
































Microsoft Word - Taline Ratanjee (Final).docx


 

  

  

  

  

The Bellarmine Law Society Review  

 
  

The Role of Socioeconomic Status in the College Admissions Process 

Taline Ratanjee 
Boston College Lynch School of Education and Human Development, ratanjee@bc.edu 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Volume  XI   Issue II                              Article 1   



2   

THE ROLE OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IN THE COLLEGE 
ADMISSIONS PROCESS 

  
  

TALINE RATANJEE1  
  

Abstract: Policy regarding college admissions has always worked to achieve equality 
within the admissions processes. Cases like California vs Bakke (1978) establish 
legislature regarding what is considered constitutional within the admissions process. 
Colleges claim that socioeconomic status is not involved in the admissions process, yet it 
is never truly excluded. Colleges know the SES of a student based off specific 
extracurriculars and if attendance of a public vs private high school. Colleges further 
advertise to students of specific SES groups, and high tuition cost can future exclude low 
SES students, resulting in lack of equality within the admissions. This paper works to 
explore legislature outlining the college admissions process and provide recommendations 
to eliminate biases that still exist within the college admissions process. 

  

Introduction 

This paper analyzes the key legal and economic issues surrounding the role of 

socioeconomic status (SES) in the college admissions process. As noted by numerous scholars, 

affirmative action is one of the most contentious issues in education policy, and challenges to race-

conscious admissions policies, both in courts and at the ballot box, have become regular 

occurrences over the past three decades. When these challenges enacted changes, colleges and 

universities recognized the need to alter their admissions policies to accept more minority students. 

This new age of affirmative action called upon top-tier universities to focus on diversity within 

their applicant pool to create a well-rounded campus consisting of divergent backgrounds, values, 

 
1 Taline Nicole Ratanjee is a fourth-year undergraduate student at Boston College pursuing a B.A. in Applied 
Psychology and a B.S. in Economics with a minor in Marketing. Her academic interests lie at the intersection of 
behavioral economics, social advocacy, and public policy. The author wishes to thank her parents, Joe and 
Georgette Ratanjee, for their unwavering love and support, and Professor Thomas Wesner for his guidance and 
inspiration.  

 



3   

and experiences. As these policy changes were implemented, scholars began calling for a focus on 

socioeconomic diversity—not as a substitute for racial diversity, but as a value in its own right. 

They claimed a focus on SES would more accurately identify those applicants who had to 

overcome hardships in their paths to higher education.2  Since socioeconomic status is not a 

“suspect classification” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause,3 class-based 

policies are not subject to the same legal uncertainties that race-conscious admissions policies are. 

Because of this, many universities decide to target groups of applicants who have faced significant 

disadvantages and oppression within society. The inclusion of these groups in the academic 

community is an essential part of fostering authentic diversity and equal opportunity. Universities 

have grown more diverse by instituting these new policies that are oriented towards race-conscious 

affirmative action, but they continue to exclude the factor of SES on applications. They still 

strongly evaluate one’s background on the basis of traditional qualifiers, like standardized test 

scores, attendance of public or private school, and participation in extracurricular activities, all of 

which are predominantly determined by family income. Utilizing socioeconomic factors to admit 

or reject students is otherwise known as class-based affirmative action, or “socioeconomic 

affirmative action,” which is loosely characterized as “admissions preferences for low-income 

students.”4 Class-based policies are designed to place a “thumb on the scale” for applicants who 

have faced obstacles toward upward economic mobility. Since SES significantly impacts academic 

measures that admissions officers use to gauge applicants’ college readiness (like standardized test 

scores, GPA, and AP tests), class-based affirmative action needs further investigation to better 

 
2 Kahlenberg, “THE REMEDY: CLASS, RACE, AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION,” pgs. 83-120  
3 The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws” U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV §1 
4 Gaertner & Hart, “Considering Class: College Access and Diversity,” pg. 6 



4   

allow all college applicants the opportunity to attend institutions of higher education. Not only 

does SES affect college admissions, but it also significantly impacts economic factors in society, 

such as gross domestic product (GDP)5 and human and social capital.  

  With this context in mind, this paper analyzes the relationship between socioeconomic 

(SES) and college admissions. Specifically, it analyzes whether or not college admissions 

processes disfavor low socioeconomic students and how they do so by reviewing previous college 

cases that attended to similar legal and ethical issues. This paper provides an analysis of class-

based affirmative action by establishing: (1) how affirmative action is followed but flawed, (2) 

how top tier universities limit entry based on socioeconomic status which heavily impacts social 

and human capital in society, (3) how this limit of entry negatively affects GDP and other 

economic aspects within society, and (4) how affirmative action excludes SES to exacerbate 

factors affected by it.  

