On April 25, 2022, the Strategic Review Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) released a memorandum recommending law schools stop requiring standardized tests, such as the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) or the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE), for their admissions. Ever since its first administration in 1948, the LSAT has continuously exerted exceptional influence on many aspects of law schools. Unlike college admissions, standardized test scores (i.e., LSAT) have been the single most dominant factor for applicants to care for in their application process, followed closely by undergraduate GPA. Law schools have also paid extensive attention to the median LSAT score of its entering class, for it significantly affects the infamous and yet influential US News & World Report’s law school ranking. Colin Diver, a former dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School from 1989 to 1999, well describes in his opinion article how much colleges and law schools have been — and still are — heavily occupied with the rankings. He wrote, “Each upward movement [in the rankings] would be a cause for momentary exultation; each downward movement, a cause for distress.” He also provided an anecdotal example that shows law school faculties keeping a close record of their rankings. He said, “Each year, Penn’s president would proudly present to the Board of Trustees a list of the university’s schools whose ranking numbers had improved. (She’d make no mention of those whose numbers had slipped.)” Contrary to the LSAT's hegemony for over 70 years, it has been less than seven months since the ABA officially allowed applicants to submit GRE scores for law school admissions. The committee’s decision startled many schools that have only recently started to receive GRE scores for admissions and to applicants who have consequently been considering taking the test. [caption id="attachment_2521" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] The American Bar Association (ABA) officially decided to allow law schools to accept GRE scores for admissions in November 2021. Now, the association is considering eliminating standardized test requirements from its rulebook entirely. Photo: Tony Webster / Licensed under CC BY 2.0[/caption] Bill Adams, the managing director of accreditation and legal education for the ABA, wrote in a statement, “Issues concerning admission policies have been of concern to the council for several years.” Other officials of the association also noted that in the process of policy decisions, they are more concerned with how students fare in law schools than their performance on standardized tests. However, Adams noted that removing standardized test requirements for admissions has not yet been finalized by the ABA. He said, “Any final decision rests with the council [the association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar].” Even if the council accepts the committee’s recommendation, there are a few more steps for the change to be put into practice; the council will receive public comments and then deliver its decision to the House of Delegates for another review before the legislative body ultimately sets out a new official policy. Although the decision may start affecting students enrolling in the fall of 2023 at the earliest, it is explicitly stated in the committee’s memo that “law school of course remain free to require a test if they wish.” The committee suggested an alternative to test-focused admissions in its memo, for when the schools decide to act in accordance with the decision. It said that law school could put more emphasis on applicants’ “undergraduate course of study and grade point average, extracurricular activities, work experience, performance in other graduate or professional programs, relevant demonstrated skills, and obstacles overcome.” Following the committee’s decision, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), a nonprofit organization that administers the LSAT, responded that it hopes “the A.B.A. will consider these issues very carefully.” It also added, “We believe the LSAT will continue to be a vital tool for schools and applicants for years to come ... [as the test is] the most accurate predictor of law school success and a powerful tool for diversity when used properly as one factor in a holistic admission process.” [caption id="attachment_2519" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] Harvard Law School was one of the first few legal education institutions in the U.S. to start accepting the GRE test scores for admissions. The school's decision was about four years ahead of the ABA's official decision to allow GRE score submission by law school applicants. Photo: Harvard Law School[/caption] The ABA’s decision to remove the standardized test score requirement for law school admissions appears to be following a similar trend in college admissions. The California State University system has recently become the largest four-year university system in the U.S. to forgo standardized test requirements for its admissions, following the University of California system’s decision to do the same a year before. Such a trend echoed throughout the nation — the process of which has been accelerated due to the pandemic. As Covid-19 still greatly disturbs the lives of billions across the globe, an extensive list of colleges, including all eight Ivy League schools, have extended their decision to stop requiring SAT or ACT scores in their admissions for the 2022-23 application cycle. Of them, Harvard University, the prestigious symbol of American higher education, made a notable decision to remain test-optional through at least fall 2026. Some support the committee’s decision, arguing that more affluent students with the ability to afford a prep course or private coaching for the test have an unfair advantage — irrelevant to academic abilities — over less wealthy students. On the other hand, some others argue that the test requirement for admissions is necessary as a minimum barrier to entry. Specifically, they opine that the difficult entrance exam works as a tool to discourage “weaker applicants” from spending their time and money in vain on law school. While the effectiveness of standardized tests as a barrier and their accuracy in predicting students’ performance after matriculation continue to be fiercely debated, the future of law school admissions — with or without any standardized tests — may be decided within months. The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar agreed last week on May 20 to receive public comments before it meets again in November. As previously described, the committee’s decision will be reviewed once more by the ABA’s House of Delegates before the change takes effect.   Read More: No More SAT/ACT for CSU Admissions

Does college matter?

