Advocates fear Trump's plans after directive for transparent college admission data

Some higher education advocates have long sought transparency in college admissions data, but President Trump’s latest actions to bring that dream to reality comes with trepidation in how the administration will use the information.

In a memorandum signed Thursday, the president moved to require universities to give the Department of Education more admissions data. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is then instructed to build it into a database easily accessible to parents and students.

While the information could be eye-opening into how institutions are choosing students, it comes with a backdrop of fear the president will target universities that produce unfavorable data in his view.

“I'll say lots of folks in the space, researchers and think tanks alike, have wanted more transparency on the black box that is college admissions. So, I think that from that perspective, lots of folks would be interested in seeing this data. What I question with this administration is the intention around the collection of the data,” said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president of EdTrust.  

McMahon has 120 days to expand the scope of reporting requirements, leaving universities with the options to submit or fight in the legal the system.  

The move was made over the administration’s concern universities are using “race proxies” such as diversity statements, to circumvent the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that stated race cannot be considered in college admissions.  

“American students and taxpayers deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity of our Nation’s institutions of higher education, including confidence that they are recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists, and other critical workers vital to the next generations of American prosperity. Race-based admissions practices are not only unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being,” the order reads.  

Universities that accept federal money are already required to share some data with the Education Department, such as enrollment numbers and graduation rates.  

However, admissions data has largely been kept under wraps for various reasons. 

One reason is due to the complexities of compiling the data into an accurate spreadsheet. College admissions offices consider not only GPA and test scores, but extracurricular activities and personal essays that are hard to quantify.  

Universities may also fear what the public will think regarding whom they do and do not admit. 

“I think one of the things that people are going to see is the amount of legacy admissions that have been taking place for a long, long time, and those admissions are typically white people,” said Marybeth Gasman, executive director for Rutgers University’s Center for Minority Serving Institutions. 

After the affirmative action ruling, attention turned to legacy admissions, the practice of admitting applicants with connections to alumni or wealthy donors. Experts argue this practice largely favors applicants who are rich and/or white.  

The practice has been decried along partisan lines, and some schools have voluntarily banned it. 

Schools could also receive flack if it is discovered they admit fewer Pell Grant recipients or other types of applicants compared to rival institutions.  

“I think that — that information — institutions have guarded that because they don't want narratives around them being closed to access for certain populations of students due to increased numbers of denied students. They don't want that narrative out,” Pilar said.

Whatever the outcome, advocates fear the Trump administration will use this as another avenue to strip schools of their funding.  

The president has collectively paused billions of dollars to universities for alleged antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion practices, and transgender athletes in women’s sports.  

While the focus of the Trump administration is returning to “merit-based” admissions — a concept the federal government made Columbia and Brown agree to in their deals to release federal funding — some say the administration’s moves WILL? have the opposite effect.

Timothy Welbeck, director of the Center of Anti-Racism at Temple University, said this memorandum doesn’t address “legacy. They don't do anything about whether your family has the ability to donate large amounts of money to your desired institution. But they go after some of these other measures that they say are discriminatory and ignore these, which is why I believe that merit isn't really the intended outcome of these conversations to begin with."

“This particular fight around the numbers is seeking to give another line of argument to people who are arguing that post-secondary institutions are discriminating against white people. That's ultimately a claim that's implicit in some of these arguments, and what I would say to that is that the facts typically do not bear out,” he added.