meaning of opportunity and fairness in America for decades to come.
