<p>Among his proposals:
-Getting rid of unpaid internships
-Dropping the SAT
-Replacing ethnic affirmative action with socioeconomic affirmative action
-Challenging the constitutionality of the degree as a job requirement</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/opinion/reforms-for-the-new-upper-class.html?hp[/url]”>https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/opinion/reforms-for-the-new-upper-class.html?hp</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does he mean the SAT Subject Tests, formerly known as Achievement Tests?</p>
<p>^ He didn’t specifically say that he had SAT Subject Tests in mind.</p>
<p>Still, those are the existing standardized tests that closely match his description – although since they are designed for mass administration, quick grading and consistency across versions, their multiple choice format and other characteristics do allow some of the “gaming the test” type of preparation like the SAT Reasoning does.</p>
<p>I’m skeptical that replacing the SAT I with SAT subject tests will make much of a difference because according to Murray, “The test has become a symbol of new-upper-class privilege, as people assume (albeit wrongly) that high scores are purchased through the resources of private schools and expensive test preparation programs”.</p>
<p>Also if I recall correctly the reason that employers cannot use intelligence tests in hiring decisions without showing a actual link between the test and job requirements is because it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not because it’s unconstitutional as Murray claims [the case is Griggs v. Duke Power Co].</p>
<p>-Replacing ethnic affirmative action with socioeconomic affirmative action</p>
<p>=========</p>
<p>This is a good idea…let all low income kids have an advantage. Higher income kids, no matter what their backgrounds are, really aren’t disadvantaged.</p>
<p>The major problem with socioeconomic AA is that few schools can afford to be need-blind and presumably somewhat fewer could afford to practice socioeconomic AA and even those that could are probably wary of doing so because of the increased costs.</p>
<p>^^^
???</p>
<p>most schools are need blind. </p>
<p>Socio-economic AA would require schools to be more “need aware” and giving boosts to those with high need as they have had a harder life with fewer opportunities.</p>
<p>I guess to simply the situation, there could be an app question asking if you’re low income (say below $50k per year). Those might get a bump after income verification.</p>
<p>Most schools are not need blind; only the top schools with large endowments can afford to be.</p>
<p>Most schools are at least need-aware.</p>
<p>Only a handful promise to meet full need. Socioeconomic AA works only if full need is met.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Actually…most schools are need-blind. Few are “need aware”. Those that are need aware are the ones that try to meet need, but don’t have the big endowments…so they have to balance the “needy students” with enough “no need” students to stay in the black. </p>
<p>Most schools (especially publics) do not look at need to determine acceptance. Can you name many publics that are “need aware”? I doubt you could name very many if there are some.</p>
<p>I think that would cause an uproar if publics started denying people simply based on FAFSA EFC…which is why they don’t do that. </p>
<p>I think you’re confusing “need blind” with “meeting full need”. Those are two different concepts. Most schools are need blind for acceptance…they just don’t meet full need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the admissions office, open admission community colleges are need blind, and they likely far outnumber the four year schools, which include a lot of less selective state universities that just go by GPA (or rank) and test scores and are also therefore need blind.</p>
<p>However, all colleges other than full-ride-for-everyone colleges* are necessarily need aware at the financial aid office. If you consider the combination of admissions and financial aid decisions as the overall admission decision (admission without enough financial aid is effectively like a rejection**), then only the full-ride-for-everyone colleges can be fully need blind.</p>
<p><em>E.g. Deep Springs and the military service academies.
*</em>Plenty of “got into ___, cannot afford it” stories around.</p>
<p>Not getting enough aid which effectively can be a rejection is not the same as “need aware”. </p>
<p>“Admit/Deny” (not giving enough aid) is not the same as “need aware” outright rejections.</p>
<p>The fact that many kids get gapped, means that schools didn’t reject them because they had too much need. Most schools just give out what they can and let the families decide/figure out if they can pay what’s leftover.</p>
<p>There are plenty of kids with lowish FAFSA EFCs that have NCPs that will pay or grandparents that will pay or whatever.</p>
<p>I should have added a qualification to my previous post that I was only talking about selective colleges as non-selective colleges can’t implement AA in admissions in any meaningful way and aren’t blamed for rising inequality. I don’t have a definite answer to whether most selective colleges are need-blind or need-aware but certainly many are need-aware and relatively few would be able to easily implement socioeconomic AA without a large increase in financial resources.</p>
<p>Most less selective colleges are less selective state universities that probably just plug GPA (or rank) and test scores into a formula to determine admissions, but may not have much of a financial aid budget (state budget cuts) to actually meet need (though their list prices may be relatively low). So they could be need blind at the admissions office, but effectively reject some students at the financial aid office by not offering enough aid.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic affirmative action would require more financial aid money, which may mean that many colleges cannot afford to do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They certainly do in California. UC publicly states that it gives bonus points in admissions to low income students. UC could not do that if it was need-blind (as it claims to be). </p>
<p>And, of course, even the wealthy schools that claim to be need-blind do the same thing. Williams, for example, tracks ‘low ec’ students during the admissions process.</p>
<p>*They certainly do in California. UC publicly states that it gives bonus points in admissions to low income students. UC could not do that if it was need-blind (as it claims to be). *</p>
<p>If that’s true, then Calif UC’s are kind of doing “positive need aware”…rather than what “need aware” usually means. Need aware usually means that a school can’t risk enrolling all or too many “needy” students, so they are need aware so that they have a number of full-pay or near-full pay as well. </p>
<p>This is especially true for schools that are “need aware” for int’ls. Some might budget that they’ll provide aid for X number of int’ls…but they want the rest to be full-payers. </p>
<p>If the UCs are doing what you’re saying, then they are practicing a socio-economic AA…which is quite different from the traditional “need aware” goals.</p>
<p>I think the UCs admissions policies are rather different from most other public universities. In particular, I’m under the impression that socioeconomic AA is only used because racial AA was outlawed by a referendum.</p>
<p>Umm, the University of Minnesota clearly states on their website that a “Secondary [admissions] Factor” is “economic diversity”…</p>
<p>While I agree what UC and Williams does – as do many colleges – giving a boost to low income students, is different than being need aware to cap the number of low income students to match the financial aid budget, it is by definition not need-blind admissions. It can’t be.</p>
<p>Of course, a cynic would suggest that Wiliams’ tracking of low economic kids during admissions to give those applicants a boost also enables Williams to know when they have ‘enough’ low ec students (however defined).</p>
<p>That’s interesting that the University of Minnesota says that because the priority deadline for financial aid applications is March 1st after admissions decisions are made. Perhaps they use zip codes for rough estimates but I doubt it makes much of a difference in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Remember that application essays which describe overcoming adverse conditions like poverty or other things that strongly hint at poverty (poor quality schools, crime, etc.) can give strong hints about the applicant’s socioeconomic status, so that, even if the application is read before the financial aid application is completed, the reader may be able to tell and use that in the process. The student’s address can provide additional hints.</p>