History 

In 1961, the term “affirmative action” was first introduced by President John F. Kennedy 

as a method of rectifying discrimination that had endured in spite of civil rights laws and 

constitutional guarantees. In the 1950s and 60s, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education 

(1954)6 decision outlawed school segregation, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed any 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1965, President Lyndon 

Johnson enforced affirmative action policies via Executive Order 112467 to advocate for civil  

 
5 Gross domestic product (GDP) is the total monetary or market value of all the finished goods and services produced 
within a country’s borders in a specific time period. As a broad measure of overall domestic production, it functions 
as a comprehensive scorecard of a given country’s economic health (Investopedia). 
6 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 
7 Executive Order 11246 “requires affirmative action and prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the 
basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Contractors also are prohibited 
from discriminating against applicants or employees because they inquire about, discuss, or disclose their 
compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations (1965). 



5   

rights and ensure equality within American society.  

Since the 1960s, colleges and universities have adopted similar acceptance policies, 

causing the acceptance rates of minority students to increase. By 1978, flaws in affirmative action 

began to show despite the good intentions of the policy. In Regents of University of California v. 

Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of racial quotas is unconstitutional within the 

admissions process, while a school’s endorsement of affirmative action to focus on admitting more 

minority applicants is constitutional. Thus, this case proved a high-water mark for socioeconomic 

disadvantage in case law. Specifically, Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke famously held that racial 

and ethnic disadvantage could be considered in the holistic review of applicants. Contrary to other 

judges’ and scholars’ opinions on this case, Powell listed socioeconomic disadvantage as an aspect 

of diversity, essentially treating it on par with both racial and ethnic disadvantage during the 

college admissions processes.8 Since Bakke, the U.S Supreme Court and other federal courts have 

largely ignored Justice Powell’s stance on socioeconomic disadvantage and have focused instead 

on the relation between SES and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.9 

Hopwood v. Texas (1996) was the first successful legal challenge to a university’s 

affirmative action policy in student admissions since Bakke (1978). In this case, four white 

plaintiffs who had been rejected from the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law 

challenged the institution’s admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. The 

court ruled that the “University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding 

which application to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body…to alleviate the law school’s 

poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any past discrimination.”10  This 

 
8 Regents of the Univ. of Cal v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)  
9 Pruitt, “The False Choice Between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths,” pg. 5 
10 Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) 



6   

decision rendered the debate about economic and racial affirmative action to persist throughout 

the 2000s, with several landmark cases concerning unfair college admissions.  

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified 

as a way of addressing past injustices, it did help to promote a “compelling state interest” in 

diversity at all levels of society in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). For one, the 

Court ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) that the University of Michigan’s point system’s 

“predetermined point allocations” that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented 

minorities “ensure that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed” 

and, thus, was unconstitutional.11 Furthermore, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) held that the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment12 does not prohibit University of Michigan Law 

School to narrowly tailor its use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in 

obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.1314 The Supreme Court 

invalidated the Hopwood (1996) decision in Grutter (2003) when it found that the U.S. 

Constitution did not prevent the use of race as a factor in admissions. To further Justice Powell’s 

opinion in Bakke (1978), Justice Souter’s dissent in Gratz (2003) reaffirms the same idea by noting 

that the Michigan undergraduate admissions scheme at stake valued socioeconomic disadvantage 

as highly as racial/ethnic disadvantage.15 The majority in Gratz (2003) mentioned “socioeconomic 

disadvantage only in passing,” whereas neither the Fifth Circuit in Hopwood v. University of Texas 

(1996) nor the majority opinion in Grutter (2003) discussed socioeconomic disadvantage. This 

 
11 Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) 
12 U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV §1 
13 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003 
14 Both Gratz (2003) and Grutter (2003) failed to end the government’s use of racial preferences, it achieved a minor 
victory of placing limits on when and how institutions may use such preferences. 
15 Pruitt, “The False Choice Between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths,” pg. 21 



7   

omission of SES in discussing the college admissions process has allowed universities to continue 

to circumvent class as a discriminatory measure when admitting students.  

Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II)16 (2016) is today’s precedent for future cases17 

regarding the policy of affirmative action due to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the use of race as 

a consideration in the admissions process does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Fisher (2016) invoked the debate over whether affirmative action based 

on socioeconomic disadvantage – which would not invoke constitutional scrutiny – should replace 

affirmative action of race. Regarding class, the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher, “turned the value 

sometimes associated with socioeconomic disadvantage on its head” by claiming that she should 

be compared in the admissions process to other middle-class applicants specifically, across all 

races. Not only was Fisher a socioeconomically disadvantaged white, she creatively (if not 

convincingly) attempted to leverage her relative affluence into an argument that skirted the value 

of socioeconomic disadvantage as a type of diversity. Instead, Fisher essentially argued that those 

alike on the basis of class should be compared to one another instead of giving racial or ethnic 

preferences to other underrepresented minority applicants.18  

Although Bakke (1978) previously outlawed the use of quotas in the college admissions 

process, the Students For Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA) v. Harvard (2014) case likewise cited the 

use of unfair ethnicity quotas in the college admissions process, resulting in the 

underrepresentation of minority groups. SFFA Inc. alleged specific discrimination against Asian-

