December 17, 2008
Affirmative Action at Elite Colleges and Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade
Department of Sociology, Princeton
Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the 67th Year
President George Hansen opened the 13th meeting of the 67th year of the Old Guard at 10:15 AM in the Convocation Room of the Friend Center. Following the invocation, Jim Johnson read the minutes of the December 10 meeting. Jock McFarlane introduced his guest Tony Glockler and Mark Branon his guest, his wife Sally Branon. President Hansen asked for a moment of silence for 20-year member Tom Huntington, who died the evening before. Charles Stenard announced that Edgar Buttenheim and John Friedman had attained emeritus status and that the following six individuals have been nominated for membership in the Old Guard (proposer and first and second seconders listed in order in parentheses):
Dean Chace (Sherman Gray, Stu Carothers, Barney Barnhart)
Robert Bruce Craig (Barney Barnhart/Stan Tarr, C. Joseph Genster, Stan Tarr)
M. David Egger (Herb Kane, Herb Abelson, Cy Meisel)
A.C. Reeves Hicks (J. B. Smith, Jerry Freedman. Gordon Griffin)
Paul Bernard Lerner (Gordon Spencer, Bill Haynes, Bob Varrin)
Lawrence Aaron Pervin (Jerome Rose, Robert Middlebrook, Cyril Franks)
The six were accepted by acclamation as new members.
The speaker, Thomas J. Espenshade of the Princeton Department of Sociology, was introduced by Ben Colbert. Professor Espenshade has taught at a number of colleges and universities and has held a variety of postions at Princeton. Ben held up a “full sheaf of his publications” in fields such as demographic studies, population research, immigration, and higher education access. His presentation, “Affirmative Action at Elite Colleges and Universities,” was based on his forthcoming book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, and dealt with the implications of affirmative action (AA) for the racial and social class composition of a student body, academic performance of under-represented minorities, and what needs to be done to address the achievement gap.
AA is not new. In the past there was a thumb on the admissions scale in many elite schools for Protestants over non-Protestants, until recently for women over men, and it still exists for legacies and athletes. In the spotlight today are positive preferences for underrepresented minorities, principally blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans, and, very recently, for lower-income applicants.
Although other forms of AA exist, only that which is race-based has been litigated. The earliest case involved Alan Bakke, who was denied admission to the medical school at the University of California at Davisunder a quota system that allowed blacks with poorer qualifications to be admitted. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference in a divided Supreme Court with an opinion that, though outright quotas were unconstitutional, race could be taken into account as one of many factors in admission decisions. His decision became the basis of admission practice at elite universities for the next 25 years and was basically reaffirmed in two Supreme Court decisions in 2003 which related to University of Michigan admission policies. So with the exception of institutions in four states—California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska, which through various means have banned race-based AA—colleges and universities can use race as one factor in deciding whom to admit.
In recent research, Professor Espenshade’s group has reached interesting conclusions on the effect of race-based AA on admission to a select group of 10 top-tier universities. Based on data on 250,000 applicants to these schools in 1983, 1993, and 1997, they found statistically significant race-based preferences. In terms of SAT scores, it amounted to a 310-point preference for blacks over whites, 130 points for Hispanics over whites, and 140 points for whites over Asians.
Although there has been much talk about the wisdom of giving preference to lower-income students, Professor Espenshade has found only a very mild preference in the general population of admitted students. He did find, however, a substantial boost for low-income minority students, possibly because schools with a limited financial-aid budget and a preference for both minority and low-income students get more bang for their buck with aid money spent this way.
What appeared on the surface to be the result of another preference within the black community, the 2:1 ratio in entering classes of 1st- and 2nd-generation American black students over blacks whose families had longer U.S. histories, proved to be entirely due to a greater prevalence in the applicant pool and not admission office preference.
An important question is whether race-based AA is helpful or harmful to its recipients. What Professor Espenshade’s data shows is that, though the median class rank for blacks and Hispanics graduating from highly selective universities is lower than for whites, their graduation rate is higher (80%) than it would be had they attended a second-tier school. Professor Espenshade feels that the graduation-rate boost trumps the class-rank penalty and therefore AA is beneficial, not detrimental. This reviewer wonders if this is true in all situations, particularly, say, in a job interview.
