
Bradshaw: College classrooms remain spaces for ideas not ideology
Fifty years later, the American college campus is again in the spotlight — for reasons less academic. Parents worry their children will face litmus tests. Students ask if admissions offices want confessionals or credentials.
The truth, as usual, is more complicated. Most high school seniors applying to selective colleges this fall don't need a lot of advice on how
to polish their personal essay or list extracurriculars. What they need is what's missing from most guidance offices: the hard, often
uncomfortable realities about how top-tier admissions actually work.
Here are a few things students — and their parents — ought to know.
1. The Ideology Panic Is Overblown — But Strategy Still Matters: Yes, there are loud political skirmishes on campus. And yes, a few
faculty members have become activists with tenure. But the people reading applications aren't professors. They're admissions officers.
Their chief priority isn't ideological purity — it's institutional prestige. They are looking for students who will enhance the school's brand,
contribute visibly, and ideally donate generously later on.
That means your student can write an essay on social justice — or on rebuilding a motorcycle engine — as long as it's compelling. Political
alignment is less important than intellectual substance. At Harvard, a thoughtful conservative from Indiana still stands a chance — if he doesn't try to game the system by pretending to be someone he's not.
2. Excellence Still Wins — but It Has to Be Distinct: Top colleges routinely reject students with 4.0 GPAs and perfect test scores. This isn't a conspiracy. It's oversupply. What wins isn't just academic performance but differentiation. Admissions officers look for what researchers call a 'spike' — a student with demonstrable, often rare, excellence in a focused area.
An Intel science finalist, an Olympic-level cellist, a published author — these applicants stand out. Not because they're well-rounded,
but because they're sharp-edged. The days of trying to be captain, president, volunteer, and valedictorian are over. Focus beats breadth.
3. Legacy and Money Still Buy Access — Quietly: Despite frequent denials, legacy status and donor connections still tilt the field. A 2023 working paper from Harvard researchers revealed that legacy applicants were admitted at rates several times higher than their non-legacy peers, even when controlling for qualifications. 'Need-blind' admissions doesn't always mean aid-blind decision-making. At many institutions, full-pay applicants enjoy subtle advantages. No high school counselor will say this outright—but students should understand that the playing field, while not rigged, is hardly level.
4. Recommendation Letters Are an Untapped Resource: Most students default to teacher recommendations, often from their 11th-grade English or history teacher. These are fine. But the best letters often come from outside the classroom: a mentor from a summer research lab, a supervisor at a startup internship, or a coach who has worked closely with the student for years.
Admissions officers want specifics. 'John is responsible and hardworking' is generic. 'John built a solar-powered irrigation system
using his own algorithms' is not.
5. Social Media Is a Portfolio — Not Just a Risk: Students are told not to post anything online they wouldn't want a dean to see. Good advice. But here's what they don't hear: social media can also help. A well-produced YouTube series on political philosophy or a blog that analyzes Supreme Court rulings shows initiative and thought.
Colleges appreciate authentic intellectual curiosity — especially if it's public. A 2022 Kaplan survey showed that 36% of admissions officers had reviewed applicants' social media. For a few, it helped.
6. Campus Is Still a Place for Ideas — If You Show Up for Them: The loudest students often dominate headlines. But most undergraduates aren't professional protesters. They're trying to learn. And most professors, even on politically active campuses, still reward clarity of thought, not conformity.
At Berkeley, my views weren't always in line with the majority. No one cared. Because I showed up prepared, wrote rigorous papers, and
engaged the material. That dynamic still exists, though it requires a thicker skin and a sense of proportion.
7. Prestige Is Overrated — Outcomes Aren't: Finally, the most underrated truth: many students chasing Ivy League names would be better served at public honors colleges, strong liberal arts schools, or universities where they can stand out. Law schools, med schools, and employers care far more about what students do with their education than the name on the diploma.
A focused, debt-free graduate from UT-Austin or Michigan can outpace an ambivalent Ivy Leaguer with a bloated résumé and a drained bank
account.