 
16 Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) (alternatively called Fisher I), 570 U.S. ____ (2013), a case which ruled that 
strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of a race-sensitive admissions policy. 
17 Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II) is an important case towards SFFA v. Harvard since Harvard has been 
involved in the Fisher case since November 2015 when filing for an amicus brief. This amicus brief supported “UT 
Austin’s use of race-conscious admissions policies to create a diverse student body, writing that a diverse student 
population is a compelling interest that justifies race-conscious admissions in higher education” (Ellis).   
18 Pruitt, “The False Choice Between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths,” pg. 25 



8   

Americans, who consistently score the highest percentages on the SAT and ACT, arguing that they 

were underrepresented “by a factor of half or even two thirds - relative to the number of 

applications from Asian-Americans that Harvard received.” 19  The complaint also strongly 

advocated increased use of socioeconomic factors in lieu of racial factors when seeking diversity 

in an admitted class.20 In October 2019, Judge Burroughs rejected SFFA’s claims, ruling that 

Harvard’s admissions practices met constitutional requirements and did not discriminate against 

Asian-Americans.21 SFFA appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld 

Judge Burroughs’ decisions.22 Even today, there are many unresolved issues among the use of SES 

advantages in the college admissions process. For example, the Varsity Blues Scandal highlights 

how increased wealth allows for unfair admittance into elite academic institutions through 

monetary payments.23  

Federal appellate court attention to the content of diversity has since waned. In Hopwood 

(1996), the Fifth Circuit hinted that the plaintiff represented diversity, perhaps partly on the basis 

class, but the Supreme Court majorities in Gratz and Grutter (2003) were silent on the content of 

diversity. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Fisher (2016) said nothing about the meaning of 

diversity, not even hinting at a response to the plaintiff’s argument that her application should be 

assessed in relation to those within the same socioeconomic class as she. The role of SES in the 

 
19 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President of Harvard Coll., No. 1:14-CV-14176-DJC, (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 
2014) 
20 Pruitt, “The False Choice Between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths,” pg. 6 
21 U.S. District Court, District of MA - SFFA v. Harvard Case Findings 
22 United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit Amicus Brief-SFFA v. Harvard  
23 In 2019, a scandal arose over a criminal conspiracy to influence undergraduate admissions decisions at several top 
American universities. Thirty-three parents of college applicants were accused of paying more than $25 millions 
between 2011 and 2018 to William Rick Singler, organizer of the scheme, who used part of the money to fraudulently 
inflate entrance exam test scores and bribe college officials. Singer unethically facilitated college admission for 
children in more than 750 families. Among the accused parents are prominent business-people and well-known actors, 
like Felicity Hauffman, Lori Laughlin, Mossimo Giannulli, Douglas Hodge, and Peter Dameris (Federal Bureau 
Investigation Affidavit, 2019).  



9   

admissions process, although previewed in the variety of cases discussed, still warrants additional 

attention to ensure fair acceptance into universities.  

Analysis 

As history has shown, SES has been utilized as a factor in the college admissions process 

in more ways than one, emphasizing the need for further investigation. Elite colleges — which 

have far more applicants than admitted students — experience pressure to be seen as “diverse” 

and have “diverse” student bodies. As Deil-Amen (2011) points out, “diversity” is a term that can 

be broadly applied to any number of deviations to the typical student.24 However, in practice, the 

term refers primarily to racial and ethnic diversity. Due to this narrowed definition of diversity, 

universities can still apply exclusionary practices during the admission process, allowing for 

underrepresentation of low-income students at elite universities. Research has shown that there is 

less socioeconomic diversity than racial or ethnic diversity at the most selective colleges.25  

Looking at Table 3.1, 26  seventy-four 

percent of the students at the top 146 highly 

selective colleges came from families in the top 

quarter of the socioeconomic status (SES) scale, 

which is measured by combining family income 

with the education and occupations of the 

parents. A little more than twenty-two percent of 

the students in the top tier of college selectivity are Asian, African American, or Hispanic (eleven 

 
24 Deil-Amen, “The ‘Traditional’ College Student: A Smaller and Smaller Minority and Its Implications for Diversity 
and Access Institutions,” pgs. 5-8 
25 Carnevale & Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 106-107 
26 Carnevale & Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” Table 3.1 pg. 106-
107 



10   

percent Asian, six percent black, and six percent Hispanic), whereas only three percent are from 

families in the lowest socioeconomic status quartile, and ten percent are from the bottom of the 

socioeconomic status scale. Thus, this research (Table 3.1)27  weakens the claim that college 

institutions are representative of the total population, especially given that three fourths of an 

institution’s student body is composed of individuals within the highest socioeconomic status 

bracket.  