Professor Espenshade’s study looked at a number of alternatives to race-based AA that might lead to to a similar representation of minority students in freshman classes at top-tier schools, which is roughly 8-9% each for blacks and Hispanics. No alternative works. One possibility is AA based on class rather than race, but Professor Espenshade’s study shows that “that dog don’t hunt,” nor do several other possible approaches he looked at. Only elimination of the racial gap in academic achievement would allow attainment of the same results presently achieved by race-based AA. The challenge to society is to figure out how to close this gap.
A lively question period ensued.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Berkelhammer
Dean Chace (Sherman Gray, Stu Carothers, Barney Barnhart)
Robert Bruce Craig (Barney Barnhart/Stan Tarr, C. Joseph Genster, Stan Tarr)
M. David Egger (Herb Kane, Herb Abelson, Cy Meisel)
A.C. Reeves Hicks (J. B. Smith, Jerry Freedman. Gordon Griffin)
Paul Bernard Lerner (Gordon Spencer, Bill Haynes, Bob Varrin)
Lawrence Aaron Pervin (Jerome Rose, Robert Middlebrook, Cyril Franks)
The six were accepted by acclamation as new members.
The speaker, Thomas J. Espenshade of the Princeton Department of Sociology, was introduced by Ben Colbert. Professor Espenshade has taught at a number of colleges and universities and has held a variety of postions at Princeton. Ben held up a “full sheaf of his publications” in fields such as demographic studies, population research, immigration, and higher education access. His presentation, “Affirmative Action at Elite Colleges and Universities,” was based on his forthcoming book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, and dealt with the implications of affirmative action (AA) for the racial and social class composition of a student body, academic performance of under-represented minorities, and what needs to be done to address the achievement gap.
AA is not new. In the past there was a thumb on the admissions scale in many elite schools for Protestants over non-Protestants, until recently for women over men, and it still exists for legacies and athletes. In the spotlight today are positive preferences for underrepresented minorities, principally blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans, and, very recently, for lower-income applicants.
Although other forms of AA exist, only that which is race-based has been litigated. The earliest case involved Alan Bakke, who was denied admission to the medical school at the University of California at Davisunder a quota system that allowed blacks with poorer qualifications to be admitted. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference in a divided Supreme Court with an opinion that, though outright quotas were unconstitutional, race could be taken into account as one of many factors in admission decisions. His decision became the basis of admission practice at elite universities for the next 25 years and was basically reaffirmed in two Supreme Court decisions in 2003 which related to University of Michigan admission policies. So with the exception of institutions in four states—California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska, which through various means have banned race-based AA—colleges and universities can use race as one factor in deciding whom to admit.
In recent research, Professor Espenshade’s group has reached interesting conclusions on the effect of race-based AA on admission to a select group of 10 top-tier universities. Based on data on 250,000 applicants to these schools in 1983, 1993, and 1997, they found statistically significant race-based preferences. In terms of SAT scores, it amounted to a 310-point preference for blacks over whites, 130 points for Hispanics over whites, and 140 points for whites over Asians.
Although there has been much talk about the wisdom of giving preference to lower-income students, Professor Espenshade has found only a very mild preference in the general population of admitted students. He did find, however, a substantial boost for low-income minority students, possibly because schools with a limited financial-aid budget and a preference for both minority and low-income students get more bang for their buck with aid money spent this way.
What appeared on the surface to be the result of another preference within the black community, the 2:1 ratio in entering classes of 1st- and 2nd-generation American black students over blacks whose families had longer U.S. histories, proved to be entirely due to a greater prevalence in the applicant pool and not admission office preference.
An important question is whether race-based AA is helpful or harmful to its recipients. What Professor Espenshade’s data shows is that, though the median class rank for blacks and Hispanics graduating from highly selective universities is lower than for whites, their graduation rate is higher (80%) than it would be had they attended a second-tier school. Professor Espenshade feels that the graduation-rate boost trumps the class-rank penalty and therefore AA is beneficial, not detrimental. This reviewer wonders if this is true in all situations, particularly, say, in a job interview.
Professor Espenshade’s study looked at a number of alternatives to race-based AA that might lead to to a similar representation of minority students in freshman classes at top-tier schools, which is roughly 8-9% each for blacks and Hispanics. No alternative works. One possibility is AA based on class rather than race, but Professor Espenshade’s study shows that “that dog don’t hunt,” nor do several other possible approaches he looked at. Only elimination of the racial gap in academic achievement would allow attainment of the same results presently achieved by race-based AA. The challenge to society is to figure out how to close this gap.
A lively question period ensued.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Berkelhammer