Brown University on Wednesday announced a deal with the Trump administration to regain access to federal research funding and end investigations into alleged discrimination.
The Ivy League school agreed to pay $50 million to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island over 10 years as part of the agreement, along with other concessions in line with President Donald Trump’s political agenda.
Browns focus over the last decade has been First Gen students. This agreement preserves the U’s ability to continue that strategy. The Venn diagram of first Gen, disadvantaged and non-white leaves a whole lotta kids to consider even if race is explicitly barred from consideration.
Not sure. What proportion of those students have a test score? And what proportion of those with a test score, have one high enough that Brown would consider admitting them?
It will accelerate the shift towards Magnet schools/test entry public high schools as an important pipeline. So less of a “diamond in the rough” strategy and more of “already been vetted by a competitive process”.
A kid from a well known magnet school who has done well in a rigorous college prep program is going to be given leeway on test scores. My personal prediction of course- I am not an adcom. But it moves the teacher and guidance counselor recommendations front and center to the process-- which is a luxury that the magnet/test entry public HS’s have which kids from a typical low income serving HS will not have. So not a perfect fix by any means. It would be ridiculous to assume that a GC at an under-resourced HS who is responsible for interface with social workers, helping kids who are unhoused, working with kids enlisting in the military, keeping kids from dropping out junior year, etc. is going to have the time to write the kind of recommendations which will put low SAT scores in context for an otherwise promising student.
But nobody at Brown is claiming that this is a perfect solution- just a pragmatic way to retain some measure of academic autonomy.
I hope Brown publishes the full range of admitted test scores like U Chicago does (not just the mid-50% range of enrolled scores.) Until more schools do that, counselors and students won’t believe that some kids with low scores can be accepted. That is a huge hurdle right now in getting these kids to even submit an app. (and in some cases to even take a test)
Brown AOs do not need a counselor LoR to put a disadvantaged kid’s score in context. It is obvious based on many things in the app, the school profile and CB Landscape. (The vast majority of highly rejectives use CB Landscape)
I didn’t mean the socio-economic context. I was referring to academic, intellectual, literary or whatever passions that the student has exhibited in the classroom or the school which suggest that the scores do not capture the potential to succeed. 30 years ago I interviewed a kid for Brown who came from a rural, one traffic light town who was exceptional in every single way-- except on paper. Nobody at his HS had ever applied to Brown, even the grownups in his life were at a loss as to how to help him “shape” his application.
With interviews going the way of the do-do bird, the recommendations for kids with middling scores (but high academic potential) are going to be doing the heavy lifting. Which is why I predict the magnet schools will become the replacement for whatever the government disdains about race-based admissions decisions.
IME this has already been happening for years, along with boarding schools. Like you say, these students are ‘vetted’.
It seems this government disdains non-merit based admissions. The issue is the definition of ‘merit’ of course.
Maybe interviews could come back? It’s easy to do zoom interviews. And disadvantaged students can do them from the school’s computers/wifi connections.
As a professor and Brown alum, I don’t see this as a tap out at all. Although Trump is touting this as a victory, a lot of my colleagues in academia feel Brown came out on top. Brown has a very long history of community partnerships and involvement. That deal to provide $50 million for state workforce development programs in RI continues that path while avoiding paying the federal government direct settlement fees (unlike the cowardly Columbia). They also maintain control over their curriculum and faculty hiring while preserving academic freedom and free speech. Their admissions office has been shifting its approach since the SCOTUS AA decision, so nothing really new there. They didn’t give up most of what Trump claimed he wanted, except some actions around gender identity and trans athletes. (Which is not a small thing.)
I think Brown realized you need to give Trump a bone so he can take something back to his supporters and say he won. They protected all of the major tenets of academia, and they (like others) already skillfully maneuver diversity, equity, and inclusion in this new political climate. They got their funding back and they are out of his crosshairs. Trump and McMahon save face without Brown really needing to do much. Cornell is already using this as a model for their own negotiation. Too bad Columbia didn’t take the same approach and instead decided to bend the knee.
As an aside: It’s interesting reading the different reporting on who came out on top.
(Edited by moderator to comply with the forum rules)
I agree 100%. A few of my classmates are circulating a petition to tell President Paxson how awful, ridiculous, etc. the settlement is-- and not only do I not agree with them, I think they are wrong to be Monday morning quarterbacking this.
They don’t fully appreciate how damaging the continued interference by the federal government would be long term. They don’t appreciate- or don’t care- that in any negotiation there is going to be a few items on the wish list that have to go away for the sake of the broader principles involved.
But at its core, this saves face for the relevant feds, and preserves most of what the university needs. And the payment for state workforce development programs locally is actually a boon for the U, whether or not the feds recognize it as such. RI is a small state, and having a high quality workforce-- whether computer techs, RN’s for the Brown affiliated hospitals (Brown does not have a nursing program of its own), etc.- is critical for its long term needs. win/win. And the settlement allows everyone to get back to work until the next outrage. Which for sure will come. There will be a librarian or a food service worker or a landscaper who has a prescription for something or other (hormone treatment, mifepristone, whatever) and the DOE will decide that it can determine what the University health system can offer employees who are covered by their insurance. And then the outrage machine will crank up again. But for now- everyone can get back to work.
Classic case of small compromises that add up over time versus one big roll of the dice that clears the air. It takes a certain kind of intestinal fortitude to stay the course until you can get in front of the Supreme Court.
Not convinced another outrage will come. Trump made his point, got the big public show he was looking for, and gets to call this a win. Campaign promise filled. He’s still dealing with Harvard and a few others that are looking to follow the same playbook and strike similar deals to move on. It will be interesting to see what happens with Harvard. And now Trump and McMahon have signaled they’re turning their outrage to K-12.
Recent posts edited to comply with the forum rules.
Please remember that this thread isn’t in the political forum. It’s fine to state actual facts about the situation but not personal political opinions nor extrapolations. Posters are free to take the political discussion over to the PF.
Putting the financial terms aside—which are certainly more favorable than those of other schools—here are two elements of the agreement that I find extremely troubling:
First, Brown has capitulated on protecting their trans community. This feels like a massive betrayal from a school that has long maintained a reputation for embracing the LGBTQ+ community. Imagine being a trans student, professor, or staff member and returning to campus now unable to use the bathroom or locker room of your gender identity?
And any professor who isn’t alarmed by this agreement perhaps missed this: “Student course evaluations that are collected on an anonymous basis at the end of each semester will be regularly reviewed to identify any reports of antisemitism, which will be promptly referred to OECR for appropriate action.”
I work at a research university that has gotten heat from this administration, so I understand the financial precarity we are all facing. But that doesn’t change my belief that these agreements are strategically foolish, in terms of both the expectation that the administration will feel bound by them and the ways they force universities to undermine (what I thought were supposed to be) fundamental moral and ethical commitments.
Course evaluations are usually reviewed by universities at some level in general. This says nothing about it being an outside review (unlike other action points). Brown conducting the review of evaluations does not strike the same level of fear in me as it would if it were done by DOE or an outside reviewer. The level of scrutiny doesn’t come close. Brown did not agree to an outside reviewer in the same ways Columbia did.
Agree . In my earlier post I mentioned the gender identity actions were the major concessions.
I’m curious what everyone would prefer to see. Exactly what do they think would be a reasonable response from Brown? The Columbia approach? Harvard approach? What response is not “foolish” given the circumstances?
. In my earlier post I mentioned the gender identity actions were the major concessions.