Even though institutions of higher education are utilizing affirmative action, many are 

reforming their admissions process to admit those in higher SES quartiles. Colleges tailor 

recruitment toward racial minority students at a much higher rate than recruitment geared toward 

low SES students: “the percentage actively encouraging applications from economically 

disadvantaged students remained the same in four-year private colleges (twenty-four percent) and 

declined in two-year private colleges (from twenty-four to sixteen percent).”28  Even though 

colleges marginally recruit economically disadvantaged students, more than eighty percent of all 

institutions continued admitting students before aid was considered, creating “sticker price 

shock” 29  to discourage low-income student applications. Contrary to higher educational 

institutions’ goals to recruit and retain economically disadvantaged students, many schools 

implicitly dissuade these students from attending their institutions, allowing higher SES students 

to be admitted and pay full tuition. This “sticker price shock” not only affects low SES students 

heavily, but also creates compounding impacts on society as a whole by decreasing the number of 

low-income students in higher education.  

 
27 1988 National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 
28 Carnevale & Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 118 
29 “Sticker price shock” is defined as showing the full cost of attendance to deter students from attending the university 
secondary to financial concerns (Levine et al, 2020). 



11   

Economically speaking, higher education institutions' creation of this limited entry for low 

SES students affects the human and social capital within the nation. This failure to maximize raw 

human capital undermines the competitiveness of the nation, resulting in economic consequences 

for future generations. This is just one damaging implication of the current failure to value and 

support poor and working-class students in elite higher education.30 Lani Guinier convincingly 

argues that this exclusion of low-income students thwarts the “American Dream” storyline by 

undermining the country’s egalitarian ideals. Failure to include the socioeconomically 

disadvantaged in this elite pipeline to the nation’s leadership means that our future leadership will 

lack representation of a significant cohort: those who know the realities of a poor or working-class 

existence.31 Specifically, exclusion of low-income whites has adverse consequences as this cohort 

shares an experience and understanding of economic disadvantage, even though they also enjoy 

the benefits of racial advantage, secondary to whiteness.32 This cohort of low-SES students will 

not be the only group that benefits from their admittance and entrance into top-tier universities: 

high-SES students will improve by learning and understanding their peers’ stories, backgrounds, 

and experiences. Therefore, by limiting admittance based on SES, college institutions are not only 

failing to maximize human and social capital among low SES students, but they are also 

diminishing human and social capital among high SES students who are unable to integrate 

themselves with this identified “cohort.”  

 
30 Pruitt, “The False Choice Between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths,” pg. 3 
31 Guinier, “Admissions Rituals as Political Acts: Guardians at the Gates of Our Democratic Ideals”  
32 Guinier, “Admissions Rituals as Political Acts: Guardians at the Gates of Our Democratic Ideals”  



12   

Research 33  (Table 3.7) has shown 

that Americans associate disadvantage with 

income more than race — eighty-three 

percent of those surveyed viewed low-

income status as a disadvantage, and 

seventy-one percent claim that being both 

white and from a low-income family is a 

disadvantage. A majority of respondents 

noted that being black (49 percent) or 

Hispanic (51 percent) is a disadvantage if 

the person is also from a low-income family 

(78 percent and 77 percent), highlighting 

that these inequalities can be compounded. 

Growing up in a family that does not speak English (84 percent) and growing up in a single-parent 

family (80 percent) were also viewed as major drawbacks.  

 Overall, Americans recognize the link between higher education and success: “educational 

institutions have a primary role among American institutions for promoting upward mobility.”34 

Many Americans believe that college institutions play a leading role in an individual’s success as 

the economic benefits of attending a selective college are clear. Those who graduate from top-tier 

universities are typically known for being in the upper-echelon of society, with incomes in the top 

one percent of the nation. Further, top-tier colleges “spend as much as four times more per student 

 
33 Carnevale & Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” Table 3.7 pg. 123 
34 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg.122 



13   

and subsidize student spending by as much as $24,000, compared to a student subsidy of as little 

as two thousand at least selective colleges,”35  demonstrating the differences between higher 

ranking academic institutions and general higher educational programs. This highlights why the 

exclusion of low SES students at high academic institutions stifles access to much needed 

resources and decreases one’s access to social capital. Overall, this demonstrates that decreasing 

access to academic institutions not only affects low SES students, but also significantly affects the 

diversity of an institution's student body, thus, reducing the understanding of oppression and 

privilege amongst all students. Furthermore, these factors affect one’s social and human capital, 

resulting in societal consequences. 

  In addition, as presented in Table 

3.236, students at selective colleges have 

higher graduation rates than similarly 

qualified students at less selective 

colleges, proving that campuses “have 

long been associated with 

socioeconomic reproduction, or passing 

along socioeconomic advantages and 

positions across generations.”37  These 

elite colleges are strong pathways into high-status occupations and professional work; for example, 

all but one of the current Supreme Court justices attended either Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, or 

Georgetown), which are all considered top-tier schools. Uniformly, elite colleges provide 

 
35 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 107 
36 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” Table 3.2 p. 108 
37 Lee, “Elite Colleges & Socioeconomic Status,” p. 789 



