Last spring, Clara Blucher was resolved. She would apply to Columbia.
When her dad first told her in March that President Donald Trump had canceled $400 million of Columbia University’s federal funding, it didn’t seem like a big deal.
But she kept seeing headlines: “Trump demands admissions overhaul and control of academic department at Columbia University,” “Trump declares war on Columbia University,” and finally, “Columbia University caves to demands.”
It was the university’s capitulation which ultimately convinced her she could no longer apply to Columbia.
“What fully changed my mind against applying there was the idea that the government and the president had so much say over the school,” Clara said, “and clearly they aren’t about to fight against that.”
Clara has been wrestling with a dilemma similar to other seniors at U-High and throughout the country. This is the first college admissions cycle since President Trump’s initial interference at Columbia last March. It’s still unclear what higher education in America will look like going forward or how teenagers should approach the shifting admissions landscape.
Since spring, the Trump administration has taken a series of actions toward colleges and universities, including revoking student visas and requiring student information from prestigious colleges under the guise of ensuring fairness. These actions limit institutional freedom and potentially change considerations in the admissions process.
In August, the Trump administration made deals with Columbia University and Brown University to gain access to information about grade-point averages, standardized test scores and applicants’ races.
The administration justified this action through concerns that elite colleges were not fully complying with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action in college admissions. The suggestion is that softer methods of evaluation, such as asking students about their experiences or background is a mechanism to get around illegal considerations of race.
However, an emphasis on test scores and GPAs could significantly disadvantage students of a lower economic status, according to a recent New York Times article. Talented students with fewer resources often have lower scores than those whose parents can afford to invest more in their children’s education.
President Trump and his administration have made no mention of legacy preferences, a system where students’ family ties are explicitly considered for admissions.
U-High college counselor Sharon Williams emphasized that it’s not prestigious institutions students should be concerned about. Ms. Williams said it’s less likely that colleges with many applicants and generous endowments would begin to discriminate against students of a lower socioeconomic status. Instead, she’s concerned about institutions that have fewer resources or smaller endowments.
“I think it’s some of the ones in the middle that don’t have as healthy endowments that don’t necessarily have a promise to fund the kids at 100% of demonstrated needs, that I think that could be a concern,” she said.
In addition to concerns about their admissions processes, colleges and universities are losing their international students, who often pay higher tuition rates, as those students face roadblocks to continuing their higher education in the United States. In April, many international students found that their legal status had been terminated for minor offenses or, in some cases, no reason at all. However, many had participated in political protests.
Clara expressed concern that the lack of international students and additional pressure on colleges and universities is indicative of a larger trend in the nation against free inquiry and free speech.
She said, “It’s a really scary environment that is beginning to unfold in our country as free speech is being challenged every day.”
