On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order requiring higher education institutions receiving federal funds to report admissions data to the government.
The executive order mirrors the July 30 settlement between Brown and the federal government, which requires Brown to report standardized test scores, GPAs and other statistics broken down by race to ensure “merit-based admissions policies.”
In announcing the settlement, President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 wrote that the federal government was already able to request and receive data to monitor compliance with Title VI. But in the past, Brown was rarely asked to provide it, Paxson added.
In a message to The Herald, Associate Provost for Enrollment and Dean of Undergraduate Admission Logan Powell wrote that the University expects this data will demonstrate future students’ “strong academic qualifications,” as well as their “wide range of backgrounds.”
Conservatives heralded the terms of the agreement as a victory.
“Because of the Trump administration’s resolution agreement with Brown University, aspiring students will be judged solely on their merits, not their race or sex,” wrote Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a statement.
“Woke is officially DEAD at Brown,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
Conservative activist Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, wrote in a message to The Herald that providing this data “will inhibit schools from illegally using racial proxies in the admissions process.”
Some, however, worry the data reporting requirement could lead admissions offices to increasingly rely on standardized test scores and GPAs, for fear that more holistic reviews could appear to violate the law.
This could, in turn, give applicants from wealthier backgrounds with more access to test preparation resources an advantage. The College Board reports a strong correlation between income and test scores. Students from households with an income in the lowest quintile have a mean SAT score of 887, while students in the highest quintile score an average of 1152.
Richard Kahlenberg, an admissions expert who testified in the Students for Fair Admissions case against race-based affirmative action, says that while “transparency in admissions is a good thing,” the requested data lacks a crucial parameter: socioeconomic status.
Economic data would help clarify “whether any discrepancies in test scores between racial groups was the result of a perfectly legitimate socioeconomic preference that disproportionately benefits Black and Hispanic students or the result of naked racial preferences,” Kahlenberg wrote in a message to The Herald.
In the past, the University has instead characterized standardized testing as an opportunity for low-income students to level the playing field. When reinstating the testing requirement last year, an advisory committee concluded the test-optional policy had “unintended adverse outcomes … in the admissions process itself,” as students from disadvantaged backgrounds opted not to submit scores and thus reduced their chances of admission.
A January study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that submitting test scores made applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds over 3 times more likely to be admitted. First-generation applicants can also more than double their chances of acceptance by submitting scores.
But the University advisory committee’s recommendation emphasized that test scores were “interpreted in context” of an individual’s background — a process now threatened by the mandatory data disclosures and restrictions on race-based admissions colleges face.
The July agreement specifies that the University may not use any “proxy for racial admission,” including “personal statements, diversity narratives or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination.”
In her official guidance to institutions receiving federal funding, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi warned that requiring applicants to describe “obstacles they have overcome” could be unlawful, putting at risk a Brown application question that asks students to “share how an aspect of your growing up has inspired or challenged you.”
Bondi also specified that recruitment strategies targeting specific geographic areas because of their racial make up would be an illegal proxy. Brown currently practices targeted applicant recruitment in an effort to attract “a greater diversity in the prospective applicant pool,” Powell previously told The Herald.
When asked by The Herald whether the University’s recruitment policies or essay questions would be impacted by the terms of the settlement, Powell did not respond.
Brown has struggled with maintaining its racial diversity since the Supreme Court decision. The class of 2028 — the first cohort admitted without race-based affirmative action — saw a 40% drop in Black students and a 29% drop in Hispanic students.
Kate Butts is a university news editor covering admissions & financial aid as well as the career and alumni beat. She previously was a senior staff writer covering University Hall. Outside of The Herald, she loves running, board games and Trader Joe's snacks.