It's that time of year when high school students' efforts pay off — a time to feel relieved after putting in a lot of effort studying, finishing required high school courses, and receiving a long-awaited college acceptance letter. Unfortunately, high school graduates frequently wait until the last minute before the start of the fall semester and miss out on the opportunity to get to know their future college better. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, individuals with only a high school diploma had a median weekly income of $730 in 2018, while those with a bachelor's degree see a much larger increase, resulting in a median weekly income of $1,198. The wage disparity between college graduates and those with less is well known, and people nowadays recognize the significance of attending college. [caption id="attachment_2502" align="aligncenter" width="1303"] According to the Consumer Price Index of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median of bachelor's degree holders is $20,937 higher than the median of high school diploma holders. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, March Supplement (IPUMS); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. Photo: Federal Reserve Bank of New York[/caption] College is said to be the next step on the path to adultery, and things would be very different. Entering college will help you prepare for the real world and your career by exposing you to a wide range of expectations from a variety of people, including professors and colleagues. Furthermore, your peers will be as intelligent and hardworking as you are. It would be preferable to be prepared for the upcoming college fall term rather than postponing plans to prepare for college for your career. Here's some crucial information to keep in mind.  

I got in! Now what do I prepare?

Extensive research is required in order to absorb information. The best way to learn about your college is to look into the various majors, extracurricular club activities, recreation, and other opportunities. It is critical to assist yourself in overcoming your anxiety about your future school. Speak with current students, including those on social media, to learn more about the university. Approach them as if you were conducting a survey or an interview, and ask them what their favorite parts of college are, and then continue by asking them what their favorite part of college is. Then ask, "What are the things you wish you knew sooner? What are the best things to do near college?" Following that, visit the college's websites and social media pages to learn more about what they have to offer, or even participate in orientation programs if they have them. The following step is to personalize it using the materials provided. Above all, only enroll in college if you are physically and mentally prepared. It is critical to take some time to reflect on yourself and come up with ways to stay organized and focused. Request gap semesters or years if you need time off. Time flies in college, so planning ahead of time is essential. Make sure you understand the various benefits and opportunities provided by college, such as financial aid and work-study, scholarships, and study abroad. Equally important, learn new skills while working and developing strong relationships with your bosses and coworkers. As previously stated, instead of waiting until school starts, read some books over the summer. The University of California, Berkeley (UCB), encourages students to read books from the University's extensive library collections:

• Interior Chinatown by Charles Yu
• Gordo: Stories by Jaime Cortez
• All About Love: New Visions by Bell Hooks
• How Starbucks Saved My Life by Michael Gates Gill
• Exit West by Mohsin Hamid
• Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague by Geraldine Brooks
• Wagnerism: Art and Politics in the Shadow of Music by Alex Roos
• When Brute Force Fails: How to have less crime and less punishment by Mark A.R Kleiman
• Your Inner Fish: A Journey in the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin

Aside from UCB, every college encourages students to read books, so why not go find yours and start reading? With only a few months until college, now is the best time to start planning. It will be exciting to learn about the college you will be attending as well as to enter and learn about a place where you will begin your new chapter in life. The more you prepare by learning, the easier the transition will be in the future.   Read more: U.S. Gap Year Statistics

"The proportion of young people enrolled in school remained relatively low in the last half of the 19th century," according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), "but the beginning of the twentieth century saw sustained increases in enrollment rates for both white and minority children." Despite declines in the traditional college-age population, the number of bachelor's degree holders continued to rise during the 1980s. "College does not matter," philosophy is certainly unappealing to Americans from the mid to late twentieth century, but it is notably attracting a lot of interest — why? Those who subscribe to the "College does not matter" philosophy bring up the upward thrust in university tuition, which is a hot subject in Congress. However, no action has been taken yet, leaving college graduates with extensive college debts. Furthermore, an ongoing element is the increasing wide variety of anti-science and learning during the pandemic. Furthermore, graduates have a challenging time identifying their potentials for appropriate future careers. It is indispensable to pay exclusive interest to affordability, and alternatively than believing in the limit to boom and concluding that "College does no longer matter," the change should be embraced. Considering the ethnicities and financial fame of college applicants from all backgrounds, there is a sturdy demand for higher schooling leadership to be responsible for lowering greater schooling costs whilst focusing on range and inclusion. NCES states the average tuition of public four-year establishments was once around $9,400, and non-public nonprofit four-year establishments had been round $36,700 — considered a excessive economic burden for college students in financial need. It is mandated that the federal authorities count on duty for growing a cost-sharing implementation plan. Not only have to academic leaders focal point on this issue, however colleges ought to additionally face and without delay talk with college students with the aid of supplying extremely good health, career, and other services. Finally, college need to be centered on a broader spectrum of degree programs that are linked to future boom areas such as future manufacturing technologies, which will end result in profession possibilities aligning with diploma packages turning into available. [caption id="attachment_2494" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] Education Leaders are gathered for the Institute for Educational Leadership, discussing the solutions for Higher Education. Photo: The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State / Licensensed under CC0 1.0[/caption] According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a person without a college diploma will earn $1 million or less than a person with an undergraduate degree. Since 2010, 9 percent of the 11.6 million new jobs have been created, with 8.5 million of those jobs going to people with bachelor's degrees. BLS data also states that those with only a high school diploma are 4.5 percent more likely to be unemployed than those with bachelor's degrees. Life's necessities are no exception. Lumina Foundation reports people with a college degree are 20% more likely to own a home. A college degree has different consequences in civic and societal cases, such as voting, volunteering, and financial contributions - It is estimated that four out of every ten US citizens with a college degree volunteer twice as much as those with only a high school diploma. According to the Postsecondary National Policy Institute, 29 percent of Black people aged 25 to 29 held a bachelor's degree or higher in 2019, up 11 percentage points from 18 percent in 2000, and 24 percent of Hispanic adults had earned an associate degree or higher, compared to 46 percent of White non-Hispanic adults, as highlighted by Excelencia in Education. A university degree not only offers an character with skill enhancements and information gain, however it additionally lets in humans to gain qualifications to enlarge and make really helpful contributions to the long-term economy. Although a college diploma now not determine the probability of success in lifestyles — it is the cognitive dissonance that college does count number to everybody — it is vital for prospective high school graduates to understand the significance of enrolling in and graduating from college.   Read More: The Movement for Tuition-free College in the U.S. is Accelerating

On October 6 of last year, the Department of Education announced temporary changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program as a response to the economic slowdown caused by Covid-19. The main change comes from expanded eligibility until the end of October this year, resulting in more than 100,000 borrowers now eligible with an estimated total of $6.2 billion in federal student loan cancellations. Currently, there are still many borrowers who have not yet been contacted for their changed eligibility status for debt relief. Although the department did not give a specific date or timeline for when they will be notified, the agency said the eligible borrowers are being contacted on a rolling basis. PSLF program was launched as a part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 to encourage and support students to take jobs in the public interest sector, which are relatively low-paying compared to those in the private sector. The program does not provide any direct financial means to students to start their careers in the public interest. Instead, it offers debt cancellation for federal loan borrowers who have made 120 qualifying monthly payments while working for qualifying employers. The recent change to the program policies came as the Biden administration attempts to address the longtime criticism of the confusing PSLF. Before the temporary measure, basic requirements were regarding the type of loans, employment, and the number of qualifying payments. Of those, the change is primarily focused on the type of student loans; while only federal direct loans were previously eligible to be canceled, any federal student loans, including Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL), are eligible to be canceled until this October, as long as the borrower has been working full time for a qualifying employer.

In 2020, only 1.96 percent of PSLF applications were considered eligible by the servicer. With the temporary waiver, however, an unprecedented number of borrowers are expected to receive debt relief. Data tables are in chronological order. Source: Federal Student Aid PSLF Data