14   

increased access to postgraduate degrees, such as business, law, and medicine, all careers 

associated with high incomes post-grad.38 Student support, preparation, and prestige at selective 

colleges results in higher rates of acceptance to graduate and professional schools compared to 

similarly qualified students graduating from lower-tiered universities. In this way, top-tier 

universities are uniquely positioned. On one hand, they pass along privileges and social 

connections for students from middle-and upper-socioeconomic status families, cementing 

advantages for the new generation of young adults. Conversely, they provide substantial financial 

aid support39  to invest in student services so low-SES students may also benefit from these 

advantages.40  

It is of the utmost importance that admissions officers at higher educational institutions 

understand the effects of their SES exclusion in the admissions process on the nation through the 

loss of GDP. McKinsey & Company calculated the cost of the GDP loss in 2008 due to the 

inequitable access to higher education: “$400 billion and $670 billion — some three to five percent 

of total GDP.”41 Elite academic institutions allow for upward mobility in society through increased 

spending per student, connections introduced while at the institution, and access to higher-paying 

postgraduate jobs. Exclusion of low SES students in this academic sector therefore limits the 

monetary capital this group can obtain, further restricting the overall GDP of the nation. This 

increases the wealth gap without fostering any substantial progress towards equal access to 

education, the one proven remedy that could mitigate the growing economic divide.  

As the relationship between education and income grows, families with the highest  

 
38 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pgs. 107-115 
39 Astin and Oseguera, “The Declining ‘Equity’ of American Higher Education.”  
40 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 107 
41 Pruitt, “The False Choice Between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Action Myths,” pg. 3 



15   

incomes are increasingly likely to be those with the highest levels of educational achievement. 

Researchers agree that the relationship between parental education and income creates an 

intergenerational cycle of success. 42  Simply, “parental education brings strong returns to 

household income, which in turn tends to raise time and resource investments in children and 

educational expectations.”43 This contributes to higher rates of high school completion and college 

readiness, allowing more individuals to enroll, graduate, and then secure jobs with long-term 

earnings potential. Growing up in a household with both high earnings and levels of parental 

education therefore perpetuates this cycle into future generations. Conversely, low-income 

families statistically are headed by single-parents’ low educational levels, perpetuating the cycle 

for future generations.44 As a result, the United States is composed of families with both high 

parental education and elevated incomes, and those with neither. As a result, these two paths to 

college converge in a single application that favors the already economically advantaged group. 

With the financial reward for accessing elite education remaining concentrated amongst high 

income students, failure to include avenues for low-income students will result in the continued 

economic polarization seen at these high-achieving academic institutions.45 

The college admissions process appears to exclude SES as a subsection of affirmative 

action, only exacerbating disadvantages in a student’s application: low standardized test 

scores due to tutoring, limited extracurricular activities, and attendance at a private or 

public school. Most admissions officers agree that admissions should be based on “merit,” 

resulting in the development of “merit-based admissions” approach. Here, universities 

 
42 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 129 
43 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 129 
44 Carnevale & Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” Table 3.7 pg. 123 
45 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 129 



16   

judge applicants on the basis of their high school achievements — students are often 

categorized based on class ranking, test scores, personal recommendations, leadership, and 

other achievements. Particularly, merit-based admissions aim to evaluate all of these 

factors regardless of the applicant’s socioeconomic background. Even though this 

approach is widely utilized,46 college admissions counselors disregard that these factors 

are heavily determined by SES. For example, standardized test scores, like the Scholastic 

Aptitude Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT), are profoundly influenced by 

SES since higher income students are more likely to be able to afford and receive private 

tutoring that greatly improves their scores. Although a small number of elite colleges have 

become “test-optional,” ninety-four percent of four-year colleges still require standardized 

test scores in their admissions process. In 2006, fifty-nine percent of top-tier universities 

deemed standardized tests as “considerably important” in garnering admission to their 

institution. 47  The role of extracurriculars in the admissions process have becoming 

increasingly important metric to determine qualified applicants, but extracurriculars yield 

increased opportunities for high SES students. These extracurricular activities are severely 

restricted for low SES students whose parents are less able to marshal resources or help 

their children participate in these activities, thereby further limiting their access to top-tier 

institutions that use merit-based admissions.   

 
46 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 115 
47 Alon, “The Declining ‘Equity’ of American Higher Education.’ pg. 1476 



17   

Research findings in Table 3.1448 show that the pool of students with high scores on college 

entrance exams is highly skewed by SES. Two out of three students who score in the top SAT 

percentile (score of 1300 or greater) come from the top eight percent of the SES quartile 

nationwide. For reference, a perfect 

SAT score is a 1600. Of those who 

score between 1200 and 1300, fifty-

eight percent are from the top 

socioeconomic status quartile. By 

contrast, just three percent of those 

who score above 1300 and four 

percent of those who score between 

1200 and 1300 come from the lowest socioeconomic status quartile. Scholars have noted that high 

school grades predict college success better than standardized tests49 and that selective colleges 

with SAT-optional policies receive more applicants from low-income and minority students,50 

indicating that standardized tests are a barrier for low SES applicants. 51  Conversely, the 

standardized test scores of low-SES student provide a greater indication of whether or not they are 

qualified for academic work at an elite college as they typically receive high scores based on merit  

