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: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: Potential and future college applicants worldwide
Estimated Size: 2300000
- The bill affects the admissions processes of institutions of higher education (IHE) that participate in federal student-aid programs, which involves the vast majority of U.S. colleges and universities.
- Prospective college students across the United States, especially those applying to universities where legacy admissions are currently in practice, will be impacted by the changes in admissions preferences.
- The bill specifically targets preferential treatment, which means students who might previously have relied on donor or alumni connections for admissions advantage won't have that consideration.
- Those who could be potentially disadvantaged by the change include applicants who were counting on legacy admissions to enhance their applications.
- Applicants from historically underrepresented groups, particularly at minority-serving institutions, may see a more competitive admissions landscape as the bill allows some exceptions.
Reasoning
- This policy is designed to target the admissions processes of U.S. IHEs to ensure fairer access, which directly impacts prospective college students across the country.
- Budget limitations constrain the number of people who could potentially be directly affected by interventions such as outreach, counseling, and support services to help navigate the new admissions landscape.
- The policy primarily impacts those applying to colleges that currently use legacy admissions practices. However, it can also have downstream effects on students at institutions allowing waivers, potentially shifting competitive dynamics.
- The policy might see varying degrees of impact depending on socioeconomic status; for example, students who might have needed legacy advantages are now on a different playing field, which could alter their personal trajectory and wellbeing.
- Demographic factors are likely important, as historically underrepresented students may benefit directly, whereas those previously advantaged through legacy status may perceive a loss.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have mixed feelings about the policy. While I think it's fairer that colleges should base admissions on merit rather than family connections, I'm aware that the competition will be tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
High School Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could level the playing field, especially for people like me whose parents didn't attend Ivy League schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
High School Student (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will create more opportunities for students like me and make the admission process more transparent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Freshman College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy won't affect me now, but I worry about future job prospects if my university becomes less prestigious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
High School Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might help me a bit since I'm not relying on any family donations for college admissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Administrator (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for this policy, but our institution might struggle initially to maintain a balanced incoming class without legacy admissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
High School Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it might limit my options since my family donations could have been a factor.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
High School Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, we'll see more students from diverse backgrounds making it into top colleges thanks to policies like this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Parent of a student (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see more balanced competition for college admissions but worried about how this will affect my son's chances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Educational Policy Analyst (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with fairness principles in education access, yet the transition period might require close monitoring and adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's costs are not just monetary but may have significant implications on equity and social justice, especially in higher education settings.
- Colleges and universities might experience varied costs depending on the complexity of their current admissions infrastructure and the extent of reliance on legacy admissions.
- Potential resistance from stakeholders benefiting from the status quo may affect the speed and efficiency of policy implementation.
- Long-term impacts might include shifts in donor behavior and the financial strategies of higher education institutions.