From Comparing Plus Factors to Context Review: The Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

By Foley, Lauren S. | Journal of Law and Education, April 2010 | Go to article overview

From Comparing Plus Factors to Context Review: The Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education


Foley, Lauren S., Journal of Law and Education


I. INTRODUCTION

In all but the most clear-cut situations, admissions decisions at colleges and universities are dependent upon the methodology of the school's admissions committee. Admissions methodologies vary, but models include the University of Michigan undergraduate program's mechanized approach used until 2003,' the University of Michigan Law School's individualized admission technique,2 and Dartmouth College's undergraduate contextual review.3 To illustrate, assume that one applicant, Jorge,4 a Latino student from an underprivileged neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles, had a 3.8 GPA, a 1050 on the SAT,5 a 3 on the Physics AP6 exam, and was involved in almost no extra-curricular activities. Another hypothetical applicant, Meredith, a white student from a rural Kansas farm, attended a regional magnet school, had a 3.4 GPA in some honors classes, a 1300 on the SAT, and two scores of 4 on AP exams. She was the president of two student organizations and the cofounder of a program that travels to schools educating other students about safer sex. The various admissions techniques differ in the perspective through which they view these applicants.

Michigan Law School's holistic, individualized admissions technique assesses the multiple factors of both students' applications that would contribute unique characteristics to student body diversity at the institution.7 In this technique, admissions officers look at various "plus factors," unique or interesting qualities in each application, and decide from there which qualities might outweigh others to help add to and diversify the incoming class.8 While the individualized admission technique can consider membership in a racial group, it also assesses other qualities like languages spoken; unique experiences; or even distinctive backgrounds, like growing up on a farm, and no one quality will trump others in assembling the class.9

Another methodology available to admissions officers is one that courts have not yet reviewed: "contextual review."10 Under this model, officers evaluate applicants within their social and educational contexts." They make note of whether the applicants took advantage of everything available to them, for instance honors classes or school activities, and any mitigating circumstances that may impede their education like extensive child care duties or long commutes to school.12 Officers then base their admission recommendations upon whether the applicants truly excelled within their circumstances; were exceptional for their environments; demonstrated intangible characteristics like intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness and motivation; and had to overcome whatever challenging obstacles were thrown in their paths.13 Pivotal to contextual review is the lack of a clear hierarchy of preferred characteristics; instead, the review process is a complex system that rejects the idea that two applicants can be directly compared to each other.14 Under this postmodern approach, which recognizes that applicants' backgrounds vary greatly, applications literally cannot be compared.15

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the holistic, individualized admissions technique in the 5-4 decision of Grutter v. Bollinger.'6 However, Justice O'Connor's departure from the Supreme Court in 2005 shifted the Court's crucial swing vote on the topic of affirmative action to Justice Kennedy.17 Kennedy, a dissenter in Grutter, views the narrowly tailored technique of individualized consideration differently than the O'Connor majority in Grutter.1* Thus, while Grutter remains good law, the individualized admissions technique may not survive judicial review by the Roberts Court. Risk-adverse admissions officers may opt for a constitutionally safer path that does not consider race definitively in admissions decisions. Where Grutter focuses on whether an applicant brings "plus factors19 that would contribute to the diversity of a class-a focus that is problematic for Justice Kennedy20-contextual review rejects any categorization altogether. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

From Comparing Plus Factors to Context Review: The Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.