Inside Higher Ed had a story yesterday on its latest survey of college and university admission directors, and it contains much of interest.

For example, “in a potentially notable finding, a significant minority of college admissions directors now say (in contrast to past surveys but consistent with the views of many advocates for Asian-American applicants) that their colleges generally admit only Asian applicants with higher grades and test scores than other applicants.” That is, four out of ten directors at both public and private schools indicated that they believe Asian-American applicants are held to a higher standard at “some” places; and 41 percent of public-school respondents and 30 percent of private-school respondents admitted that this was the case at their own university or college. That is, indeed, “notable.”

Another juicy tidbit has to do with this summer’s Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding that school’s use of race and ethnicity in admissions. Today’s report notes that the Court “cited the research the school did over the years to show why it needed to consider race in admissions — and the decision said that colleges need to have conducted such studies to consider race.” But, the report continues, today’s “survey results suggest that relatively few colleges have done or plan to do such studies.” Indeed, “only 13 percent of colleges said they conducted studies similar to those the Supreme Court cited as making the Texas approach legal. And only 24 percent said they planned to either start or continue such studies.” And this, the report correctly notes, “could make some colleges vulnerable to lawsuits.”

To look at it another way, three out of four schools interpret Fisher as giving them a green light to engage in admissions discrimination for the foreseeable future, and only 4 percent said they planned to change admissions practices in light of the Court’s ruling.

I’ll note one last item: The survey also asked what respondents thought of Hillary Clinton’s recently announced tuition-payment plan. The survey found a split among admissions directors here. It adds that “private college admissions directors are fairly strongly against it” and, “while public admissions directors don’t necessary back the plan, most think that their institutions would benefit.” In all events,”relatively few admissions directors think the plan will be enacted in its current form.” By the way, George Leef of the conservative Pope Center for Higher Education Policy criticized Clinton’s plan yesterday here.