It may be true that the temporary measure on the program would not affect as many Americans as Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, universally canceling $10,000 per borrower for nearly 46 million people. However, considering that only 45,730 borrowers out of 2,338,307 PSLF applications were deemed eligible by the servicer in 2020, the department’s estimation of more than 100,000 eligible people for loan forgiveness this year signals a significant impact the temporary change will bring to those who chose public interest jobs relying on PSLF. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said, "The PSLF announcement made today means more of our dedicated teachers, nurses, first responders, service members, and many other public service workers will get meaningful relief." Though many borrowers do not have to take any steps to be considered under the temporarily changed PSLF policy, the department strongly recommends borrowers check if any of their loans fall under a list of older loan programs that must be consolidated into the Direct Loan program. Namely, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans, Federal Perkins Loans, Federally Insured Student Loans (FISL), and National Defense Student Loans (NDSL) are listed as examples. Furthermore, those who wish to have their debt canceled under the temporary waiver must also file a Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Temporary Expanded PSLF (TEPSLF) Certification and Application to have any past periods of repayment credited toward the program. All of the above changes must be made by October 31, 2022. Meanwhile, the Department of Education announced on April 6 that it will once again extend the pause on student loan payments through the end of this August. Federal student loan borrowers have been exempted to make monthly payments since March 2020, following the devastating effect of the pandemic on the global and national economy. President Biden has delayed loan payments four times since he was sworn into the Oval office. As the infection numbers in the U.S. are slowly increasing again with a tragic record of more than a million Covid deaths in the country alone, the administration may decide to postpone another pause on loan payments before September comes. The current administration has not progressed much on delivering Biden’s campaign promise to cancel $10,000 in student debt per borrower. Instead, it has taken actions to fix and update existing forgiveness programs such as PSLF and Borrower Defense Loan Discharge — a relief program for victims of for-profit college fraud. As of late April, the Biden administration has canceled more than $17 billion in student debt.   Read More: Nation Divided Over Biden’s Potential Student Loan Forgiveness Policy

Higher education institutions across the U.S. adopted race-conscious admissions policies to increase diversity for historically disadvantaged minority students in the late 1960s, complying with the government's affirmative action. Since then, however, there have been numerous legal challenges against the policies and affirmative action at large. Most recently in January of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States consolidated two legal cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). The lawsuits were brought by an anti-race conscious admissions advocacy group, arguing that the institutions' admissions policies have discriminated against Asian American students. The group bases its legal argument on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits any entity that receives federal funds or financial assistance from discriminating or distinguishing among individuals based on race or national origin. The Supreme Court will proceed with initial one-hour oral arguments from participating parties as early as this October, possibly announcing the ruling on the case by the summer of 2023. The fate of affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies may dramatically change as a result of this lawsuit, for the country now has an unprecedented majority of conservative justices by six to three. Therefore, the time is ripe to revisit the previous Supreme Court cases concerning affirmative action.

History of Legal Challenges

Marco DeFunis v. Charles Odegaard, President of the University of Washington (1974)

The first legal challenge against affirmative action was posed by Marco DeFunis, a white Jewish student, when he was denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law for the second time in 1971. As his GPA and LSAT score were well within the qualified range, he believed that he was not accepted because of the school's suspected racial quota system for its total of 150 admission slots. The state trial court in Washington agreed with the plaintiff that his rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated, and DeFunis was admitted to the school for fall 1971. Although the Supreme Court later found the university’s policy to be justifiable, reversing the trial court’s decision, it declined to make a ruling as DeFunis only had a few months left before finishing his legal education.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

[caption id="attachment_2366" align="aligncenter" width="1840"] The Bakke case was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, upholding affirmative action by allowing race to be one of several factors in college admissions. The court's legal rationale still reverberates in recent legal cases. Photo: Archives of the Bancroft Library, the University of California at Berkeley / Licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0[/caption] Numerous universities in the 1970s adopted a racial quota system to increase the minority population in their student body. Of those schools, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis reserved sixteen slots for URM students out of one hundred for its entering class. Under the newly implemented quota system, Allan Bakke, a white applicant with test scores and GPA well above the average numeric measures of the admitted students, was denied admission for two application cycles in 1973 and 1974. He consequently sued the school in 1977 and reached the Supreme Court in 1978, arguing that the racial quota system violated his constitutional rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of the legal dispute, the racial quota system at universities was outlawed. The court stated that the system is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The majority of justices mostly concurred with Justice Lewis F. Powell that there are ways to achieve the representation of minority students other than the racial quota system. Nevertheless, they deemed the colleges’ use of race in the admissions process constitutional, leaving leeway for schools to continue increasing classroom diversity with more minority representation on campus.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) & Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Just as the first legal challenge against affirmative action in higher education, Grutter v. Bollinger was also against a law school brought by a white applicant who was denied admission. Barbara Grutter, a white female applicant to the University of Michigan Law School, filed a lawsuit, accusing the school of using race as a predominant factor in admissions. Similar to precedents, she also based her legal claim on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the Bakke precedent and stated in the majority decision, “the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” However, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority ruling that the race-conscious admissions “will be unnecessary 25 years from now [2003].” On the very same day that the decision on Grutter v. Bollinger came, Gratz v. Bollinger case saw quite a different ruling. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, two white applicants who were denied acceptance to the University of Michigan’s undergraduate programs, sued the school for violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the university’s point system gave 20 points out of 100 points required for admittance to any applicant from an underrepresented minority group. The Supreme Court ruled in favor (6-3) of the plaintiff, judging the point system to be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the court remained in agreement with the Bakke ruling, allowing higher education institutions to continue taking race into account in the admissions process.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher I 2013 & Fisher II 2016)