 
48 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 130 
49 Alon, “The Declining ‘Equity’ of American Higher Education.’ pgs. 1475-99 
50 Lee, “Elite Colleges & Socioeconomic Status,” p. 789 
51 A growing number, including DePaul University and the University of Chicago, have opted to stop requiring the 
SAT and ACT in their admissions process, saying the tests place an unfair cost and burden on low income and minority 
students, and ultimately hinder efforts to broaden diversity on campus. Critics argue that these standardized tests, 
which some families spend thousands of dollars to prepare for, do not accurately measure a student’s qualifications. 
For example, the Undergraduate Dean John Boyer at University of Chicago explains that, “There’s a big industry of 
test prep, and the system as it’s existed serves them very well...allowing ZIP codes to basically define the future of 
American life...Four years of high school is a better predictor than three hours in a testing room” (Rhodes, 2018). 



18   

instead of privatized tutoring that most students enrolled in elite colleges receive.52  

The issue of standardized test scores is further compounded in the admissions process by 

the segregation of students based on high schools and their overall SES. Students with higher SES 

generally attend high schools that are more successful in providing access to colleges, especially 

highly selective colleges. These high schools provide a diverse range of academic courses, 

including Advanced Placement, 53  dual enrollment, 54  or International Baccalaureate (IB) 55 

programs,56 extracurricular activities, sports, and test preparation. There is the further stratification 

of students within high schools, as low SES students are less likely to take more rigorous college 

preparatory classes than high SES students. This separation of SES students “reduces the positive 

‘peer effects’ that come from mixing youth with different social characteristics.”57 American high 

schools vary widely in terms of teacher qualifications, personal safety of students, workload, 

access to technology, and family, peer, and community relationships. Notably, upper-SES students 

use a wide range of resources to increase their chances of admission to high-achieving institutions 

including: teachers and counselors, family, friends, the internet, and college promotional materials. 

Low-SES students have restricted access to these resources as their social circles are less likely to 

 
52 Haveman and Smeeding, “The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility,” pgs. 12-13 
53 Advanced Placement is “a program in the United States and Canada created by the College Board which offers 
college-level curricula and examinations to high school students. American colleges and universities may grant 
placement and course credit to students who obtain high scores on the examinations (College Board, 2020).  
54 Dual enrollment, “or concurrent enrollment as it is also known, is the practice of allowing a student to be enrolled 
in two academic institutions at once. Usually, this involves a high school and a college. The credits apply both to high 
school diploma requirements and college graduation requisites (BestValue Schools). 
55 The International Baccalaureate Program (IB) is a European-based academic program for children and teenagers. 
High school students can take classes that will prepare them for college through learning key subject areas as math, 
science, and the arts. There are also core career classes and community service projects (BestValue Schools).  
56 There are differences between the AP and IB programs. “The AP program is very subject focused, while IB 
programs takes a holistic approach to learning. Most American high school students participate in the AP program. 
In the end, both programs have rigorous academic standards and will help the student prepare for college (BestValue 
Schools).  
57 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 130 



19   

include those that can aid them with the college admissions process. Research has shown that 

guidance counselors only provide information about expensive top-tier universities to students 

who they believe can afford tuition, pushing low-SES students to attend community colleges 

instead of rigorous schools.58 

Finally, elite colleges tend to prioritize “well-roundedness” in their admissions process. 

High school extracurricular activities allow students to “stand out” amongst their peers by 

providing them a diverse range of experiences. Some extracurricular examples include 

volunteering, sports, community-based projects, and service projects. Such factors increase the 

likelihood of admission to an elite college59 by providing experiences that make students appear 

“well-rounded.” Indeed, prioritizing a “well-rounded” student, as done in merit-based admissions, 

disadvantages low-SES students who cannot afford to participate in extracurricular, or cultural 

capital building, activities.60 

Even though standardized test scores, extracurricular activities, and academic achievement 

are heavily affected by SES, a group of college officials convened by the College Board noted that 

the college admissions process “should consider what a student has to overcome in order to qualify 

for a competitive selection process. Not all students have had the same educational 

opportunities,” 61  which can be explained by standardized test scores, participation in 

extracurricular activities, and rigor and achievement in academic courses. Contrary to the general 

public, employing an applicant’s ability to “overcome educational obstacles as a selection criterion 

 
58 Lee, “Elite Colleges & Socioeconomic Status,” p. 788 
59 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 114-117 
60 Lee, “Elite Colleges & Socioeconomic Status,” p. 788-90 
61 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 115 



20   

is not a simply a means to correct past inequities.”62 As such, we must demonstrate new methods 

to ensure SES diversity within academic institutions.  

