Contra Costa Times
By Patrick Mattimore
Contra Costa Times Your Turn
Posted: 04/07/2012 04:00:00 PM PDT
April 8, 2012 12:30 AM GMTUpdated: 04/07/2012 05:30:03 PM PDT
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide an affirmative action case from the University of Texas this fall. The court is considering whether to overturn or significantly modify earlier decisions that permit public universities to consider race as one factor in an applicant's favor.
While the issue of racial preferences has been a hot-button topic in the United States for many years, America is by no means alone in grappling with how best to come to terms with the affirmative action issue.
Full Story: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20343201/contra-costa-times-your-turn-removing-race-based
Showing posts with label higher education admissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label higher education admissions. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
An Update on the Fisher v. University of Texas Affirmative Action Case, and the Procedural Issue That Might, But That Need Not, Complicate Things
Verdict
October 28, 2011
Vikram David Amar
Last month, I wrote a column for this site analyzing an important affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas. The plaintiffs in that case—unsuccessful undergraduate applicants to the University of Texas who challenge the constitutionality of UT’s race-based affirmative action admissions program—are currently seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Interested readers should consult my prior column for detailed background on the substantive issues raised by the lawsuit.)
Since that time, some analysts (including Adam Chandler, who wrote a thought-provoking blog post on the case) have suggested that the Supreme Court should not—indeed, perhaps cannot—grant review on the affirmative action issues in the case because of a procedural wrinkle. In the space below, I explain and examine that wrinkle.
Full Story: http://verdict.justia.com/2011/10/28/an-update-on-the-fisher-v-university-of-texas-affirmative-action-case
October 28, 2011
Vikram David Amar
Last month, I wrote a column for this site analyzing an important affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas. The plaintiffs in that case—unsuccessful undergraduate applicants to the University of Texas who challenge the constitutionality of UT’s race-based affirmative action admissions program—are currently seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Interested readers should consult my prior column for detailed background on the substantive issues raised by the lawsuit.)
Since that time, some analysts (including Adam Chandler, who wrote a thought-provoking blog post on the case) have suggested that the Supreme Court should not—indeed, perhaps cannot—grant review on the affirmative action issues in the case because of a procedural wrinkle. In the space below, I explain and examine that wrinkle.
Full Story: http://verdict.justia.com/2011/10/28/an-update-on-the-fisher-v-university-of-texas-affirmative-action-case
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Class-Based Policies Are Not a Remedy for Racial Inequality
The Chronicle of Higher Education
By Carson Byrd, Wornie Reed, and Ellington Graves
September 30, 2011
The election of Barack Obama seemed a harbinger of a postracial society, a powerful embodiment of a new, colorblind ethos, providing evidence that America had finally shed its racial baggage. For many people, the Obamas illustrated the argument that middle-class and affluent blacks had no need of race-based consideration and should be judged without regard to race.
That argument is not new, of course. The passage of legislation during and after the civil-rights era led to similar rhetoric, and recent decades have seen growing support for a class-based alternative to affirmative action in college admissions. We do not deny the injustice perpetuated by legacy admissions, nor do we dismiss the need for socioeconomic diversity in higher education. But conflating class and race will not solve the problem of racial inequality. Low socioeconomic status has not been the basis for systematic exclusion of students from higher education; race and ethnicity have.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Class-Based-Policies-Are-Not-a/129097/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en (Subscription)
By Carson Byrd, Wornie Reed, and Ellington Graves
September 30, 2011
The election of Barack Obama seemed a harbinger of a postracial society, a powerful embodiment of a new, colorblind ethos, providing evidence that America had finally shed its racial baggage. For many people, the Obamas illustrated the argument that middle-class and affluent blacks had no need of race-based consideration and should be judged without regard to race.
That argument is not new, of course. The passage of legislation during and after the civil-rights era led to similar rhetoric, and recent decades have seen growing support for a class-based alternative to affirmative action in college admissions. We do not deny the injustice perpetuated by legacy admissions, nor do we dismiss the need for socioeconomic diversity in higher education. But conflating class and race will not solve the problem of racial inequality. Low socioeconomic status has not been the basis for systematic exclusion of students from higher education; race and ethnicity have.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Class-Based-Policies-Are-Not-a/129097/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en (Subscription)
College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand
The New York Times
Sunday Review
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 15, 2011
Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.
Washington
ABIGAIL FISHER, a white student, says she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race. She sued in Federal District Court in Austin, causing Judge Sam Sparks to spend time trying to make sense of a 2003 Supreme Court decision allowing racial preferences in higher education. “I’ve read it till I’m blue in the face,” Judge Sparks said in an early hearing in Ms. Fisher’s lawsuit. But the meaning of the central concept in the decision — “this esoteric critical mass of diversity of students,” he called it — kept eluding him.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/college-diversity-nears-its-last-stand.html?_r=1
Sunday Review
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 15, 2011
Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.
Washington
ABIGAIL FISHER, a white student, says she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race. She sued in Federal District Court in Austin, causing Judge Sam Sparks to spend time trying to make sense of a 2003 Supreme Court decision allowing racial preferences in higher education. “I’ve read it till I’m blue in the face,” Judge Sparks said in an early hearing in Ms. Fisher’s lawsuit. But the meaning of the central concept in the decision — “this esoteric critical mass of diversity of students,” he called it — kept eluding him.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/college-diversity-nears-its-last-stand.html?_r=1
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
No Time for Complacency on Racial Diversity
The Chronicle of Higher Education
February 13, 2011
By Arthur L. Coleman and Scott R. Palmer
Last month a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a University of Texas policy that included consideration of race as part of an overall assessment of applicants was lawful. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan law school's race-conscious admissions policy, the appeals court found that the challenged policy "used a holistic, multifactor approach, in which race [was] but one of many considerations," and was aligned with Grutter.