[caption id="attachment_2368" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] The Fisher case had a narrow decision by four to three in favor of the University of Texas at Austin. However, the current Supreme Court is considered to be filled with the largest number of conservative-leaning justices by six to three. The future of affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies is ever uncertain. Photo: Nick Amoscato / Licensed under CC BY 2.0[/caption] The two most recent Supreme Court decisions came to be when Abigail Fisher, a white female applicant from the city of Sugar Land in Texas, sued the University of Texas at Austin (UT) in 2008 soon after she was denied admission. The plaintiff alleged that the university’s race-conscious admissions policy violated the equal protection clause, reaching the Supreme Court in 2012. A little over a year later in 2013, the court sent the case back to the court of appeals, ruling (7-1) that the corresponding lower court failed to apply strict scrutiny to UT’s admissions policy of interest. Then, in 2015, the Supreme Court announced that it will rehear the case based on the same legal ground. Finally, in 2016, the court ultimately judged (4-3) UT’s affirmative-action admissions process to be constitutional, meeting the standard of strict scrutiny. However, the decision noted that the institution should regularly evaluate available data and "tailor its approach in light of changing circumstances, ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest." During the trials, it was revealed that though Fisher had considerable numeric measures — 3.59 GPA and 1180 out of 1600 SAT score — her credentials did not stand out for the most competitive university in the state. By the time Fisher applied in 2008, 92 percent of UT’s admission spots were filled with applicants who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class, as the school abided by the so-called “Top 10 Percent Law” or formally Texas House Bill 588, which guarantees automatic admission to all state-funded universities for the aforementioned top students. Considering that she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her class, she would have still had a very slim chance of getting an acceptance even if UT gave admissions to applicants “solely based on their merit” as she hoped in an interview. It was also reported that the majority of accepted students with lower GPA and SAT scores than Fisher were, in fact, white applicants; only 5 students were black or Latino, while 42 were white.   Read More: Race-conscious College Admissions Policies at Risk

The term “affirmative action” in the United States’ education sector, at present, mostly refers to the use of race in the college admissions process to correct inequity in higher education. Specifically, colleges and universities consider the applicant’s race in the admissions, giving underrepresented minority (URM) students slightly — though some may disagree on the degree of influence — more favorable consideration. Universities initiated race-conscious admissions policies in the late 1960s following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the time of the enactment, Title IV of the act authorized the Attorney General to enforce the desegregation of public school and university systems, while Title VI prohibits any entity that receives federal funds or financial assistance from discriminating or distinguishing among individuals on the basis of race or national origin. Of the two, the latter is currently being used as one of the principal legal grounds by an anti-affirmative group to dismantle race-based admissions policies at Harvard University.

Why Does it Matter Now?

There have been two consecutive years of decline in applicant numbers across the United States since the coronavirus pandemic started in early 2020. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, the only nonprofit organization that provides nationwide enrollment and degree records complying with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), reported a 6.6 percent (or 1,025,600 students) decrease in total undergraduate enrollment during two years of the pandemic. However, despite the continuous decrease in college applicant numbers, it is ever more important to discuss affirmative action in higher education, as the nation’s most elite universities — where the debate on affirmative action becomes most fierce — recorded the lowest acceptance rate in their history. Not only did Ivy Lague schools such as Harvard University and Columbia University report 3.19 percent and 3.7 percent of record-low acceptance rates, but other nationally renowned institutions like Rice University and Tuft University also celebrated their lowest acceptance rates of 8.56 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Furthermore, an extensive list of colleges, including all eight Ivy League schools, have extended their decision to stop requiring SAT or ACT scores in their admissions process for the 2022-2023 application cycle. Although most schools still require other exam scores such as AP exams or SAT II subject tests, their decision to forgo standardized test score requirements leaves great room for people to suspect and speculate the degree of impact race has on admissions. Therefore, considering the two aforementioned circumstances in the nation’s higher education, it is reasonable to expect the debate on affirmative action in higher education to only be intensified in the near future, further granting appropriateness to discuss the topic of this article here and now.  