Conclusion and Implications 

Ever since the Bakke (1978) case brought the topic of diversity in higher education to the 

Supreme Court, there has been a “compelling government interest”63  for diversity in college 

admissions. Universities have attempted to reform their admissions policies to ensure an equal and 

fair process for their applicants that can create a diverse, well-rounded student body. While most 

universities have addressed race-based affirmative action issues, many have altered their policies 

to segregate applicants based on other factors such as SES. There is a relationship of inequity 

between admissions to elite colleges and SES. For one, data has shown that affirmative action is 

followed but flawed as college admissions circumvent race and ethnicity by looking at factors that 

are skewed to benefit high SES students (such as standardized test scores, GPA, attendance of 

private versus public school). Second, in focusing on these factors, college admission officers are 

limiting entry to low SES students at top-tier universities. This hindrance not only affects college 

applicants, but also impacts society as a whole by reducing the nation’s GDP cost and human and 

social capital. College admissions further limit upward mobility for low SES students by rejecting 

their applications to top-tier universities –– a place that could provide the mobility such students 

need. Since affirmative action cases have established legal precedent for racial and ethnic diversity 

in the college admissions process, many colleges seem to have greater diversity in regard to these 

demographics. However, even though colleges might have greater racial and ethnic diversity, they 

do not have the same amount of socioeconomic diversity. This is mainly due to the fact that there 

 
62 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pgs. 115-116 
63 Regents of the Univ. of Cal v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)  



21   

is no legal precedent for class-based affirmative action, allowing many universities to exploit this 

fact during the admissions process. Who would institutions rather accept: a student willing to pay 

$250K in tuition or a student needing $250K in aid to attend your university? Ultimately, college 

admissions and higher educational institutions must invest more resources into bettering 

affirmative action for the purpose of avoiding class-based affirmative action and improving the 

college admissions process.  

 Higher educational institutions must alter their admissions strategies to empower the future leaders 

of society: the students they produce. Although there may be pushback from high SES individuals, 

elite universities need to change their admissions process to ensure equitable access for all students. 

Possible solutions to address class-based affirmative action include the following:  

1. Eliminate Early Action Policies: In an effort to increase diversity, universities can 

eliminate early action programs.64 For example, Harvard eliminated its early action 

program for the Class of 2012 through 2015, believing that these programs 

disproportionately benefited affluent students. Even though eliminating early action 

might prove to be beneficial, unintended consequences might arise such as a possible 

increase in applications, since an increased number of students will be incentivized to 

apply to universities during the regular admissions cycle. On the other end, colleges 

might receive less applications, since prospective applicants may choose to attend other 

schools that do offer early admittance programs.65  

2. Eliminating Standardized Testing: Some higher education institutions, like DePaul 

University and the University of Chicago, have eliminated standardized test scores from 

 
64 “According to the National Association for College Admission Counseling, early action means that ‘students apply 
early and receive a decision well in advance of the institution’s regular response date.’” (U.S. News). 
65 U.S. District Court, District of MA - SFFA v. Harvard Case Findings, pg. 86 



22   

their applications. These and other universities have stated that such “tests place an unfair 

burden on low-income and minority students, and ultimately hinder efforts to broaden 

diversity on campus.”66 Even though eliminating test scores might lead to a reduction in 

the academic qualifications of applicants, standardized test scores have been recognized 

to be “imperfect measures” of one’s intellectual capacity and other academic abilities.67 

Research has already found that many high SES students receive greater amounts of 

standardized test preparation from school resources or private tutors.68 Therefore, 

eliminating standardized test scores is likely to improve diversity by relieving low SES 

students from the unfair burden of standardized tests. Furthermore, eradicating 

standardized tests from the admissions process could remove a key indicator of first year 

college success, as many universities see a strong correlation between high standardized 

test scores and first-year success.69  

3. Amended Merit-Based Admissions Criteria: The College Board and college admissions 

officials have published merit-based admissions methods70 to ensure improved 

representation among colleges. This method fails to incorporate evaluation metrics that 

establish challenges students have overcome in lieu of looking for “well-roundedness” in 

applicants. Future admissions criteria processes should have criteria that evaluates 

students on the basis of personal background and academic capabilities in order to 

provide a better snapshot of the true challenges a student has overcome. Doing so will 

 
66 Rhodes, Dawn. “The University of Chicago to stop requiring ACT and SAT scores for    
prospective undergraduates.” The Chicago Tribune, 2018. 
67 U.S. District Court, District of MA - SFFA v. Harvard Case Findings, pgs. 87-88 
68 Lee, “Elite Colleges & Socioeconomic Status,” p. 789 
69 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 116-118 
70 Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” pg. 115 



23   

help holistically view students, providing a true metric of their aptitude towards a certain 

university. While this amendment has never been implemented, it might prove beneficial 

and also attract underprepared students to elite universities, no matter their background.  

 

These solutions prove to be worthwhile alternatives to the current process of college 

admissions, but research is still needed. The best solution is to both eliminate standardized test 

scores and institute an amended merit-based admission criterion. This combination will likely 

allow for low SES students to equally compete with their high SES counterparts while also 

allowing all students to receive an equitable review of their applications.  

