There is another reason, less talked about, that higher education started considering factors like socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and national origin in

There is another reason, less talked about, that higher education started considering factors like socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and national origin in admissions. It became clear that immersing predominantly white, privileged students in a predominantly white, privileged campus during 4 years of college was poorly preparing them as leaders for a future world in which they will encounter a greater diversity of backgrounds than their parents did. (Because of both changing U.S. demographics AND growing global trade.) And it became clear that sourcing students primarily from white, privileged backgrounds was poorly positioning the institutions themselves in an increasingly diversifying society. As legal barriers to the financial and political participation of women and minorities fell, there were more opportunities for people of those backgrounds to succeed. And elite higher education institutions want to remain the schools of choice for the most successful members of society (regardless of background). They can’t do that if everyone thinks they only care about rich white people. Adjusting admissions to increase the diversity of backgrounds of new students was a way to short-cut solutions to these challenges. In short, a thumb on the scale to bring the student body more in line with global diversity was also done with an eye toward remaining competitive as a top choice among options for higher education.