The central issue in the case, however, had less to do with the policy's adherence to a Michigan-like model and more to do with whether Texas needed a race-conscious admissions policy in the first place.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/No-Time-for-Complacency-on/126328/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
February 13, 2011
By Arthur L. Coleman and Scott R. Palmer
Last month a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a University of Texas policy that included consideration of race as part of an overall assessment of applicants was lawful. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan law school's race-conscious admissions policy, the appeals court found that the challenged policy "used a holistic, multifactor approach, in which race [was] but one of many considerations," and was aligned with Grutter.
The central issue in the case, however, had less to do with the policy's adherence to a Michigan-like model and more to do with whether Texas needed a race-conscious admissions policy in the first place.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/No-Time-for-Complacency-on/126328/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Roots of White Anxiety
The New York Times
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: July 18, 2010
In March of 2000, Pat Buchanan came to speak at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Harvard being Harvard, the audience hissed and sneered and made wisecracks. Buchanan being Buchanan, he gave as good as he got. While the assembled Ivy Leaguers accused him of homophobia and racism and anti-Semitism, he accused Harvard — and by extension, the entire American elite — of discriminating against white Christians.
A decade later, the note of white grievance that Buchanan struck that night is part of the conservative melody. You can hear it when Glenn Beck accuses Barack Obama of racism, or when Rush Limbaugh casts liberal policies as an exercise in “reparations.” It was sounded last year during the backlash against Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion that a “wise Latina” jurist might have advantages over a white male judge, and again last week when conservatives attacked the Justice Department for supposedly going easy on members of the New Black Panther Party accused of voter intimidation.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?th&emc=th
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: July 18, 2010
In March of 2000, Pat Buchanan came to speak at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Harvard being Harvard, the audience hissed and sneered and made wisecracks. Buchanan being Buchanan, he gave as good as he got. While the assembled Ivy Leaguers accused him of homophobia and racism and anti-Semitism, he accused Harvard — and by extension, the entire American elite — of discriminating against white Christians.
A decade later, the note of white grievance that Buchanan struck that night is part of the conservative melody. You can hear it when Glenn Beck accuses Barack Obama of racism, or when Rush Limbaugh casts liberal policies as an exercise in “reparations.” It was sounded last year during the backlash against Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion that a “wise Latina” jurist might have advantages over a white male judge, and again last week when conservatives attacked the Justice Department for supposedly going easy on members of the New Black Panther Party accused of voter intimidation.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?th&emc=th
Friday, June 18, 2010
Striving for Educational Equity
Inside Higher Ed
June 18, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Six years after they were first published, the data that Anthony Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose produced showing that students from the lowest socioeconomic quartile of Americans were 25 times less likely than wealthy Americans to enroll in the most selective colleges have helped to reshape public policy around higher education. In addition to building the case for more federal and state financial support for students from low-income backgrounds, the numbers also helped prompt a group of highly selective public and private institutions to alter their admissions and financial aid policies and practices to focus more on low-income students.
One of those programs, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Carolina Covenant program, was celebrated Thursday at an event here at which the Century Foundation released a followup to the 2004 book -- America's Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education -- in which Carnevale's and Rose's original analysis appeared.
The new book, Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, includes one chapter on the Carolina Covenant, describing the progress that one highly selective university has made in transforming itself. As described by Edward B. Fiske, the program's initial results, in terms of low-income students' access to and success at North Carolina, are promising.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/18/strivers
June 18, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Six years after they were first published, the data that Anthony Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose produced showing that students from the lowest socioeconomic quartile of Americans were 25 times less likely than wealthy Americans to enroll in the most selective colleges have helped to reshape public policy around higher education. In addition to building the case for more federal and state financial support for students from low-income backgrounds, the numbers also helped prompt a group of highly selective public and private institutions to alter their admissions and financial aid policies and practices to focus more on low-income students.
One of those programs, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Carolina Covenant program, was celebrated Thursday at an event here at which the Century Foundation released a followup to the 2004 book -- America's Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education -- in which Carnevale's and Rose's original analysis appeared.
The new book, Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, includes one chapter on the Carolina Covenant, describing the progress that one highly selective university has made in transforming itself. As described by Edward B. Fiske, the program's initial results, in terms of low-income students' access to and success at North Carolina, are promising.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/18/strivers
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Q&A: College gender gap has far-reaching consequences
USA Today
February 8, 2010
By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY
As colleges nationwide review freshman applications over the next several weeks, many will face lopsided numbers of male and female candidates. Some colleges maintain a gender balance, but national data in recent years show a 57%-43% split favoring women, both in enrollments and graduation rates. Richard Whitmire, author of Why Boys Fail and a former USA TODAY editorial writer, talks to reporter Mary Beth Marklein about how we got there, why we should care, and what should be done about it.
Q: Why do boys fail, and how do we turn that around?
A: The reforms launched by the nation's governors more than 20 years ago to get more students college-ready had an unintended consequence: Most girls adjusted nicely to the intensified verbal skills demanded in the early grades; most boys didn't. We have to figure out a way to keep boys on track with reading and writing skills. Boys are failing because the world has gotten more verbal and they haven't.
Q&A: Michael Gurian says boys need societal nurturing, too
COLLEGE: Gender gap steady at 57% women
K-12: Few teachers are black men
Q: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is investigating whethercolleges discriminate against girls by giving boys a break in admissions, but you support affirmative action for male students for "just a little longer." How long is that?
A: I would like to get (college graduation rates) at a 55-45 split. We need to wait until corrections are made in elementary and high school that put boys on a better path toward college readiness. Improving verbal skills would be 90% of that task. The first measurement of success would be a drop in the number of boys in the ninth-grade "bulge" — the boys held back for another year because they are not prepared to start high school.
Full Story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-02-09-whyboysfail09_ST_N.htm
February 8, 2010
By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY
As colleges nationwide review freshman applications over the next several weeks, many will face lopsided numbers of male and female candidates. Some colleges maintain a gender balance, but national data in recent years show a 57%-43% split favoring women, both in enrollments and graduation rates. Richard Whitmire, author of Why Boys Fail and a former USA TODAY editorial writer, talks to reporter Mary Beth Marklein about how we got there, why we should care, and what should be done about it.
