After the US Supreme Court struck down the use of race-conscious college admissions, schools will have to work harder to ensure diversity and stop being “lazy” by relying solely on grades and test scores, said Ruth Simmons, the first Black woman to lead an Ivy League institution.
(Bloomberg) — After the US Supreme Court struck down the use of race-conscious college admissions, schools will have to work harder to ensure diversity and stop being “lazy” by relying solely on grades and test scores, said Ruth Simmons, the first Black woman to lead an Ivy League institution.
Simmons, the former president of Brown University, Smith College and Prairie View A&M University, was a key witness for Harvard College at a 2018 federal trial in a case aimed at stopping the school from using race as a factor in admissions.
In an interview with Bloomberg News Thursday, Simmons said Harvard’s holistic admissions process could continue to be used as long as prospective students aren’t asked about their racial background. Simmons, who is a senior adviser to the president of Harvard and once worked at the university’s admissions office, said the school considers more than a dozen metrics, including athletics, artistic achievement, academics and extracurricular activities.
The daughter of sharecroppers and the youngest of 12 children, Simmons grew up in the segregated South. She eventually earned master’s and PhD degrees from Harvard. She is currently a President’s Distinguished Fellow at Rice University.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
How does Harvard’s process work?
“I had the advantage of having worked at Harvard’s admissions office as a student. The system of admissions is much misunderstood by the public and apparently by the justices. In the admissions process at Harvard, you’re looking at each individual student and what they can bring to the school, what their potential will be and what was their previous experience. You can still look at the totality of the student.”
“Everything in the admissions file has some use. You could look at grades, you could look at how they did in math, English — or we are an institution very involved in performing arts and we want to make sure that we’re admitting students in that arena. That has been happening and will continue to happen.”
What criticisms do you have of admissions in higher education?
“We’ve been pretty lazy in higher education because we tend to rely upon proxies, instead of looking at worth and merits, we look at test scores, we look at schools, where they studied rather than trying to dig into the student’s background and determine whether they should be admitted.”
“It perhaps will now take longer to make an admissions decision and take more people who have the capacity and knowledge to assess them. I know Harvard and other universities will find an ample supply of students for admissions but just not with the old hackneyed proxies we’ve used before.”
Read More: Harvard Defends Diversity After Defeat in Supreme Court
Does this Supreme Court ruling mean the end of holistic admissions for Harvard?
“I don’t see it as a death knell at all. If there is one place in the country that demonstrates they are doing a good job in admissions, it is Harvard. Everybody wants to go there. I believe they will adapt and move on.”
What will this mean for Harvard’s future?
“Why is it that Harvard is so respected around the world? It’s not because of test scores, but the achievers who come out of Harvard, who come from around the world, who lead nations and companies. That’s what elevates Harvard in the esteem of people. Why is that product so substantial? It’s because it’s been admitting in a way that’s substantial. It’s not the end. That’s what we have to remember. There are so many young people coming behind us. It’s one of the reasons we must not despair, because they are looking for their chance.”
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.