A recent opinion piece has sparked a heated discussion about college admissions practices, particularly the concept of holistic review. This method, which considers factors beyond just academic performance, has been criticized for its potential bias against certain applicants, particularly those from white, middle-class backgrounds.
The author shares a personal story about helping their daughter, a high school senior with impressive credentials, apply to colleges. Despite her strong GPA and numerous awards, the author expressed concerns about how holistic review might affect her chances. Holistic review, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, involves a detailed examination of each applicant’s background, with a focus on fostering diversity within educational institutions.
Historically, this approach has roots in practices from the 1920s, when Harvard and other universities sought to limit Jewish student admissions. Today, admissions committees often lack clear guidelines, leading to subjective decisions that can favor applicants based on their minority status rather than purely on academic merit.
The piece highlights how some universities, like Ohio State University, have adopted holistic review methods, often eliminating standardized test scores. This shift raises concerns for students who may not have faced significant obstacles but still possess strong academic records.
Critics argue that holistic review can unintentionally disadvantage well-rounded students from privileged backgrounds, as those with college-educated parents may have more resources to enhance their applications. Moreover, the financial implications of holistic admissions are significant, as universities often need to invest in additional staff and services to meet diversity goals.
The recent legal rulings in the Students for Fair Admissions cases have declared race-based admissions unconstitutional, but they still allow for the consideration of socioeconomic factors. This has led some institutions to seek ways to continue holistic review without violating the law.
The author suggests that a clearer ban on holistic review under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment could promote transparency in admissions practices and reduce potential biases. While this may not solve all issues related to college admissions, it could lead to more accountability and fairness in the process.
As the debate continues, many are left wondering how to balance the need for diversity with the principles of meritocracy in college admissions.