Q: Why do boys fail, and how do we turn that around?
A: The reforms launched by the nation's governors more than 20 years ago to get more students college-ready had an unintended consequence: Most girls adjusted nicely to the intensified verbal skills demanded in the early grades; most boys didn't. We have to figure out a way to keep boys on track with reading and writing skills. Boys are failing because the world has gotten more verbal and they haven't.
Q&A: Michael Gurian says boys need societal nurturing, too
COLLEGE: Gender gap steady at 57% women
K-12: Few teachers are black men
Q: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is investigating whethercolleges discriminate against girls by giving boys a break in admissions, but you support affirmative action for male students for "just a little longer." How long is that?
A: I would like to get (college graduation rates) at a 55-45 split. We need to wait until corrections are made in elementary and high school that put boys on a better path toward college readiness. Improving verbal skills would be 90% of that task. The first measurement of success would be a drop in the number of boys in the ninth-grade "bulge" — the boys held back for another year because they are not prepared to start high school.
Full Story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-02-09-whyboysfail09_ST_N.htm
Friday, January 15, 2010
Sandra Day O'Connor Revisits and Revives Affirmative-Action Controversy
The Chronicle of Higher Education
January 14, 2010
By Peter Schmidt
Having held in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that diverse college enrollments have proven educational benefits but that colleges should not need race-conscious admissions policies 25 years down the road, a retired associate justice — Sandra Day O'Connor — is now singing what some hear as a different tune.
In an essay written with Stewart J. Schwab, who had served as one of her Supreme Court clerks and is now dean of the Cornell Law School, Justice O'Connor argues that the majority opinion she wrote in the 2003 affirmative-action case should not be seen as imposing a deadline on the use of race-conscious policies or as relieving the need for more research showing such policies have educational benefits.
"When the time comes to reassess the constitutionality of considering race in higher-education admissions," the essay says, "we will need social scientists to clearly demonstrate the educational benefits of diverse student bodies, and to better understand the links between role models in one generation and aspirations and achievements of succeeding generations."
The essay, contained in the new book The Next 25 Years: Affirmative Action in Higher Education in the United States and South Africa, has struck a raw nerve among critics of affirmative action who were frustrated by the pivotal role Justice O'Connor played in preserving race-conscious admissions policies in the Supreme Court's 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, involving the University of Michigan Law School. Seen as the court's swing vote on the affirmative-action issue, she ended up siding with its liberal wing in a 5-to-4 ruling holding that race-conscious admissions policies are constitutional because they serve the compelling state interest of promoting diversity and its associated educational benefits.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Sandra-Day-OConnor-Revisits/63523/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en (Subscription may be required)
January 14, 2010
By Peter Schmidt
Having held in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that diverse college enrollments have proven educational benefits but that colleges should not need race-conscious admissions policies 25 years down the road, a retired associate justice — Sandra Day O'Connor — is now singing what some hear as a different tune.
In an essay written with Stewart J. Schwab, who had served as one of her Supreme Court clerks and is now dean of the Cornell Law School, Justice O'Connor argues that the majority opinion she wrote in the 2003 affirmative-action case should not be seen as imposing a deadline on the use of race-conscious policies or as relieving the need for more research showing such policies have educational benefits.
"When the time comes to reassess the constitutionality of considering race in higher-education admissions," the essay says, "we will need social scientists to clearly demonstrate the educational benefits of diverse student bodies, and to better understand the links between role models in one generation and aspirations and achievements of succeeding generations."
The essay, contained in the new book The Next 25 Years: Affirmative Action in Higher Education in the United States and South Africa, has struck a raw nerve among critics of affirmative action who were frustrated by the pivotal role Justice O'Connor played in preserving race-conscious admissions policies in the Supreme Court's 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, involving the University of Michigan Law School. Seen as the court's swing vote on the affirmative-action issue, she ended up siding with its liberal wing in a 5-to-4 ruling holding that race-conscious admissions policies are constitutional because they serve the compelling state interest of promoting diversity and its associated educational benefits.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Sandra-Day-OConnor-Revisits/63523/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en (Subscription may be required)
Monday, December 14, 2009
Gender 'equality' on campus dangerous
Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
By: Carson Jerema
14/12/2009 1:00 AM
IT is hardly novel to note that there is a gender imbalance on Canadian university campuses; about 60 per cent women to 40 per cent men.
The threat of an emerging "pink ghetto" recently prompted University of Alberta president Indira Samarasekera to announce that she is "going to be an advocate for young white men." Predictably, she faced outraged students accusing her of bias against women.
What is wrong with Samaraseka's statement, however, is not that she is deviating from the orthodoxy of identity politics, but that she is perpetuating it. If women once faced a biased system, surely men do now. As reported in the Globe and Mail last week, Samaraseka said, "there is a feeling men can take care of themselves -- clearly that is not true."
She would like to see greater supports put in place to help men make the jump to university, including better communication about the economic returns associated with a degree.
The gender imbalance has become a frequent topic in the past few years, as administrators all over the country have identified it as a crisis. Although no one has directly advocated affirmative action, as it would be illegal, it remains a subtext for every bit of ink spilled on the topic.
Men still hold the majority of prestigious positions in business, but it is expected that women will overtake them as they work through the system. This is, apparently, a problem.
Full Story: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/gender-equality-on-campus-dangerous-79202067.html
By: Carson Jerema
14/12/2009 1:00 AM
IT is hardly novel to note that there is a gender imbalance on Canadian university campuses; about 60 per cent women to 40 per cent men.
The threat of an emerging "pink ghetto" recently prompted University of Alberta president Indira Samarasekera to announce that she is "going to be an advocate for young white men." Predictably, she faced outraged students accusing her of bias against women.
What is wrong with Samaraseka's statement, however, is not that she is deviating from the orthodoxy of identity politics, but that she is perpetuating it. If women once faced a biased system, surely men do now. As reported in the Globe and Mail last week, Samaraseka said, "there is a feeling men can take care of themselves -- clearly that is not true."
She would like to see greater supports put in place to help men make the jump to university, including better communication about the economic returns associated with a degree.
The gender imbalance has become a frequent topic in the past few years, as administrators all over the country have identified it as a crisis. Although no one has directly advocated affirmative action, as it would be illegal, it remains a subtext for every bit of ink spilled on the topic.
Men still hold the majority of prestigious positions in business, but it is expected that women will overtake them as they work through the system. This is, apparently, a problem.
Full Story: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/gender-equality-on-campus-dangerous-79202067.html
Monday, December 7, 2009
The So-Called Boy Mystery
The Chronicle of Higher Education
December 6, 2009
By Sara Goldrick-Rab
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently announced that it would investigate whether some colleges are discriminating against women in an effort to generate a more gender-diverse student population. Reaction was mixed, with some saying it's about time that the "crisis with boys" in higher education is acknowledged and addressed, and others expressing some disbelief and ridicule that the gender wars have come to this.
But part of the overall response really stuck in my craw -- the oft-repeated claim that we "just don't know" what's going on with boys. According to many, sources for the gender differential in higher education are a complete "mystery," a puzzle, a whodunit that we may be intentionally ignoring.
Yes, there are numerous potential explanations for the underrepresentation of men in higher education -- and in particular the growing female advantage in terms of bachelor's degree completion. For example, it could be that boys and girls have differing amounts of the resources important for college success (e.g. levels of financial resources or parental education) or that the usual incentives for college-going (e.g. labor market returns) have differential effects by gender (why, laments the Wall Street Journal, don't boys "get" the importance of attending college?). It's also possible that changes in the labor force or marriage markets, gender discrimination, or societal expectations play a role -- or that the reasons have to do with the growth of community colleges, changes in college affordability, or shifts in the available alternatives to college (e.g. the military).
Sure, this is a wide range of potential factors, not easy to untangle. But while a few years ago we really hadn't a clue about what mattered or why (partly because the trendlines were just becoming visible) this simply isn't true now. This is a topic getting plenty of attention in the research community, there's a reasonable amount of solid data for analysts to use to tackle the major questions, and researchers are on it.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-So-Called-Boy-Mystery/9098/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
December 6, 2009
By Sara Goldrick-Rab
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently announced that it would investigate whether some colleges are discriminating against women in an effort to generate a more gender-diverse student population. Reaction was mixed, with some saying it's about time that the "crisis with boys" in higher education is acknowledged and addressed, and others expressing some disbelief and ridicule that the gender wars have come to this.
But part of the overall response really stuck in my craw -- the oft-repeated claim that we "just don't know" what's going on with boys. According to many, sources for the gender differential in higher education are a complete "mystery," a puzzle, a whodunit that we may be intentionally ignoring.
Yes, there are numerous potential explanations for the underrepresentation of men in higher education -- and in particular the growing female advantage in terms of bachelor's degree completion. For example, it could be that boys and girls have differing amounts of the resources important for college success (e.g. levels of financial resources or parental education) or that the usual incentives for college-going (e.g. labor market returns) have differential effects by gender (why, laments the Wall Street Journal, don't boys "get" the importance of attending college?). It's also possible that changes in the labor force or marriage markets, gender discrimination, or societal expectations play a role -- or that the reasons have to do with the growth of community colleges, changes in college affordability, or shifts in the available alternatives to college (e.g. the military).
Sure, this is a wide range of potential factors, not easy to untangle. But while a few years ago we really hadn't a clue about what mattered or why (partly because the trendlines were just becoming visible) this simply isn't true now. This is a topic getting plenty of attention in the research community, there's a reasonable amount of solid data for analysts to use to tackle the major questions, and researchers are on it.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-So-Called-Boy-Mystery/9098/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Affirmative action for dudes
The Daily Illini
Opinions Blog
Jordan Harp Opinions blogger and columnist Contact me
November 9th, 2009 - 10:04 PM
If there is ever an example of a foot in mouth moment for progressive policies, it became evident last week.
Last week, the Chronicle on Higher Education reported that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had begun examining whether colleges were discriminating against women in admissions decisions. The investigation, “FY 2010 Project on Sex Discrimination in Higher Education Admissions,” aims to determine if co-ed institutions are giving undue preference to male applicants in order to avoid having a gender imbalance on their campuses.
The irony here would be painful were it not so amusing. Affirmative action has enjoyed near universal support among feminist groups, in part because of their belief that preferences help women in getting admitted to college. Four years ago Michigan feminist organizations were unanimous in their opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would have eliminated admissions preferences on the basis of race or sex. But now the policy that they so vehemently support is hurting those that they claim to represent.
Anyone who has been to high school knows that when it comes to academics, boys do in fact drool a bit. Valedictorians today are overwhelmingly female. High school dropout rates nationwide are much higher for men than they are for women. And for those who do graduate, women are more likely to go to college and get accepted to college, and then once they actually get to college, women are more likely to graduate.
This has led to some demographic problems at some universities. The article in the Chronicle mentions the University of Rochester. Although admissions percentages were relatively equal for men and women there in the last cycle, just three years ago the acceptance rate for men was 54 percent, while for women it was just 41 percent, both from higher numbers of and stronger female applicants.
Full Blog Post: http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2009/11/09/affirmative-action-for-dudes
Opinions Blog
Jordan Harp Opinions blogger and columnist Contact me
November 9th, 2009 - 10:04 PM
If there is ever an example of a foot in mouth moment for progressive policies, it became evident last week.
Last week, the Chronicle on Higher Education reported that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had begun examining whether colleges were discriminating against women in admissions decisions. The investigation, “FY 2010 Project on Sex Discrimination in Higher Education Admissions,” aims to determine if co-ed institutions are giving undue preference to male applicants in order to avoid having a gender imbalance on their campuses.
