Navigating College Applications: Myth Busting and Advice Under Race-Neutral Mandates

As a new school year begins and high school seniors apply to college, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action underscores a need to debunk myths and clarify what is up from down about race and admissions. I have seen these myths from a few angles. I was once a first-generation Latino college student from Southeast Los Angeles, who navigated UCLA and Harvard and then worked as a former admissions officer at Georgetown. Now, I am a Ph.D. student at USC’s Rossier School of Education studying equity in admissions, and I happen to be mentoring my niece as she applies to college this year.

Myth 1: Every minoritized student’s admission to college is due to affirmative action

Going to UCLA was cause for celebration in my community. However, the initial celebration gave way to a sobering reality. Becoming an ambassador for my school and presenting myself publicly on social media exposed me to racism in a way I had not expected. Comments and messages from strangers forced me to confront the notion that, to some, my presence was only due to affirmative action or quotas. They were wrong. UCLA was subject to a law that banned quotas in college admissions in 1978 and banned "preferential treatment" in 1996, long before I even applied to college. But myths die hard. 

Myth 2: Affirmative action turns admissions into a zero-sum game

Decades after the end of quotas, the myth persists that college admissions is a zero-sum game — that one minoritized student’s admission means taking a spot from a more “deserving” student. This view is reflected in this summer’s Supreme Court ruling. It oversimplifies a complex process and misses a fundamental fact: Selective admissions exist because some colleges and universities have more academically qualified applicants from all backgrounds than they can admit.

Myth 3: Race makes or breaks student admission chances under affirmative action

I experienced the complexity of affirmative action as an admissions officer at Georgetown University. Here is what race-conscious admissions looked like in practice: No student was admitted solely based on race. To determine competitiveness, the admissions process considered a student’s full application and opportunities. The primary question guiding the process was, “How will students positively contribute to their class?” The aim was an enriched learning environment for all, not group favoritism. Our process only scratched the surface to offset the long-term barriers to higher education for Black, Latino, Southeast Asian and Indigenous students.

As I guide my niece today, I have seen how the recent ruling heightens uncertainties in the college application process. Students may wonder if achievements such as extracurricular leadership and being valedictorian at an under-resourced school are enough to stand out.

Racially minoritized students are questioning how to signal the salience of their identity in application essays, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ comment that universities may consider applicants’ discussions of how race affected their lives. They may feel they have to emphasize their racial identity more than others who can focus on their future goals and passions. Some will feel pressured to magnify traumatic experiences to highlight resilience, fearing that this reinforces damage-centered narratives about students of color.

Here is the advice I have offered my niece, which I offer to anyone navigating the uncertainty of this year’s admissions cycle:

It will be a challenging year in admissions for students, families and colleges alike. Due to the new legal landscape, a concerted effort will be required to alleviate the stresses on applicants of color. The tensions over race and admissions won’t quickly resolve, likely giving rise to new myths. What we can do this year is continue busting outdated myths, strengthen our resolve to promote equitable practices and avoid slipping backward in having the diversity that defines the nation be reflected on campus.

Jimmy Aguilar is a Ph.D. student in the Urban Education Policy program with a concentration in higher education at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education, and he holds a master’s degree in higher education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He works as a research assistant at the USC Pullias Center for Higher Education and is a Gates Millennium Scholar. His research interests include equity in admissions, organizational behavior and change, and organizational communication.