Now this would be a game changer and reversion back to the more equal days of college admission process.
Wonder how hard colleges would fight this if it ever happened and if one state does it will others or look at it as an opportunity to get a jump on their rivals.
For those who don’t read the article it also includes proposal to ban Early Admission options.
"Back to the more equal days of college admissions "???
Those days never existed.
It will- and should- be DOA. They know they have zero chance of this passing, primarily because it’s a publicity stunt.
Should colleges alter their legacy preferences? Maybe. Depends on other factors, too. Just about every single college in NY (and pretty much around the country) confers specialty status to URM, first generation, etc. In fact, in most instances that status is greater than legacy in terms of how it impacts a student’s chances. If they’re referring to the “automatic” enrollment…well, those are very few and far between these days. Spectacular giving on the part of a family, relationships that are tremendously beneficial to the school, etc.- those are what continue. General legacy is usually a little bump. I would bet that a well qualified URM or first gen student gets a significantly higher bump than a legacy kid without those attached.
So for the legacy argument to work, they’d need to change other admission tactics to bring an almost completely meritocratic admissions process. Which they of course wouldn’t want- it would clearly harm the demographics they are looking to protect, as those would be discriminated against in an open field. URM and first gen get major bumps for very good reasons.
With respect to ED? I’m all for tweaking. But I’m not sure they fully understand the ED process. Seems they don’t know (or don’t care, as this is a me,me,me publicity stunt to look progressive) that ED can be helpful to low income students. If financial considerations and needs are not met…you don’t need to attend. I’d love to see a tweak to make it even more clear and beneficial to the applicant with respect to ED committments, but tweaking is what is needed- not elimination.
Again, TLDR…This proposal would actually end up being racist in the opposite direction, as they’d eliminate mechanisms for some students while strengthening what already is a very solid form of acceptance for the demographic they are supposedly trying to help.
Said “more equal” not equal.
Definitely seems like they don’t understand the ED process. In the big picture well less than 10% of colleges even offer ED, around 180 or so of 3,000 four year colleges.
Many NY schools that offer ED do meet full need. So, if a family can afford their EFC/the NPC looks affordable, that family should be encouraged to apply ED. Many low income students are already applying through the ED round via Posse, Questbridge, and other college access organizations.
Certainly better communication around the specifics of ED (and other rounds) is needed, to increase awareness of the benefits, and in what cases in makes sense to apply ED. Families have to be aware of the fact that NPCs exist, and should know that an ED acceptance is not binding if the financial aid package is inadequate. Much of that is clear on each school’s financial aid website.
Part of the issue is the fact that HS based college counseling varies greatly. Some schools have dedicated college counselors, while at others, social emotional counselors also have responsibility for college counseling (news flash, that tends to not work that well). Some schools have low student to counselor ratios, others have high S:GC ratios, where some students struggle to meet with a GC. Perhaps NY State would be better off to invest more $ in school based college counseling?
I agree with this entirely. In fact, I’d suggest a larger focus. Rather than on each high school, create college counseling services that might have a broader reach. Target areas or high schools where there is inadequate counseling (which unfortunately is many, and occasionally has little to do with socioeconomic factors), and fund a mechanism where students can receive dedicated 1-1 counseling and education about the process.
There are so many college access organizations in many cities, easily identifiable via a google search. ScholarMatch is a large one that is nationally based, but there are thousands of these organizations, most local.
Check into those and support them either with monetary contributions, or by volunteering as a college counselor. Many posters on CC have enough knowledge to take on a student or two. That’s it for my volunteer-to-help-a-low-income-student-through-the-college-admissions-process soapbox today 
Are they trying to ban rolling admissions too?
I don’t think this will go anywhere. While I’m not a huge fan of ED (which does tend to favor the wealthy - partly because they are much more aware of its benefits) I don’t see how you could ban it. The same goes for legacy preferences (and how would one monitor it anyway - most of us would know very little about how much of an advantage it confers if not for the Harvard lawsuit - most schools don’t publish this info). This is a very clumsy attempt to address the fact that admissions to selective colleges still strongly favor UMC+ students. I don’t have any answers, but I don’t think this approach would be all that effective.
The article says specifically that early action would still be permitted.
But I’m curious how this would even be enforced. By definition, college admissions is subjective. Are they proposing to second guess and review every admissions officer’s decision? There would be no way to have a holistic application review in this scenario.
In fact, it would clearly promote an anti-legacy approach from a liability standpoint. This is 100% a publicity stunt.
And it would promote reliance on objective grades and test scores, the very things that often disadvantage the prospective student population they are seeking to help.
I’m trying to figure out where their complaint holds any water. If you look at any so-called “elite” school (which is where their sound bites always focus), the demographics of the enrolled students skew quite favorably towards URM. Just about every school has created a focus to become much more inclusive and equitable, and the common data sets prove that out.
But you can’t gain votes or publicity from data.