Diversity in University Admissions: Affirmative Action, Percent Plans, and Holistic Review

Author(s):  
Zachary Bleemer
2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Long ◽  
Marta Tienda

This article evaluates changes in racial and ethnic composition of three Texas universities following the ban on affirmative action imposed by the 1996 Hopwood decision. The authors estimate the extent to which universities practiced affirmative action before the ban and evaluate how officers at these universities responded by changing relative weights accorded to various applicant characteristics. After assessing whether changes in the relative weights favored minority applicants, the degree to which these new policies succeeded in maintaining minority shares at their pre- Hopwood levels is simulated. This article finds that these universities complied with the Hopwood ruling such that direct advantages given to Black and Hispanic applicants disappeared (and in some cases became disadvantages). Although there is some evidence that universities changed the weights they placed on applicant characteristics in ways that aided underrepresented minority applicants, these changes were insufficient to restore Black and Hispanic applicants’ share of admitted students.


Education ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie J. Park ◽  
Katie K. Koo

Affirmative action is one of the most highly contested policies in US higher education. Affirmative action refers to the ability of colleges and universities to act “affirmatively” with the goal of increasing racial diversity within their institutions. In order to do this, universities have race-conscious admissions policies, meaning that they may consider an applicant’s race as one of numerous factors in weighing whether to admit a student or not. Race-conscious admissions policies stand in contrast to “race-blind” or “race-neutral” policies, which do not consider an applicant’s race as a factor in any portion of the admissions process. In general, race-conscious admissions policies at the undergraduate level generally affect only selective and highly selective institutions, a fraction of colleges and universities. However, other types of affirmative-action-related programs (e.g., affirmative action in hiring faculty, scholarships for minority students) exist at a broader range of institutions and are affected by the continued legality of race-conscious admissions. Affirmative action has notable symbolic significance. A key component of the debate is whether universities should be able to take race into account in the admissions process, which reflects a broader controversy over whether color-blindness or some measure of race consciousness is the more appropriate way to address the continued underrepresentation of certain minority groups in higher education. Thus, the affirmative-action debate has garnered a significant amount of media and public attention since the 1970s. Due to numerous court cases, the legal permissibility and justification for affirmative action remains in flux. Different states, such as California and Washington, have also passed anti-affirmative-action ordinances. Some confusion exists over what affirmative action is and is not. Affirmative action is often associated with quotas or set-asides; that is, reserving a certain number of seats for a particular group in an admissions pool. However, such measures have been illegal since the 1970s. Points systems that assign a specific amount of points related to an applicant’s race/ethnicity are also illegal. However, under current Supreme Court rulings, holistic review of applicants that considers the influence of race as one of numerous factors is generally legal except in states that have passed affirmative-action bans. Finally, the implementation of affirmative action also varies from institution to institution due to the unique contexts of different college campuses. Various universities choose to weigh different criteria given their needs and range of applicants.


ILR Review ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Card ◽  
Alan B. Krueger

Between 1996 and 1998 California and Texas eliminated the use of affirmative action in college and university admissions. At the states' elite public universities admission rates of black and Hispanic students subsequently fell by 30–50% and minority representation in the entering freshman classes declined. This study investigates whether the elimination of affirmative action changed minority students' college application behavior. A particular concern is that highly qualified minorities—who were not directly affected by the policy change—would be dissuaded from applying to elite public schools, either because of reduced campus diversity or because of uncertainty about their admission prospects. The authors use information from SAT takers in the two states to compare the fractions of minority students who sent their test scores to selective state institutions before and after the elimination of affirmative action. They find no change in the SAT-sending behavior of highly qualified black or Hispanic students.


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 82-99
Author(s):  
Naomi C.F. Yamada

In both China and in the United States, policies of 'positive discrimination' were originally intended to lessen educational and economic inequalities, and to provide equal opportunities. As with affirmative action in the American context, China's 'preferential policies' are broad-reaching, but are best known for taking ethnic background into consideration for university admissions. The rhetoric of China's preferential policy discourse has remained surprisingly constant but shifts to a market-economy and incorporation of neoliberal elements have resulted in fee-based reforms that discourage inclusion of poorer students. In addition, as ethnic minority students principally from Western China compete to enter 'self-funded' college preparatory programmes, public funding is being directed towards the achievement of 'world-class' universities overwhelmingly concentrated in Eastern China. In contrast, in the United States, the difficulty of defending affirmative action in the face of a neoliberal climate has resulted in a shift in policy. If in China the policy remains even as the 'rule' has changed (Arno 2009), in contrast, in American institutions the rhetoric has shifted away from affirmative action in favour of diversity but efforts to hold on to the rules that promote equal opportunities remain.


2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-98
Author(s):  
Daniel Disalvo ◽  
James W. Ceaser

A specter is haunting France and America. It is known alternatively as “discrimination positive” or “affirmative action.” The concept refers to policies that legitimate the use of measures that explicitly take into account an individual’s group status in the allocation of jobs, contracts, and university admissions to assist groups that are disadvantaged and that have suffered historically from discrimination. According to its proponents, the larger objectives of these policies include eliminating patterns of negative discrimination, producing greater equality, integrating members of these groups into society by giving them a larger stake in it, and achieving greater representativeness or diversity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document