The irony here would be painful were it not so amusing. Affirmative action has enjoyed near universal support among feminist groups, in part because of their belief that preferences help women in getting admitted to college. Four years ago Michigan feminist organizations were unanimous in their opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would have eliminated admissions preferences on the basis of race or sex. But now the policy that they so vehemently support is hurting those that they claim to represent.
Anyone who has been to high school knows that when it comes to academics, boys do in fact drool a bit. Valedictorians today are overwhelmingly female. High school dropout rates nationwide are much higher for men than they are for women. And for those who do graduate, women are more likely to go to college and get accepted to college, and then once they actually get to college, women are more likely to graduate.
This has led to some demographic problems at some universities. The article in the Chronicle mentions the University of Rochester. Although admissions percentages were relatively equal for men and women there in the last cycle, just three years ago the acceptance rate for men was 54 percent, while for women it was just 41 percent, both from higher numbers of and stronger female applicants.
Full Blog Post: http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2009/11/09/affirmative-action-for-dudes
Thursday, November 5, 2009
As Berkeley Enrolls More Out-of-State Students, Racial Diversity May Suffer
The Chronicle of Higher Education
February 4, 2009
Ever since California voters banned affirmative action by state agencies in 1996, the University of California at Berkeley has struggled to enroll more than a small group of black and Latino students. Four years ago, Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau called the university's low numbers "shocking" and said the situation was "a crisis."
But after making limited progress since then, Berkeley officials are now struggling to avoid another drop in the enrollment of underrepresented minority students, this time because of pressures from state budget cuts.
To save money, Berkeley plans to reduce the size of next fall's freshman class. The university intends to enroll about 15 percent fewer Californians, while at the same time nearly doubling its number of out-of-state and international students, who will generate millions of dollars in new revenue from higher, nonresident tuition.
The intended growth in nonresident students at Berkeley, from about 12 percent to 23 percent of the student body, comes as public universities everywhere are turning to out-of-state tuition to replace declining state support. But the enrollment changes have sparked deep concern on the campus that black, Latino, and low-income students will be turned away disproportionately.
According to rough estimates prepared by a university panel on nonresident enrollment, the number of Latino freshmen who enroll next year could decline by 18 percent, the number of black freshmen by 13 percent, and the number of first-generation freshmen by 15 percent. Those estimates, which are based on the composition of the 2009-10 freshman applicant pool, compare with a 5-percent cut in the size of the fall freshman class as a whole.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/As-Berkeley-Enrolls-More/49049/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
February 4, 2009
Ever since California voters banned affirmative action by state agencies in 1996, the University of California at Berkeley has struggled to enroll more than a small group of black and Latino students. Four years ago, Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau called the university's low numbers "shocking" and said the situation was "a crisis."
But after making limited progress since then, Berkeley officials are now struggling to avoid another drop in the enrollment of underrepresented minority students, this time because of pressures from state budget cuts.
To save money, Berkeley plans to reduce the size of next fall's freshman class. The university intends to enroll about 15 percent fewer Californians, while at the same time nearly doubling its number of out-of-state and international students, who will generate millions of dollars in new revenue from higher, nonresident tuition.
The intended growth in nonresident students at Berkeley, from about 12 percent to 23 percent of the student body, comes as public universities everywhere are turning to out-of-state tuition to replace declining state support. But the enrollment changes have sparked deep concern on the campus that black, Latino, and low-income students will be turned away disproportionately.
According to rough estimates prepared by a university panel on nonresident enrollment, the number of Latino freshmen who enroll next year could decline by 18 percent, the number of black freshmen by 13 percent, and the number of first-generation freshmen by 15 percent. Those estimates, which are based on the composition of the 2009-10 freshman applicant pool, compare with a 5-percent cut in the size of the fall freshman class as a whole.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/As-Berkeley-Enrolls-More/49049/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
A Female President Vows to Encourage Men -- and Faces Backlash
Inside Higher Ed
November 5, 2009
Some students at the University of Alberta are angry that Indira Samarasekera, the president, has expressed concern about the declining numbers of men on Canadian university campuses. In an October interview, Samarasekera cited figures showing that women make up 58 percent of Canadian university students and said that she worried that 20 years from now, "we will not have the benefit of enough male talent at the heads of companies and elsewhere." Further, she said she would be an "advocate" for young white men because, as a minority woman, she "can be." The Edmonton Sun reported that her comments irked some students, who felt she was suggesting that female students were somehow a problem, and for not focusing on disadvantaged students -- as opposed to men -- who may need help. Some of the students created posters showing a giant, King Kong-like woman walking over a university building. The caption: "Women are attacking campus! Only white men can save our university! Stop the femimenace."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/05/qt#212505
November 5, 2009
Some students at the University of Alberta are angry that Indira Samarasekera, the president, has expressed concern about the declining numbers of men on Canadian university campuses. In an October interview, Samarasekera cited figures showing that women make up 58 percent of Canadian university students and said that she worried that 20 years from now, "we will not have the benefit of enough male talent at the heads of companies and elsewhere." Further, she said she would be an "advocate" for young white men because, as a minority woman, she "can be." The Edmonton Sun reported that her comments irked some students, who felt she was suggesting that female students were somehow a problem, and for not focusing on disadvantaged students -- as opposed to men -- who may need help. Some of the students created posters showing a giant, King Kong-like woman walking over a university building. The caption: "Women are attacking campus! Only white men can save our university! Stop the femimenace."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/05/qt#212505
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Power of Race
Inside Higher Ed
November 3, 2009
Is the glass half empty or half full?
Thomas J. Espendshade, a professor of sociology at Princeton University, used that question to answer a question about his new book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton University Press), co-written with Alexandria Walton Radford, a research associate at MPR Associates. In fact, he could probably use the glass image to answer questions about numerous parts of the book.
While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)
Unlike much writing about affirmative action, this book is based not on philosophy, but actual data -- both on academic credentials and student experiences -- from 9,000 students who attended one of 10 highly selective colleges and universities. (They are not named, but include public and private institutions, research universities and liberal arts colleges.)
Among the findings:
Significant advantages and disadvantages exist for members of some racial and ethnic groups with regard to the SAT or ACT scores they need to have the same odds of admission as members of other groups. While advantages and disadvantages were also found based on economic class, these were far less significant than those based on race and ethnicity.
Just about every existing idea for reforming college admissions would not, by itself, preserve current levels of racial and ethnic diversity -- if current affirmative action policies were eliminated or scaled back.
Most undergraduates at the institutions studied do have significant interactions with members of different races and ethnicities, and these interactions result in learning about the experiences of different groups. At the same time, the data suggest significant gaps in the kinds of meaningful cross-race interactions that take place with some groups much more likely than others to have such interactions. (By far, the most common interactions are white-Latino, while the least common are black-white).
On measures of academic performance, graduation rates across racial and ethnic groups show only modest gaps at the institutions studied. But analysis of class rank suggests major gaps in academic performance. More than half of black students and nearly one-third of Latino students who graduated from the colleges studied, for example, finished in the bottom quintile of their classes.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite
November 3, 2009
Is the glass half empty or half full?
Thomas J. Espendshade, a professor of sociology at Princeton University, used that question to answer a question about his new book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton University Press), co-written with Alexandria Walton Radford, a research associate at MPR Associates. In fact, he could probably use the glass image to answer questions about numerous parts of the book.
While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)
Unlike much writing about affirmative action, this book is based not on philosophy, but actual data -- both on academic credentials and student experiences -- from 9,000 students who attended one of 10 highly selective colleges and universities. (They are not named, but include public and private institutions, research universities and liberal arts colleges.)
Among the findings:
Significant advantages and disadvantages exist for members of some racial and ethnic groups with regard to the SAT or ACT scores they need to have the same odds of admission as members of other groups. While advantages and disadvantages were also found based on economic class, these were far less significant than those based on race and ethnicity.
Just about every existing idea for reforming college admissions would not, by itself, preserve current levels of racial and ethnic diversity -- if current affirmative action policies were eliminated or scaled back.
Most undergraduates at the institutions studied do have significant interactions with members of different races and ethnicities, and these interactions result in learning about the experiences of different groups. At the same time, the data suggest significant gaps in the kinds of meaningful cross-race interactions that take place with some groups much more likely than others to have such interactions. (By far, the most common interactions are white-Latino, while the least common are black-white).
On measures of academic performance, graduation rates across racial and ethnic groups show only modest gaps at the institutions studied. But analysis of class rank suggests major gaps in academic performance. More than half of black students and nearly one-third of Latino students who graduated from the colleges studied, for example, finished in the bottom quintile of their classes.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite
Monday, November 2, 2009
University race quotas row in Brazil
BBC News
Sunday, 1 November 2009
By Gary Duffy, BBC News, Rio de Janeiro
There are more people of African descent in Brazil than in any country outside the African continent itself, but the higher you go in Brazilian society the less evidence there appears to be of that reality.
Critics say part of the blame lies with a system which has often failed to provide equality of access to third-level education, though recent years have seen some improvements.
To try to address the problem, many Brazilian universities have adopted affirmative action policies or quotas to try to boost the number of black and mixed race students, or more generally those from poor backgrounds.
Gisele says the quotas system has given her a head-start
It is a controversial approach which some argue is necessary to end decades of inequality, while others fear it threatens to introduce racial tension in a society which has been largely free of such problems.
Gisele Alves lives in a poor neighbourhood in Nova Iguacu on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, and says she doubts she would have got to college without a helping hand from the state.
She is studying at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), which was one of the first to adopt quotas.
"I thought I was going to finish school, find work in a little shop, get married and pregnant and that would be it. I didn't expect much more than that," she says.
"But with the system of quotas I started to think I could go to university. My parents couldn't pay privately - if I wanted to study it had to be at a public university."
Giselle got her place in part due to Rio's controversial quotas system which sets aside 20% of public university places for poor black and indigenous students, and the same number for students educated in the much criticised public school system.
Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8285350.stm
Sunday, 1 November 2009
By Gary Duffy, BBC News, Rio de Janeiro
There are more people of African descent in Brazil than in any country outside the African continent itself, but the higher you go in Brazilian society the less evidence there appears to be of that reality.
Critics say part of the blame lies with a system which has often failed to provide equality of access to third-level education, though recent years have seen some improvements.
To try to address the problem, many Brazilian universities have adopted affirmative action policies or quotas to try to boost the number of black and mixed race students, or more generally those from poor backgrounds.
Gisele says the quotas system has given her a head-start
It is a controversial approach which some argue is necessary to end decades of inequality, while others fear it threatens to introduce racial tension in a society which has been largely free of such problems.
Gisele Alves lives in a poor neighbourhood in Nova Iguacu on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, and says she doubts she would have got to college without a helping hand from the state.
She is studying at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), which was one of the first to adopt quotas.
"I thought I was going to finish school, find work in a little shop, get married and pregnant and that would be it. I didn't expect much more than that," she says.
"But with the system of quotas I started to think I could go to university. My parents couldn't pay privately - if I wanted to study it had to be at a public university."
Giselle got her place in part due to Rio's controversial quotas system which sets aside 20% of public university places for poor black and indigenous students, and the same number for students educated in the much criticised public school system.
Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8285350.stm
A Professor Proposes to Examine Gender Bias in College Admissions
Chronicle of Higher Education
November 1, 2009
Gail Heriot, a commissioner and law professor at the University of San Diego, proposed that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights begin examining whether selective colleges are discriminating against women in undergraduate admissions. The commission voted at its August meeting to pursue the project. Here is the text of Ms. Heriot's proposal.