President Joe Biden is considering to release millions of students from their federal loan responsibility. However, the idea is not supported by all but rather objected to by some Americans as they perceive it as unfair. Will Bach, an Ohio-based financial advisor, is one of the objectors. He said, “While some may view this debt forgiveness as a slap in the face to people who were responsible and paid off their student loans, this is a bigger slap in the face to those Americans who never went to college.” Indeed, the amount, tens of billions of dollars, required to implement this policy would not burden only the borrower but all taxpayers. Here, what needs to be noted is how likely are those who possess a college degree to generate more income than those who did not go to college. According to a study by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, the median lifetime earnings of those with a high school diploma is $1.6 million, compared to $2.8 million for those with a bachelor’s degree. Although there are other factors — such as age, gender, ethnicity and race, field of study, occupation, and location — contributing to the level of lifetime earnings, the $1.2 million difference is hard to ignore. “How can we honestly ask people who did not go to college to subsidize the lives of those who did decide to go to college?" Bach continued, "to my knowledge, everyone with student loans voluntarily took them. Every instance of a student loan was a voluntary choice that person made." Debt relief raises a host of questions, particularly for right-wing scholars. For example, Andrew Gillen of the Texas Public Policy Foundation points out the problems of this policy, including the question of fairness and fiscal concerns. He argues that student loan forgiveness will not change the fundamental issue: the ever-rising cost of college. Gillen thinks that Biden’s plan to cancel at least $10,000 (but lower than $50,000) for every student borrower is “really badly targeted.” He said, “There are people who are struggling to repay their debt, and we've got an existing set of solutions — and those solutions aren't working," referring to the major shortcomings of the income-driven repayment system. He believes that a simple measure like placing an income cap for eligibility will let the government focus on subsidizing lower-income borrowers, making the loan forgiveness policy fairer. [caption id="attachment_2347" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] The Biden administration seems to be moving forward — though slowly — with its student loan forgiveness plan. It is reported that the government is considering putting an earning cap to be eligible to benefit from the policy. Photo: Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz / Licensed under CC BY 3.0 US[/caption] A cap of sorts, similar to what Gillen suggested, appears to be on the table. The Washington Post recently reported that the Biden administration is considering limiting the policy to only those earning less than $125,000 or $150,000 per year for individuals and $250,000 or $300,000 a year for couples. Gillen also pointed out the unfair policy of unrestricted loans for graduate education, in comparison to the tightly regulated loans policy for undergraduates. Bach referred to the current disparity between undergraduate and graduate loan policies as a “welfare program for the upper class,” which does not benefit those who saved and paid for college education on their own. The student loan status quo in the U.S. warrants consideration for Gillen’s proposal to differentiate loan policies for undergraduates and graduates. According to Brookings, a non-profit public policy research organization, graduates account for about 50 percent of the nation’s entire student loan, although only 25 percent of undergraduate loan borrowers seek graduate studies. Those who agree with the idea of student loan forgiveness defended Biden’s potential plan against the critics. Political activist Melissa Byrne noted that higher education was unfairly defunded throughout the 1970s and ’80s, and the plan to cancel student loans is long overdue. Louise Seamster, a professor in Sociology at the University of Iowa, suggested the opponents of the forgiveness plan to reflect on larger factors — such as graduating into a strong economy, more affordable higher education, or financial support from their family — that helped them to leave their universities debt-free. She added that the critics should consider how monotonous our society would have been, with shortages of teachers and medical care personnel, if everyone prioritized personal wealth in their career decision. [caption id="attachment_2346" align="aligncenter" width="676"] A study by Georgetown University reveals that although women's earnings are catching up with that of men, there are still disparities and possibly a glass ceiling as well. Graph: The College Payoff: More Education Doesn’t Always Mean More Earnings Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce analysis of the US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2009–2019.[/caption] Another aspect this debate must concern is the demographics affected by student debt. For instance, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) reported that 41 percent of female students take loans for college while 35 percent of male students do so. It also revealed that women take about 2 more years than men to pay off student loans. Student debt appears to affect differently across races as well; Inside Higher Ed’s study showed that after 20 years from college matriculation, the median debt of white college graduates had reduced by 94 percent while that of black students reduced by only 5 percent in the same period. Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts has also raised her voice regarding the disproportionate burden on women and people of color, describing student loan forgiveness as “a matter of racial and economic justice.” A group of democrats, Pressley among them, have recently written an open letter to the president, pressuring the government to make progress on the previously proposed student loan forgiveness plan. In the letter, they stated, “Canceling student debt is one of the most powerful ways to address racial and economic equity issues.” In their reasoning, they pointed out that, on average, students of color borrow a greater amount both before and during their college education and take longer to repay their debt after graduation. The critics of the student loan forgiveness suspect the motive of the policy to be political as a move by the progressive party to win back support from young voters. Seamster responded to those who feel negative about the policy, “I invite them to join the movement for free college to make the same public higher education benefits available to all and make student debt itself unnecessary.”     Read More: Biden’s Plan to Double Pell Grants

