TY - JOUR
T1 - Affirmative action and its race-neutral alternatives
AU - Bleemer, Zachary
N1 - Funding Information:
Thanks to David Card, Sarah Cohodes, Margaret Heisel, Jesse Rothstein, and various seminar participants for helpful comments. Frankie Lin, Sakthi Ponnuswamy, and Sowgandhi Rayapudi provided excellent research assistance. The author was employed by the University of California in a research capacity throughout the period in which this study was conducted, and acknowledges financial support from the Center for Studies in Higher Education and the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. The conclusions of this research do not necessarily reflect the opinion or official position of the University of California or the State of California. Any errors that remain are my own.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s)
PY - 2023/4
Y1 - 2023/4
N2 - As affirmative action loses political feasibility, many universities have implemented race-neutral alternatives like top percent policies and holistic review to increase enrollment among disadvantaged students. I study these policies’ application, admission, and enrollment effects using University of California administrative data. UC's affirmative action and top percent policies increased underrepresented minority (URM) enrollment by over 20 percent and less than 4 percent, respectively. Holistic review increases implementing campuses’ URM enrollment by about 7 percent. Top percent policies and holistic review have negligible effects on lower-income enrollment, while race-based affirmative action modestly increased enrollment among very low-income students. These findings highlight that the most common race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action increase Black and Hispanic enrollment far less than affirmative action itself and reveal that none of these policies substantially affect universities’ socioeconomic composition.
AB - As affirmative action loses political feasibility, many universities have implemented race-neutral alternatives like top percent policies and holistic review to increase enrollment among disadvantaged students. I study these policies’ application, admission, and enrollment effects using University of California administrative data. UC's affirmative action and top percent policies increased underrepresented minority (URM) enrollment by over 20 percent and less than 4 percent, respectively. Holistic review increases implementing campuses’ URM enrollment by about 7 percent. Top percent policies and holistic review have negligible effects on lower-income enrollment, while race-based affirmative action modestly increased enrollment among very low-income students. These findings highlight that the most common race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action increase Black and Hispanic enrollment far less than affirmative action itself and reveal that none of these policies substantially affect universities’ socioeconomic composition.
KW - Affirmative action
KW - Public policy
KW - University admissions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147998272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85147998272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104839
DO - 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104839
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85147998272
SN - 0047-2727
VL - 220
JO - Journal of Public Economics
JF - Journal of Public Economics
M1 - 104839
ER -