Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it started as a call to be purely race-blind in hiring.) I wouldn’t call it racism though, because it’s not based on any belief that races have different capability, it is purely intended to correct systemic bias based on the belief that races are equally capable.

> it was past due to get rid of it

This might be true, but there are still achievement and pay gaps in the US. There are lots of debates about why, and I don’t want to start one. I’m just curious how else to solve systemic biases if they’re still here. The whole problem with cultural bias is it’s sticky and difficult and people don’t believe they have biases. Today’s politics has done a lot to convince me that we haven’t solved it yet, but at the same time I’ll be the first to point out that we’ve come a long way even in my lifetime. The last little bit might take longer to fix than suffrage did just because of how subtle the issues are. If we take any preferential treatment off the table, preferential treatment that tries to artificially force equal opportunity, the question is what’s the alternative? We might have momentum, and do nothing might work, but what if it doesn’t? Wouldn’t that also be a form of institutionalized discrimination, effectively, like it was before Affirmative Action existed?

I'm open to arguments that there are better ways to achieve the goal of equitable access to higher eduction, but looking at enrollment numbers, the problem is far from solved.

The SFFA lawsuit targeted Harvard specifically and made the claim not that Affirmative Action was a problem but that secretive racial policies to help whites at the expense of Asians were. There wasn't any direct evidence of it and it's kind of laughable to think Harvard would do that. The SC didn't evaluate that claim and just struck down using race for admissions. But that doesn't mean you can't ask people to write a diversity essay about their race and grade them on that.

Harvard's present demographics[1]:

    Of students in the class who self-identified their race, 11.5 percent
    identified as African American or Black, 41 percent identified as Asian 
    American, 11 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, and nearly 2 percent 
    identified as Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.

[1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/10/class-of-2029...

Can you really claim that the trend won't reverse if purely meritocratic admissions are reinstated (disregarding legacy admits...although very unfair to disregard since their racial makeup heavily tracks with asian/white/etc)

It's simply a single lever to change the racial makeup of the upper class. And certainly it goes both ways, but to simply remove it with no solution implies a regression to the former system, which was all but equal, much less equitable.

If you talk to admissions officers, over drinks, they'll tell you that poor black students from marginalized US communities have abysmal performance at elite schools. The decision to admit rich black students is very deliberate.

There are many reasons why. Schools in the US are locally-funded, and a marginalized community might have 25% of the per-student spending of a rich community (actual, typical figures). Until inequities like that are addressed, there is little elite education can do to help, even if it wanted, which it doesn't.

The point of an exclusive university is to be, well, maximally exclusive. That's the literal opposite of inclusive.

That said, your view that they need "trauma" to get in is very wrong. You need to find a hook. The hook should be positive and not negative. (Why should they let you in to the private club?)

Source: I've gotten my kids into 6 Ivies. Non-athletes, white, public schools, and I am not a doner.

Are you sure? If you're household income is <$340k (depending on details) you'll still get some scholarship, and as long as your household income <$200,000 tuition is free.

[1]: https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculat...

Obviously a lot of reasons to do it this way. But you gotta think at some point not working for 4 years while paying ~2x median annual wage has gotta go the way of the dodo.

Yet, you still have two years.

If you mean only one grandparent is born in a Latin American country, then according to the U.S. Census Bureau, you are Hispanic.

This has long been a farce though. They would be put in made up classes with no actual work and given fake grades.

The framework to do it was introduced to prevent Jewish people from going to universities where it was found that when it was impossible to keep the Jewish people under 25% of enrollment it rapidly became possible once they accounted for well-roundedness.

The Jewish people of the age, like Asian people today, seem to have been narrow and pointed like a spear where others were like a sphere. Such is life. We aspire to spherical homogeneity. Other shapes need not apply.

    Cooper: You're ruling my son out for college now? The kid's fifteen.
    Principal: Tom's score simply isn't high enough.
    Cooper: What's your waistline? 32? With, what, a 33 inseam?
    Principal: I'm not sure I see what you're getting at.
    Cooper: You're telling me it takes two numbers to measure your own ass but only one to measure my son's future?

I would argue: no. There are always applicants with even more advantages than you, and those with fewer.

Standardized tests level the playing field IMO. Money can only help you so much. Talent and hard work become the dominant factors.

Mommy and daddy can't pay for expensive hobbies, finagle unpaid internships at prestigious non-profits, or anything else. Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding. Think Leetcode: how much does coaching help a SWE vs just being good at coding and solving 2000 problems?

Now you may say: under-privileged students often have less stable home environments. So they have less time to grind problems. This is true. But it's also true for admissions as they're done today. They have less time, money, and opportunities for hobbies, volunteer work, sports, and internships. They can't hire essay coaches or admissions consultants.

Thrusting students into a more challenging academic environment than their current demonstrated abilities merit doesn't help anyone. On the other hand if poorer students can demonstrate merit without spending much money, just by writing a single test, this is as egalitarian as possible.

OK but what would your goal there be? What do you think an existing admissions team's goal is in various different universities? What if some desire to build an elite club but can't say it on record? And is that such a bad thing?

Why does it matter? How deep do you want to go to hunt for advantages? Are there no other places than Ivy League schools where one not so advantaged can get an education? Do you want the doctor saving the life of your loved one be the most qualified or one who ticked the disadvantaged boxes?

In the UK you can apply to upto five colleges.

In the US the recommendation seems to be between 5-8