Draft—Statutory Report Proposal
August 6, 2009
Topic: Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions
Background: Title IX generally prohibits sex discrimination in higher education. It does not, however, prohibit sex discrimination in admissions by private, non-professional, undergraduate schools. Put differently, traditionally male and traditionally female liberal arts schools are legally free to discriminate in admissions. So are private, coed, liberal arts schools. But state liberal arts schools are not and neither are private graduate or private professional schools.
Recently, accusations have been made that some selective private, coed, liberal arts schools are discriminating in admissions in to order to maintain what they regard as an appropriate gender balance. Specifically, the accusation is that women applicants are being discriminated against in order to prevent the schools from becoming “too female.” Indeed, some commentators have called this an “open secret” and suggested the same may be occurring at state schools too (where it would be illegal).
Women dominate higher education generally. Approximately 58% of bachelor's degrees and 60% of master's degrees go to women. The dominance of women is particularly felt in community colleges and institutions that are non-selective or only somewhat selective. The reasons for this are complex and controversial, but no doubt part of the reason is that males who have recently graduated from high school are more likely than their female counterparts to prefer the opportunities available to them in the military or in the building trades. Incarceration rates are also higher for men than for women in this (or any) age group.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Full-Text-The-Proposal-That/49012/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
November 1, 2009
Gail Heriot, a commissioner and law professor at the University of San Diego, proposed that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights begin examining whether selective colleges are discriminating against women in undergraduate admissions. The commission voted at its August meeting to pursue the project. Here is the text of Ms. Heriot's proposal.
Draft—Statutory Report Proposal
August 6, 2009
Topic: Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions
Background: Title IX generally prohibits sex discrimination in higher education. It does not, however, prohibit sex discrimination in admissions by private, non-professional, undergraduate schools. Put differently, traditionally male and traditionally female liberal arts schools are legally free to discriminate in admissions. So are private, coed, liberal arts schools. But state liberal arts schools are not and neither are private graduate or private professional schools.
Recently, accusations have been made that some selective private, coed, liberal arts schools are discriminating in admissions in to order to maintain what they regard as an appropriate gender balance. Specifically, the accusation is that women applicants are being discriminated against in order to prevent the schools from becoming “too female.” Indeed, some commentators have called this an “open secret” and suggested the same may be occurring at state schools too (where it would be illegal).
Women dominate higher education generally. Approximately 58% of bachelor's degrees and 60% of master's degrees go to women. The dominance of women is particularly felt in community colleges and institutions that are non-selective or only somewhat selective. The reasons for this are complex and controversial, but no doubt part of the reason is that males who have recently graduated from high school are more likely than their female counterparts to prefer the opportunities available to them in the military or in the building trades. Incarceration rates are also higher for men than for women in this (or any) age group.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Full-Text-The-Proposal-That/49012/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Probe of Extra Help for Men
Inside Higher Ed
November 2, 2009
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has started an inquiry into the extent to which liberal arts colleges discriminate against female applicants -- in an attempt to minimize gender imbalances in the student body. On Friday, the commission agreed on a set of colleges -- primarily in the Washington area -- to investigate, but declined to release a full list.
The issue is an extremely sensitive one for many liberal arts colleges, many of which in recent years have worried about their gender ratios reaching points (60 percent female is commonly cited) where they face difficulty in attracting both male and female applicants. Generally private undergraduate colleges have the legal right to consider gender in admissions. They were specifically exempted from the admissions provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
But despite that legal right, many at liberal arts colleges are uncomfortable about either the extent of admissions favoritism some colleges may engage in, or are embarrassed about it receiving public attention. Further, the Civil Rights Commission's inquiry is based on concerns about another part of Title IX -- its requirement that colleges provide equitable athletic opportunities to male and female athletes. A theory behind the inquiry, outlined in the proposal used to launch the probe, is that colleges may be favoring men in admissions because they are worried about gender-neutral changes they might otherwise use to attract more male students. Foremost among such strategies would be adding more male athletic teams, a move some colleges may be reluctant to make out of fear of the expense of then being required to add more women's teams.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has members with six-year terms appointed by the president and Congress, and its members -- due to the timing of appointments -- still include officials who are much more skeptical of affirmative action than one might see in appointees coming from the current administration and Congress. The commission doesn't have power to order colleges (or other entities) to change their policies, but the commission can draw attention to issues, and prompt action from groups that have more legal options.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/02/admit
November 2, 2009
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has started an inquiry into the extent to which liberal arts colleges discriminate against female applicants -- in an attempt to minimize gender imbalances in the student body. On Friday, the commission agreed on a set of colleges -- primarily in the Washington area -- to investigate, but declined to release a full list.
The issue is an extremely sensitive one for many liberal arts colleges, many of which in recent years have worried about their gender ratios reaching points (60 percent female is commonly cited) where they face difficulty in attracting both male and female applicants. Generally private undergraduate colleges have the legal right to consider gender in admissions. They were specifically exempted from the admissions provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
But despite that legal right, many at liberal arts colleges are uncomfortable about either the extent of admissions favoritism some colleges may engage in, or are embarrassed about it receiving public attention. Further, the Civil Rights Commission's inquiry is based on concerns about another part of Title IX -- its requirement that colleges provide equitable athletic opportunities to male and female athletes. A theory behind the inquiry, outlined in the proposal used to launch the probe, is that colleges may be favoring men in admissions because they are worried about gender-neutral changes they might otherwise use to attract more male students. Foremost among such strategies would be adding more male athletic teams, a move some colleges may be reluctant to make out of fear of the expense of then being required to add more women's teams.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has members with six-year terms appointed by the president and Congress, and its members -- due to the timing of appointments -- still include officials who are much more skeptical of affirmative action than one might see in appointees coming from the current administration and Congress. The commission doesn't have power to order colleges (or other entities) to change their policies, but the commission can draw attention to issues, and prompt action from groups that have more legal options.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/02/admit
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Do Elite Private Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?