If you're a high school senior, don't try to play a role. Be sharp. Be real. If you're not marching across campus in protest, that's fine. If you are, make sure you can defend your cause with reason. But either way, show the admissions committee something they can't ignore. Because at the end of the day, what top colleges want most is not an ideology — but a mind that's awake.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's order to block 'woke' AI in government encourages tech giants to censor their chatbots
Tech companies looking to sell their artificial intelligence technology to the federal government must now contend with a new regulatory hurdle: prove their chatbots aren't 'woke.' President Donald Trump's sweeping new plan to counter China in achieving 'global dominance' in AI promises to cut regulations and cement American values into the AI tools increasingly used at work and home. But one of Trump's three AI executive orders signed Wednesday — the one "preventing woke AI in the federal government' — also mimics China's state-driven approach to mold the behavior of AI systems to fit its ruling party's core values. Several leading providers of the AI language models targeted by the order — products like Google's Gemini, Microsoft's Copilot — have so far been silent on Trump's anti-woke directive, which still faces a study period before it gets into official procurement rules. While the tech industry has largely welcomed Trump's broader AI plans, the anti-woke order forces the industry to leap into a culture war battle — or try their best to quietly avoid it. 'It will have massive influence in the industry right now,' especially as tech companies 'are already capitulating' to other Trump administration directives, said civil rights advocate Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, senior director of The Leadership Conference's Center for Civil Rights and Technology. The move also pushes the tech industry to abandon years of work to combat the pervasive forms of racial and gender bias that studies and real-world examples have shown to be baked into AI systems. 'First off, there's no such thing as woke AI,' she said. 'There's AI technology that discriminates and then there's AI technology that actually works for all people.' Molding the behaviors of AI large language models is challenging because of the way they're built. They've been trained on most of what's on the internet, reflecting the biases of all the people who've posted commentary, edited a Wikipedia entry or shared images online. 'This will be extremely difficult for tech companies to comply with,' said former Biden official Jim Secreto, who was deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, an architect of many of Biden's AI industry initiatives. 'Large language models reflect the data they're trained on, including all the contradictions and biases in human language.' Tech workers also have a say in how they're designed, from the global workforce of annotators who check their responses to the Silicon Valley engineers who craft the instructions for how they interact with people. Trump's order targets those 'top-down' efforts at tech companies to incorporate what it calls the 'destructive' ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion into AI models, including 'concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism.' For Secreto, the order resembles China's playbook in 'using the power of the state to stamp out what it sees as disfavored viewpoints." The method is different, with China relying on direct regulation through its Cyberspace Administration, which audits AI models, approves them before they are deployed and requires them to filter out banned content such as the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 1989. Trump's order doesn't call for any such filters, relying on tech companies to instead show that their technology is ideologically neutral by disclosing some of the internal policies that guide the chatbots. 'The Trump administration is taking a softer but still coercive route by using federal contracts as leverage,' Secreto said. 'That creates strong pressure for companies to self-censor in order to stay in the government's good graces and keep the money flowing.' The order's call for 'truth-seeking' AI echoes the language of the president's one-time ally and adviser Elon Musk, who frequently uses that phrase as the mission for the Grok chatbot made by his company xAI. But whether Grok or its rivals will be favored under the new policy remains to be seen. Despite a 'rhetorically pointed' introduction laying out the Trump administration's problems with DEI, the actual language of the order's directives shouldn't be hard for tech companies to comply with, said Neil Chilson, a Republican former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission. 'It doesn't even prohibit an ideological agenda,' just that any intentional methods to guide the model be disclosed, said Chilson, who is now head of AI policy at the nonprofit Abundance Institute. 'Which is pretty light touch, frankly.' Chilson disputes comparisons to China's cruder modes of AI censorship. 'There is nothing in this order that says that companies have to produce or cannot produce certain types of output,' he said. 'It says developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments. That's the exact opposite of the Chinese requirement.' So far, tech companies that have praised Trump's broader AI plans haven't said much about the order. OpenAI on Thursday said it is awaiting more detailed guidance but believes its work to make ChatGPT objective already makes the technology consistent with what the order requires. Microsoft, a major supplier of email, cloud computing and other online services to the federal government, declined to comment Thursday. Musk's xAI, through spokesperson Katie Miller, a former Trump official, pointed to a company comment praising Trump's AI announcements as a 'positive step' but didn't respond to a follow-up question about how Grok would be affected. Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Palantir didn't immediately respond to emailed requests for comment Thursday. AI tools are already widely used in the federal government, according to an inventory created at the end of Biden's term. In just one agency, U.S. Health and Human Services, the inventory found more than 270 use cases, including the use of commercial generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini for internal agency support to summarize the key points of a lengthy report. The ideas behind the order have bubbled up for more than a year on the podcasts and social media feeds of Sacks and other influential Silicon Valley venture capitalists, many of whom endorsed Trump's presidential campaign last year. Much of their ire centered on Google's February 2024 release of an AI image-generating tool that produced historically inaccurate images before the tech giant took down and fixed the product. Google later explained that the errors — including one user's request for American Founding Fathers that generated portraits of Black, Asian and Native American men — was the result of an overcompensation for technology that, left to its own devices, was prone to favoring lighter-skinned people because of pervasive bias in the systems. Trump allies alleged that Google engineers were hard-coding their own social agenda into the product, and made it a priority to do something about it. 'It's 100% intentional,' said prominent venture capitalist and Trump adviser Marc Andreessen on a podcast in December. 'That's how you get Black George Washington at Google. There's override in the system that basically says, literally, 'Everybody has to be Black.' Boom. There's squads, large sets of people, at these companies who determine these policies and write them down and encode them into these systems.' Sacks credited a conservative strategist for helping to draft the order. 'When they asked me how to define 'woke,' I said there's only one person to call: Chris Rufo. And now it's law: the federal government will not be buying WokeAI,' Sacks wrote on X. Rufo responded that, in addition to helping define the phrase, he also helped 'identify DEI ideologies within the operating constitutions of these systems.' Matt O'brien, The Associated Press Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Shaheen Backs Trump U.N. Pick After Deal to Release Frozen Foreign Aid Funds
After Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, cast the tiebreaking vote on Thursday to advance President Trump's nominee for American ambassador to the United Nations to the floor, she cited an unusual reason. Part of her decision to vote Michael Waltz's nomination out of the panel, she said, was that he 'represents a moderating force with a distinguished record of military service and an extensive background in national security policymaking.' At a time when top national security officials in Mr. Trump's administration have sought to decrease the United States' footprint around the world, Ms. Shaheen said, Mr. Waltz 'did not represent himself to me as someone who wants to retreat from the world — and this is a quality I value in nominees.' But Ms. Shaheen, who has broken with her party to back other Trump administration nominees in the past, also gave another justification for supporting Mr. Waltz. In exchange for her vote, she said she had won an assurance from officials that the administration would release $75 million it had frozen for the World Food Program and the International Organization on Migration. That includes $50 million for disaster relief in Haiti, including 'lifesaving food for 250,000 individuals at risk of extreme/acute malnutrition' as well as public health programs, according to her office. The other $25 million was for food distribution efforts in Nigeria. The deal, reported earlier by Axios, was remarkable not so much because of how open Ms. Shaheen was about disclosing it, but because she had to bother making it in the first place. The money, after all, had already been approved by Congress and signed into law. But given the Trump administration's aggressive moves to unilaterally freeze federal spending in defiance of Congress, particularly foreign aid, a side deal was needed to ensure that the funding would be spent. 'Saving lives through American assistance globally is not only the right thing to do, but it advances our national security and economic interests around the world,' Ms. Shaheen said on Thursday. Ms. Shaheen cast the tiebreaking vote after Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, voted against advancing Mr. Waltz's nomination out of committee. He said he had done so because the former congressman voted in 2020 to constrain Mr. Trump's ability to remove troops from Afghanistan.


Vox
25 minutes ago
- Vox
3 Supreme Court justices just said they're fine with race discrimination in elections
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing. On Thursday, he voted to leave in place a lower court decision that effectively nullified one of the most consequential civil rights laws in US history. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Last month, two Republican federal appeals court judges effectively abolished the law banning race discrimination in elections in seven states. On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a brief order blocking this decision. The upshot is that, at least for now, it is still illegal for a state to disenfranchise someone because of the color of their skin. That said, the most striking thing about the Court's decision in Turtle Mountain Band v. Howe is that three justices dissented. Although none of them explained why they voted the way they did, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all voted to leave in place a lower court decision that effectively nullified one of the most consequential civil rights laws in American history. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Although the 15th Amendment — which was enacted shortly after the Civil War — was supposed to prohibit race discrimination in US elections, anyone familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South knows that this amendment was ineffective for most of its existence. It wasn't until 1965, when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act, that this ban gained teeth. One of the Voting Rights Act's two most important provisions required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' any new election laws with federal officials before they took effect. The other provision permitted both private individuals and the United States to sue state and local governments that target voters based on their race. Together, these two provisions proved to be one of the most potent laws in American history. In the first two years after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, for example, Black voter registration rates in the Jim Crow stronghold of Mississippi rose from 6.7 percent to around 60 percent. In recent years, however, the Court's Republican majority has been extraordinarily hostile to this law. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices voted to deactivate the preclearance provision. And other decisions imposed arbitrary and atextual limits on the Voting Rights Act. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), for example, the Republican justices claimed that voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982 remain presumptively lawful. In Turtle Mountain, two Republicans on the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down a decision that would have rendered what remains of the Voting Rights Act a virtual nonentity. They claimed that private citizens are not allowed to bring lawsuits enforcing the law, which would mean that Voting Rights Act suits could only be brought by the US Justice Department — which is currently controlled by President Donald Trump. Related A new Supreme Court case is an existential threat to the Voting Rights Act The Eighth Circuit oversees federal lawsuits out of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. So, while the Eighth Circuit's decision was in effect, the Voting Rights Act effectively did not exist in those seven states. I summarized the Eighth Circuit's reasoning, and explained why it is erroneous, here. Had the Eighth Circuit's position prevailed, some private citizens might have been able to bring suits under the 15th Amendment itself. But that amendment uses very similar language to the Voting Rights Act. So the Eighth Circuit's attack on the 1965 law would have likely applied with equal force to the Constitution. In any event, it now appears that this threat to liberal democracy has been averted. Only half of the Supreme Court's six Republicans publicly dissented from the Court's order reinstating the law, and all three of the Court's Democrats appear to have voted to save the law.