Introduction

The author argues that native-born white students are increasingly being pushed out of the University of Washington (UW) due to two systemic trends: a flood of international students whose families pay exorbitant tuition for a U.S. degree and a pathway to a green card, and university efforts to boost non-white enrollment by rigging the admissions system against higher-scoring white applicants. These practices, the author contends, create significant barriers for white American students, particularly those from working-class and low-income backgrounds, in accessing higher education.

Admissions Practices and Racial Bias

The author views UW’s admissions practices as discriminatory, particularly through its use of a “holistic admissions process.” In 1998, Washington State voters passed Initiative 200, banning race-based affirmative action in public university admissions. However, the author argues that UW uses holistic admissions as a workaround to promote race-based preferences, favoring less-prepared applicants from underrepresented minority groups (e.g., Black, Hispanic, Native American) over higher-scoring white students. The author defines this practice as racism due to differing standards based on racial identity. Additionally, the growing enrollment of international students—18% of freshmen in 2012—further limits opportunities for native-born white students, as universities prioritize revenue from high-paying international applicants.

Financial Pressures and International Students

The influx of international students is driven by financial pressures. Washington State cut tuition assistance by over 50% in the years leading up to 2012, per the New York Times, making it harder for American students to afford college. To offset this, UW increased enrollment of international students, who pay significantly higher tuition. In 2012, 18% of UW freshmen were international, with many from China, paying $28,059 annually—five times the in-state tuition of $3,525 per semester for 10 credits (full-time), according to UW’s website at the time. The author highlights a key disparity: Asian students, particularly from China, often have their entire extended family backing them, pooling resources to pay these high fees, a cultural practice less common among American students who typically rely on themselves or immediate family. This financial advantage exacerbates the challenges for native-born white students seeking to access higher education.

Why do international students pay such high fees to attend UW? The author argues that for many, a U.S. degree is a stepping stone to a green card and eventual citizenship, allowing them to sponsor extended family members. The New York Times noted that Chinese families often pool resources to cover these costs, which are substantial even by American standards, highlighting the lengths they will go to secure this opportunity at the expense of native-born students whose families lack similar support networks.

All told, the number of undergraduates from China at U.S. universities soared to 57,000 from 10,000 in five years. At UW, 11% of the nearly 5,800 freshmen in 2012 were from China. Since the SAT is not offered in mainland China, UW does not require it for international applicants. The university also does not consider personal essays or recommendation letters from Chinese applicants, as many use paid agents to prepare their applications.

Academic Accommodations and Lowered Standards

UW has also adapted its academic policies to accommodate international students, a practice the author sees as part of a broader trend of lowering standards. The New York Times quoted David Hawkins, director of public policy at the National Association for College Admission Counseling:

“We’re in a gold rush, where colleges realize there’s wealth in international students. Every department and faculty member interacting with these students must adapt as universities globalize. This creates a cascade of challenges.”

One such challenge is academic writing. John Webster, director of writing at UW’s College of Arts and Sciences, suggested professors should be lenient with international students’ “accented” writing—English that may not be technically perfect but is understandable. He argued that focusing on clarity and ideas, rather than strict grammar, aligns with UW’s goal of being a global university. The author views this as lowering academic standards, drawing parallels to accommodations for underrepresented minorities and comparing it to past debates over non-standard dialects like Ebonics, further evidence of a system that disadvantages higher-performing white students.

Educational Disparities in K-12 Schools

These accommodations at the university level follow a pattern of educational disparities seen earlier in Seattle’s K-12 system, which the author argues drives UW’s efforts to increase non-white enrollment through race-based workarounds. The table below, based on a 2017 report from The Seattle Times, shows a widening performance gap between white students and Black, Latino, Native American, and Pacific Islander students in Seattle Public Schools. The author contends that these disparities reflect poor academic performance among underrepresented minorities, prompting UW to rig its holistic admissions process to favor these less-prepared students over higher-scoring white applicants, further pushing native-born white students out of the university.

Seattle Public Schools Pass Rates on State Tests, Grades 3-8 (2014-2017)
Group Subject 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
SPS Average Reading/ELA 63% 67% 67%
SPS Average Math 60% 64% 64%
White Students Reading/ELA 79% 83% 84%
White Students Math 75% 79% 79%
Black, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander Students Reading/ELA 31% 34% 32%
Black, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander Students Math 28% 31% 31%
Performance Gap (White vs. Underrepresented) Reading/ELA 48 points 49 points 52 points
Performance Gap (White vs. Underrepresented) Math 47 points 48 points 48 points

Cultural and Demographic Shifts

The author argues that these combined policies—prioritizing international students for revenue and boosting non-white enrollment through a rigged system—undermine fairness by limiting access for native-born white students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. The push for more college graduates often overlooks barriers like tuition costs and admissions practices that the author sees as racially biased against higher-performing white students.

Cultural differences also emerge, exacerbating the disconnect. The New York Times reported that 60% of Asian students surveyed at UW described their families as “collectivist” rather than “individualist,” a trait some associate with Asian cultures. Alison Luo, a student from Chongqing, China, expressed mixed feelings:

“Before I came, I saw online chatter in China about hundreds of students heading to UW. I was worried—it felt like I was still studying in China, not abroad.”

Washington State’s population is over 77% white, but admissions policies favoring international students and underrepresented minorities have shifted UW’s demographics. The author argues this creates a campus environment at odds with the state’s conservative, small-town values, disproportionately affecting higher-scoring white students who are being pushed out by these systemic practices.

Share This Article

Conclusion

The author argues that the University of Washington’s admissions policies, combined with the financial advantages of international students, create an unfair system that pushes native-born white students out of higher education opportunities. By addressing these systemic issues, the author believes universities can better serve all American students, regardless of background.

References

Bristol Blog banner featuring social issues and education critiques by Lewis Loflin.

Related Articles: