The Downside Of Affirmative Action: Racial Preferences Hurt Those They're Intended To Help
Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA, and Stuart Taylor Jr., a journalist and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, are of the mind that schools are hurting those they're trying to help when they admit unqualified minorities. They write in the LAT:
In recent years, scholars have started to do careful empirical research on whether preferences actually help their intended recipients. When the dispute shifts from "is it fair?" to "does it work?" -- thus changing the focus from ideology to evidence -- open-minded people can make progress toward consensus.Much of this new research is on the idea of "mismatch" -- on what happens after a student is admitted to a school for which he or she is only marginally qualified. (It is common for colleges to accept black applicants with SAT scores several hundred points below those generally required for Asian or white applicants.) In general, however, studies have found that students tend to learn less if they are surrounded by peers with much stronger academic preparation.
Some 40% of black students entering college, for example, say they expect to major in science or engineering. But when they get to schools where most of the other students are better prepared -- with much higher SAT scores and more rigorous high school course work -- the chance of failure is high. Although some racial preference recipients rise to the challenge and perform better than ever, research finds that most tend to be overwhelmed and move to easier majors.
These are serious concerns. A raft of recent studies has found that students often fail to thrive if they are admitted to colleges for which they're far less prepared than their fellow students, and this holds true whether the preferences under which they were admitted were based on race (as are most very large preferences) or any other factor. Students admitted to schools under such programs are 30% to 40% less likely to get science degrees; they are twice as likely to fail the bar exam after law school; and they are likely to have less social interaction across racial lines.
These numbers are not comparing preference recipients with their better-qualified peers; they are comparing preference students with otherwise similar students who go to very good but less elite schools where they are better matched.
This has been obvious to the rest of humanity for decades. Now that it has been published in a newspaper in California, do you think the progressives will begin to understand it as well?
Would you choose to visit a doctor, attorney or other professional who is likely less qualified that most of his peers? Who very possibly would have failed out of school except for his/her skin color?
Of course affirmative action hurts the very minorities it is supposed to help. Good intentions do not make good policy.
P.s. I studied in a technical field, and one of the other students was a hispanic woman; in a sense, a double-minority. She actually stated openly that she intended to use her minority status to get jobs for which she would otherwise be considered unqualified.
a_random_guy at October 7, 2012 11:36 PM
Noble intentions, creating the stereotype of the unqualified minority professional.
It's utterly predictable and totally unfair for those who have earned their credentials, but how do you tell the difference?
This won't last, traditional higher education is pricing itself out of existence anyway.
MarkD at October 8, 2012 5:46 AM
Since the Justice Department holds that disparate impact is enough to prove discrimination charges regardless of the claimed intent or lack of evidence; then it follows that affirmative action is, by definition, a violation of civil rights. The result proves intent to discriminate against minorities. Hoist by their own petard!
Bar Sinister at October 8, 2012 6:57 AM
"Much of this new research is on the idea of "mismatch" -- on what happens after a student is admitted to a school for which he or she is only marginally qualified."
Hmmm, it seems to me that this also applies to some folks who get to be president . . .
Charles at October 8, 2012 7:12 AM
Racial Preferences Hurt Those They're Intended To Help
No, you're wrong. The people preferences are really intended to help are democrat pols.
dee nile at October 8, 2012 10:12 AM
Don't forget, that also when they drop out of school, or change majors mid streeam, their cost for school. That non finished worthless degree cost 20,000 of student debt. And that degree in the new major, took an extra year to finish since you had new prerequisites, so add in 10,000 to thier loans.
Joe J at October 8, 2012 12:40 PM
I think Texas got it pretty much right. But there is the law of unintended consequences.
My argument on the kids going to ordinary schools to be in the top 10% is that those parents will demand that the average school becomes more rigorous.
Now if we can just get rid of the teacher's union and the Department of Education, things would really improve.
Jim P. at October 8, 2012 8:26 PM
I think affirmative action (as in preferential treatment to minorities) is appropriate in situations where all other factors are equal. Say somewhere like Harvard, where they get so many qualified applicants that they could pretty much draw names out of a hat. If they want to admit 50% of qualified minorities as opposed to just 10% of qualified white students to meet their diversity quotas then I don't have a problem with that. It's when they start admitting unqualified applicants to hit quotas that it becomes unfair and problematic for everyone.
Shannon at October 10, 2012 1:08 AM
Leave a comment