U.S. News and World Report
Students of different races have varying odds of admission to elite private colleges, a study finds
By Kim Clark
Posted October 7, 2009
Mitchell Chang, a professor of higher education at UCLA, said Asians have long complained about the "penalty" they face when applying to colleges. But Espenshade's documentation of a threefold difference for similarly qualified students at elite private universities "is stunning. Really worrisome." Chang said Asian students might be disproportionately less likely to participate in certain kinds of extracurricular activities and that many Asian parents push their children to apply to famous "brand name" elite schools. But he insisted that the Asian applicant pool is nevertheless diverse. He fears that college admissions officers might be stereotyping Asians and saying to themselves: "'We don't want another academic nerd.' "
Deborah Santiago, vice president for policy and research at Excelencia in Education, noted, however, that other recent studies have shown that many well-qualified students who come from low-income, African-American, or Hispanic families don't apply to elite schools. So the few who do apply are likely to have better odds.
Full Story: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students.html?PageNr=2
Students of different races have varying odds of admission to elite private colleges, a study finds
By Kim Clark
Posted October 7, 2009
Mitchell Chang, a professor of higher education at UCLA, said Asians have long complained about the "penalty" they face when applying to colleges. But Espenshade's documentation of a threefold difference for similarly qualified students at elite private universities "is stunning. Really worrisome." Chang said Asian students might be disproportionately less likely to participate in certain kinds of extracurricular activities and that many Asian parents push their children to apply to famous "brand name" elite schools. But he insisted that the Asian applicant pool is nevertheless diverse. He fears that college admissions officers might be stereotyping Asians and saying to themselves: "'We don't want another academic nerd.' "
Deborah Santiago, vice president for policy and research at Excelencia in Education, noted, however, that other recent studies have shown that many well-qualified students who come from low-income, African-American, or Hispanic families don't apply to elite schools. So the few who do apply are likely to have better odds.
Full Story: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students.html?PageNr=2
Monday, April 20, 2009
Testing for 'Mismatch'
Inside Higher Ed
Peter Schmidt
April 20, 2009
If members of some minority groups are admitted to elite colleges because of affirmative action -- and don't perform as well as they expected -- does this show a serious flaw in efforts to diversify student bodies?
Critics of affirmative action answer in the affirmative, and this is the basis of the controversial "mismatch" theory -- namely that affirmative action doesn't actually help its intended beneficiaries because they may struggle academically where admitted instead of enrolling at less competitive institutions where they might excel. Mismatch is heatedly debated -- in part because of the political potency of the argument. After all, it allows critics of affirmative action to say that they aren't just worried about white applicants, but about black and Latino students, too.
In a paper released Friday, four scholars at Duke University (three in economics and one in sociology) propose a new way to test for mismatch. They say that much more information is needed than has typically been available in the past. But because they were able to obtain this information for Duke, they argue that a mismatch test is possible. They propose a test in which applicants admitted to an elite university are asked to predict their first-year grades and are then told the average grades earned by members of similar ethnic and racial groups admitted under similar circumstances. In this situation, they argue, students admitted under affirmative action could make an informed judgment on whether they were being mismatched.
The data released by the scholars in explaining their idea could be quite controversial. Private colleges and universities historically release very little information, broken down by race and ethnicity, about the admissions qualifications and subsequent performance of students. Getting even SAT averages by race can be difficult. Duke provided the researchers not only with SAT averages, but with admissions officers' average rankings of admitted students on a five-point scale, by race, as well as the students' own projected first-year grades and actual grades.
Generally, the data show that Asian admitted students had better rankings and scores than all other groups, although their advantage over white students was modest. But Asian and white applicants are generally far above other applicants. And while all groups, on average, overestimated their academic performance in their first year at Duke, black and Latino students had the largest gaps between the performance they expected and what they achieved.
The study, "Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch," is by Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban M. Aucejo, Hanming Fang and Kenneth I. Spenner, and was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research. (An abstract is available here, as is information on how to download the study for $5.)
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch
Peter Schmidt
April 20, 2009
If members of some minority groups are admitted to elite colleges because of affirmative action -- and don't perform as well as they expected -- does this show a serious flaw in efforts to diversify student bodies?
Critics of affirmative action answer in the affirmative, and this is the basis of the controversial "mismatch" theory -- namely that affirmative action doesn't actually help its intended beneficiaries because they may struggle academically where admitted instead of enrolling at less competitive institutions where they might excel. Mismatch is heatedly debated -- in part because of the political potency of the argument. After all, it allows critics of affirmative action to say that they aren't just worried about white applicants, but about black and Latino students, too.
In a paper released Friday, four scholars at Duke University (three in economics and one in sociology) propose a new way to test for mismatch. They say that much more information is needed than has typically been available in the past. But because they were able to obtain this information for Duke, they argue that a mismatch test is possible. They propose a test in which applicants admitted to an elite university are asked to predict their first-year grades and are then told the average grades earned by members of similar ethnic and racial groups admitted under similar circumstances. In this situation, they argue, students admitted under affirmative action could make an informed judgment on whether they were being mismatched.
The data released by the scholars in explaining their idea could be quite controversial. Private colleges and universities historically release very little information, broken down by race and ethnicity, about the admissions qualifications and subsequent performance of students. Getting even SAT averages by race can be difficult. Duke provided the researchers not only with SAT averages, but with admissions officers' average rankings of admitted students on a five-point scale, by race, as well as the students' own projected first-year grades and actual grades.
Generally, the data show that Asian admitted students had better rankings and scores than all other groups, although their advantage over white students was modest. But Asian and white applicants are generally far above other applicants. And while all groups, on average, overestimated their academic performance in their first year at Duke, black and Latino students had the largest gaps between the performance they expected and what they achieved.
The study, "Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch," is by Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban M. Aucejo, Hanming Fang and Kenneth I. Spenner, and was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research. (An abstract is available here, as is information on how to download the study for $5.)
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)