Technical know-how and an understanding of data strategy are two factors that can improve MBA graduates’ career prospects

Data analytics is becoming an increasingly important and prominent aspect to consider for many MBAs. A recent study conducted by MBA Roundtable revealed that the majority (61 percent) of schools surveyed intend to overhaul their curriculum in the near future, putting a greater emphasis on analytics. It is reasonable for business schools to aim to equip graduates with the skills demanded by the modern labor market as a response to recent changes in the business environment. Modern businesses have no choice but to employ data experts, such as data architects, data engineers, data scientists, and other technical staff, in order to survive and succeed in today’s market. There is, in addition, a need for communication between the business and technical aspects of any business — an excellent opportunity for MBA graduates to occupy this middle ground. Gregory La Blanc, a lecturer at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, believes that graduates who can add an understanding of data strategy to their business credentials will reap the rewards with greater job opportunities. [caption id="attachment_2336" align="aligncenter" width="650"] UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business requires its first-year MBA students to take a course on data analytics. Source: Haas School of Business University of California, Berkeley[/caption] MBA courses have begun to reflect this sentiment, offering students a thorough grounding in the emerging technical and data-oriented aspects of business for them to thrive in their future roles. However, La Blanc emphasizes that MBA graduates will still need to continue developing their traditionally generalist skill sets along with up-to-date technical skills and understandings. Business schools highlight that it is hard to find, in today’s work environment, any role that would not benefit from analytics expertise. Yet, the business sector currently experiences a shortage of skilled employees who can fulfill such needs. Jan Hohberger, associate Dean at Esade Business School, says that data analytics knowledge is increasingly being considered a part of the “general” skill sets of all MBA graduates, rather than a special skill honed by only a few. Hohberger elaborates, “MBAs do not need necessarily become technical experts, but have to understand tools and methods to see their potential for the business area, and are able to work with experts.” Sudipta Dasmohapatra, professor of the practice in data science and business analytics at Georgetown McDonough School of Business in Washington D.C., links this new expectation of MBA graduates to the emerging economic environment. She explains that due to technological advancement, numerous companies, not just international mega-companies, can now manage large data sets. She says, “These are being recognized as valuable assets with the capability to drive strategic business decision-making and propel business growth.”

A Growing Demand for Data Analytics-savvy MBA Graduates

The exponential growth in data technologies and the relevant markets means that companies increasingly rely on employees who can handle data in a sophisticated manner: the ability to analyze, parse out hidden trends, and make predictions based on data sets. [caption id="attachment_2335" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] Georgetown McDonough School of Business provides its students with opportunities to immerse themselves in data, aiming to equip the students with the understanding required to visualize, analyze, and strategically execute projects based on data. Source: Georgetown McDonough School of Business[/caption] Georgetown’s business school has responded to this demand by putting more emphasis on data analytics in its curriculum. Dasmohapatra says, “The focus is primarily to understand sources of data and how the analytics concepts, techniques, and tools can be applied in practice across various business functions.” She elaborates that the business school guides students to learn how to apply knowledge of data analytics to business problems to maximize business opportunities. These technologies have been used as a part of many businesses for more than 15 years. What has changed is the cost; with significantly less cost to maintain computer power to access and manage data and to develop and test algorithms, many more companies are now able to benefit from these technologies. Such trend, in turn, has made data analytics a “key competitive factor” virtually across all industries, according to Willem-Jan van Hoeve, professor of operations research at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The main potential benefit of this technology to business lies in understanding how data analytics — which utilizes techniques from data science, statistics, and machine learning, to name a few — can create business opportunities. Van Hoeve says that students must, therefore, understand data science profoundly enough to apply it meaningfully in practical situations. He points out, in addition, that students should “learn how to communicate and lead teams to implement solutions that are driven by analytics and data science.” He also highlights the usefulness of data analytics in seeking out new business opportunities, describing it as a “key tool for decision-making.” The role of business analytics experts, he concludes, partially lies in bridging technical support and the business management side of any business. For those reasons, he predicts the knowledge of business analytics will “continue to be useful as a foundation while people develop their careers.”   Read More: MBA’s Case Study Method Still Stands Strong