Moving forward, all parties — college applicants, high schools, exterior resources, and 

college institutions — must come to an agreement that grants all students a fair and equitable 

college admissions experience and process to ensure diversity. Universities are the “choice 

architects” as they hold “the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make 

decisions.”71 It is critical that they establish these changes within the admissions process so that 

other institutions may be nudged into similar changes. Given the role that universities play in 

alleviating poverty, increasing GDP, and ensuring equal access, it is critical these “choice 

architects” establish this change for the benefit of society. 

As Horace Mann, the Massachusetts Secretary of Education, once expressed, 

“Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of the 

condition of men -- the balance well of ‘social machinery.’ In the face of historical and 

 
71 Thaler, “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” pgs. 3-5 



24   

persistent inequality, educational opportunity is among the best tools for increasing equal 

opportunity more broadly.”72 

Without equitable access to education, there will continue to be disparities within our society. 

Solutions to eliminating class-based affirmative action are diverse in nature. The need for 

change in both economic and social policy is required to ensure systemic changes to the college 

admissions process. Academic institutions are the training centers for the future generations of 

students in their providing of both intellectual and social growth. Elite institutions have 

consistently proven to produce the future leaders of society, the same leaders that earn the top one 

percent of earnings and create the policies that govern the lives of the American people. By 

continuing to exclude those with low SES, society excludes these narratives from future policies 

and continues to inhibit them from escaping the poverty cycle that encompasses those with low 

educational levels. By implementing changes to the college admissions process to include class-

based affirmative action, society is one step closer to achieving true equality for all.  

 
  

 
72 Gaertner & Hart, “Considering Class: College Access and Diversity,” pg. 5 



25   

Bibliography 

Alon, Sigal. 2007. “Overlapping Disadvantages and the Racial/Ethnic Graduation Gap among 
Students Attending Selective Institutions.” Social Science Research 36 (4): 1475–99. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.01.006. 

Astin, Alexander, and Leticia Oseguera. 2004. “The Declining ‘Equity’ of American Higher 
Education.” The Review of Higher Education 27 (March): 321–41. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0001. 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 

College Board. n.d. “What Is AP? – AP Students | College Board.” The College Board. Accessed 
December 17, 2020. https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/what-is-ap. 

Deil-Amen, Regina. 2011. “The ‘Traditional’ College Student: A Smaller and Smaller Minority 
and Its Implications for Diversity and Access Institutions.” Mapping Broad Access Higher 
Education. https://cepa.stanford.edu/conference-papers/traditional-college-student-
smaller-and-smaller-minority-and-its-implications. 

“Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity | U.S. Department of Labor.” n.d. 
Government. US Department of Labor. Accessed December 17, 2020. 
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/ca-11246. 

Fern, Jason. n.d. “Gross Domestic Product (GDP).” Investopedia. Accessed December 17, 2020. 
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp. 

Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher I), 570 U.S. ___ (2013) 

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), 579 U.S. ___ (2016)  

Gaertner, Matthew, and Melissa Hart. 2012. “Considering Class: College Access and Diversity.” 
Harvard Law & Poicy Review 7 (367). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2137126. 

Guinier, Lani. 2003. “Admissions Rituals as Political Acts: Guardians at the Gates of Our 
Democratic Ideals.” Law School Admissions, November. https://arc.accesslex.org/di-
admissions/33. 

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) 

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) 

Levine, Phillip B., Jennifer Ma, and Lauren C. Russell. 2020. “Do College Applicants Respond to 
Changes in Sticker Prices Even When They Don’t Matter?” w26910. National Bureau of 
Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26910. 

Mcdonough, Peter, Jessica L Ellsworth, Stephanie J Gold, and Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar. n.d. “BRIEF 
AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION AND 40 OTHER 
HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-
APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE,” 42. 

 

 



26   

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) 

Moody, Josh. n.d. “What to Know About Early Action and Early Decision.” US News & World 
Report. Accessed December 17, 2020. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-
colleges/articles/what-to-know-about-early-action-early-decision-in-college-admissions. 

Pruitt, Lisa R. n.d. “The False Choice between Race and Class and Other Affirmative Myths.” 
BUFFALO LAW REVIEW 63: 87. 

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 312 (1978) 

Rhodes, Dawn. n.d. “University of Chicago to Stop Requiring ACT and SAT Scores for 
Prospective Undergraduates.” The Chicago Tribune. Accessed December 17, 2020. 
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-university-chicago-sat-act-20180614-
story.html. 

Smith, Laura. n.d. “AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,” 204. 

Staff Writers. 2020. “What Is Dual Enrollment?” BestValueSchools. July 21, 2020. 
https://www.bestvalueschools.com/faq/what-is-dual-enrollment/. 

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard  

Corporation) No. 1:14-CV-14176-DJC, (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2014) 

Thaler, Richard, and Cass Sustein. 2008. “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, 
and Happiness.” In , 312. Yale University Press. 

U.S. Constitution. Amendment XIV, Sec. 1. 

Wilson WJ. Review of The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action by Richard D.  
  Kahlenberg. New York Times Book Review. 1996. 


