Ah, American higher education. That bastion of intellectual rigor, that lighthouse of democracy, that… complicated mess of SAT prep courses, legacy favoritism, and donors with buildings named after them. For over a century, we’ve been trying to answer one question: Who gets into the “best” colleges, and why?
Spoiler: The answer has never been “the most deserving student.” And now, President Trump has decided it’s time to “fix” that. Yes, because if there’s anyone who deeply understands the struggles of working-class kids fighting for equal access to education, it’s a billionaire real estate heir.
Trump’s newest executive order forces universities to hand over the holy trinity of applicant data: race, test scores, and GPAs. Officially, it’s to stop “racial proxies” in admissions. Unofficially? It’s to hand the feds a nice, color-coded spreadsheet they can use to make life miserable for any school that dares to let diversity creep back in through the side door.
Colleges, already scrambling after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that ended affirmative action, now have to brace for public shaming if their numbers look “too diverse” for MAGA math. Because in this new era of “merit,” equality is apparently measured by how well you can afford a private SAT tutor, a violin coach, and a summer internship your dad’s golf buddy handed you.
A Brief History of Making Admissions “Fair”
We’ve been playing admissions whack-a-mole for a hundred years.
In the early 20th century, colleges loved to evaluate the “whole person.” That meant grades, sure, but also “character” — conveniently defined in ways that kept out Jews, immigrants, and anyone who didn’t have a family photo in the Social Register. Athleticism and extracurriculars mattered too — which was great if your school had polo, fencing, and sailing, but less helpful if your “sport” was dodging rats on your way to the public library.
After WWII, the Cold War panic set in. Suddenly, we needed more scientists to beat the Soviets, so universities leaned harder on standardized tests. The SAT — originally sold as a great equalizer — was supposed to spot diamonds in the rough. And it did… sometimes. But it also found a way to rank kids by family income, since rich kids had better schools, tutors, and parents who could afford to turn the living room into a Kaplan classroom.
By the late 20th century, civil rights movements pushed universities to open their gates wider. The holistic model came back, this time as a way to include students of color and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Conservatives cried foul, arguing that this was discrimination — against white and Asian students in particular. And so the pendulum swung back and forth for decades: diversity, “merit,” diversity again, rinse, repeat.
Enter the New Data Dragnet
Trump’s executive order doesn’t just uphold the Supreme Court’s decision — it doubles down. Now, universities must cough up applicant data for the federal database IPEDS, conveniently sorted by race, GPA, and test score. The administration insists this is about “transparency.” Right. And Mar-a-Lago is just a humble bed-and-breakfast.
The Education Secretary, Linda McMahon (yes, that Linda McMahon, of WWE fame), says this will let Americans see if schools are passing over the “most qualified” applicants. “Qualified,” of course, is defined almost entirely by test scores — the same scores that research has shown track neatly with wealth. Wealth buys better schools, safer neighborhoods, more AP classes, and test prep that costs more than some people’s rent.
James Murphy from Education Reform Now points out the obvious: This creates huge incentives for colleges to enroll more wealthy kids. Why risk admitting a brilliant but under-resourced student when you can boost your averages with a kid whose parents hired a SAT whisperer in the womb?
The Myth of the Level Playing Field
The problem with test-score fundamentalism is that it ignores context. Sure, a 1400 SAT score looks impressive — unless you realize the student came from a private academy with a $50,000 annual tuition, a robotics lab, and a rowing team. Compare that to a kid who pulled a 1250 while working nights at Taco Bell to help keep the lights on at home. Who’s really more impressive?
Anthony Abraham Jack from Boston University makes the point bluntly: Without context, numbers lie. A 5 in AP Calculus means something very different if you’re the only girl in your state to earn it versus if you’re one of 20 kids at a math-magnet boarding school where “study hall” is code for “Nobel Prize prep.”
Legacy Admissions: The Elephant in the Ivy League Room
If Trump really cared about fairness, he’d demand universities release their legacy admission stats. But funny thing — no executive order about that. No requirement to show how many “qualified” kids get bumped for the children of alumni who barely scraped through themselves. No spotlight on donor preference admits — those magical creatures whose acceptance letters appear right after Mom and Dad’s seven-figure check clears.
Roxanne Garza from EdTrust calls it out: Why focus on race without asking about the ways the system already tilts toward wealth? Because this isn’t about fairness. It’s about framing diversity as suspicious while leaving privilege unexamined.
The Legal Minefield
This order rests on the Department of Education’s broad authority to collect data, which means it might survive initial legal challenges. But don’t worry — lawsuits are coming. Colleges will argue privacy violations. Civil rights groups will argue discrimination. And somewhere, a team of lawyers is preparing a 200-page brief titled, “Why This Is Stupid, But Also Technically Illegal.”
What This Really Means for Students
If you’re wealthy and white (or Asian, in the conservative narrative), congratulations: You’ve just been handed a bigger admissions advantage wrapped in the language of “fairness.” If you’re poor, Black, or Hispanic? You’ll face a system even less likely to value your lived experiences.
And if you’re a university trying to balance diversity with compliance? Expect to hire a few more lawyers, data analysts, and PR consultants — because you’re going to need them.
The Coming “Meritocracy” PR War
Universities will now be judged by the court of public opinion, where “merit” will be defined by whoever’s shouting loudest on cable news. Conservatives will wave around charts of average SAT scores by race as proof that admissions were “rigged.” Progressives will counter with graphs showing the iron grip of family income on academic performance. The rest of America will nod along without reading the footnotes, because it’s August and TikTok is more fun.
Final Thought: The Hunger Games of Higher Ed
This is not about ending discrimination. It’s about changing which discrimination is acceptable. For a century, we’ve twisted admissions into whatever shape best serves those already holding the golden tickets. Trump’s order just makes the game more explicit: Your score matters — but only if you come from the “right” background.
In the end, the new meritocracy is just the old aristocracy with better branding. And the SAT? That’s just the sorting hat for America’s gilded Hogwarts.