The Supreme Court of the United States will reconsider the role of race in college admissions once again, hearing a case challenging 50-plus years of systematic effort to increase diversity in the nation’s higher education. The legal challenges to remove race-conscious admissions, which came about in compliance with affirmative action in the 1960s, have been posed by numerous parties since 1978. Most recently, such an attempt was made in late January of this year when the court agreed to hear two cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a Virginia-based advocacy group that opposes the race-conscious admission process, alleging the very admissions policies to increase diversity for historically disadvantaged students have, in fact, discriminated against Asian American students. The group has previously reached the Supreme Court twice, leading similar cases by Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas at Austin in 2013 and 2016. The organization and Fisher argued that the university’s use of race in the admissions — which she assumed unfair for white applicants like herself — prevented her from getting an acceptance to the institution in 2008. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the school’s use of race in the admissions decision violated her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court found the university’s race-conscious admissions policy constitutional in both cases. In the ongoing legal dispute, the organization accuses Harvard of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” [caption id="attachment_2241" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] There has been a fierce debate among the general population about whether students of Asian descent have been negatively affected by the race-conscious admissions policy. Photo: Whoisjohngalt / Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0[/caption] The plaintiff goes as far as to argue that the school’s race-based admissions policies intentionally discriminate against Asian American applicants in order to limit their number in the student body. The group also asserts that if race were not a factor and admissions used traditional quantitative measures like test scores and transcripts, more Asian American students would be eligible to enroll. Although nine states have banned race-based affirmative action — California, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Idaho — many experts in higher education policy, academics, and college administrators still believe in the positive effects of the race-conscious admissions policy. They especially argue for its unignorable impact in correcting inequity in higher education, particularly at the nation’s most prestigious institutions that rely heavily on affirmative action to maintain diversity. Affirmative action in higher education and complying race-conscious admissions policies have survived legal challenges by various interest groups for over five decades. However, there is a growing concern for their future; currently, the Supreme Court is filled with an unprecedented majority of conservative justices by six to three, after the demise of the renowned Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. As this is SFFA’s first legal challenge against affirmative action since the court has been crowded with conservative judges, concerns are mounting for the future of diversity in higher education. Unfortunately, those concerns are not unwarranted. A study by Mark Long, professor of public policy and governance at the University of Washington, found that there has been a long-term decline in the number of Black, Latinx, and Native American students at public universities in the nine states that banned affirmative action. He told Inside Higher Ed, “Alternative policies and administrative decisions have, so far, been unable to fully replace race-based affirmative action.” [caption id="attachment_2242" align="alignnone" width="2560"] Former President Donald Trump met with families of color in 2019 to empower them with education choices. However, he continuously worked to eliminate affirmative action, which was instated to correct an inequity in higher education. Photo: Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour / Licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0[/caption] Until his last days at the White House, former President Donald Trump had vigorously worked to take down affirmative action and race-based admissions, eagerly investigating colleges and universities that the administration suspected of discriminating against white and Asian applicants. The Justice Department under Trump had even filed an amicus brief, backing the lawsuit against Harvard. However, under Biden’s leadership, the department changed its side and now supports Harvard, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the legal brief it had previously submitted. The current legal battle may change the status quo of the higher education sector in the U.S. once more, which has already been significantly affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Even with the elimination of SAT or ACT scores for admissions by numerous institutions across the country, most schools, except the most prestigious ones, experienced a drop in student enrollment numbers. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported that “Compared to fall 2020, total undergraduate enrollment declined by 3.1%, for a total two-year decline during the COVID-19 pandemic of 6.6%, or 1,025,600 students since fall 2019.” It also noted that students of color were disproportionately impacted. The Supreme Court combined two legal cases against Harvard and UNC and will proceed with initial one-hour oral arguments by both participating parties, which could begin as early as October this year. Consequently, the fate of affirmative action in higher education and race-conscious admissions policy could be decided in the summer of 2023.   Read More: Covid Brings All-time Low Acceptance Rates