Bill Overview
Title: Fair College Admissions for Students Act
Description: This bill prohibits an institution of higher education (IHE) that participates in federal student-aid programs from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to applicants based on their relationships to donors or alumni of the IHE. The Department of Education may waive the prohibition against preferential treatment based on relationships to alumni for certain IHEs (e.g., historically Black colleges and universities or other minority-serving institutions) that demonstrate that the use of such preferential treatment is in the best interest of students who have been historically underrepresented in higher education.
Sponsors: Rep. Bowman, Jamaal [D-NY-16]
Target Audience
Population: Current and prospective college students worldwide
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill affects institutions of higher education (IHE) that participate in federal student-aid programs.
- It directly impacts the admissions process of these institutions by eliminating preferential treatment based on relationships to donors or alumni.
- Applicants who might otherwise have benefited from such preferential treatment will be impacted.
- Students from historically underrepresented backgrounds may be impacted positively in cases where waivers are provided to certain IHEs like historically Black colleges and universities.
- Current and prospective college students looking to apply to colleges or universities in the U.S. will be impacted by changes in admission criteria and fairness.
Reasoning
- The goal of this simulation is to see a diverse representation of individuals who might be affected by the 'Fair College Admissions for Students Act.' This includes those who potentially benefit directly or indirectly from the change in policy.
- The simulated interviews include college-bound students, legacy status students who might lose advantage, underrepresented minorities who could benefit from the change, and those who are not directly affected but have opinions on fairness in admissions.
- We consider the interactions of this bill within a budget that targets a large group, keeping in mind that while some may see drastic changes, others may see minimal impact.
- There is consideration for historical inequities in college admissions, hoping the policy moves towards more equitable access.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this bill is a step in the right direction. It's hard knowing that your dream school could be out of reach just because you're not a legacy or your family doesn’t donate big.
- Fair admissions means I might have a better shot at schools I’ve dreamt of.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Admissions Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill will change how we evaluate relationships with alumni. Our school has relied on alumni donations significantly tied to legacy admissions.
- It might get challenging in terms of funding but fairness is important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Freshman (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I got into college mostly because of my grades, but I know being a legacy helped.
- I'm not sure how I feel about the policy. It seems fair but also tough when your family has history with a school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
High School Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might really open doors for me.
- Fair admissions practices mean talents and efforts are appreciated more than the family background.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Senior (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having experienced admissions and scholarships firsthand, I welcome this change.
- It signifies a move towards equality, though it might upset traditional funders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Administrator (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change will require us to adapt our admissions criteria and communication strategy.
- It might hit our funding streams but aligns with modernizing equity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems fairer, but I’m already in school so it’s not affecting me much.
- Glad to see equality being prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Community College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I study at a community college, knowing that admissions at state universities may become more equitable is reassuring.
- More fairness means better opportunities for students from all backgrounds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
High School Guidance Counselor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our push for more fair opportunities for our students.
- It might lessen some systemic challenges students face when applying to colleges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
High School Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved about the waivers for HBCUs, it feels like my community’s needs are being recognized.
- I’m hopeful for my chances in such a competitive process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy aims to increase equity in college admissions, potentially improving access for underrepresented groups.
- Monitoring and enforcement of the provisions will require effective administration by the Department of Education.
- Impact on existing infrastructure of admissions processes at IHEs needs careful evaluation to avoid unintended costs or consequences.
- The policy could lead to shifts in university fundraising strategies as the perceived value of contributions tied to admissions may change.