Sources · Affirmative action in admissions
This house supports affirmative action in university admissions.
Fact bank v1 · 12 cards
- AA-01True
“When US states banned affirmative action, fewer Black and Hispanic students got into their top public universities.”
Confirmed: after California and Texas ended affirmative action between 1996 and 1998, admission rates for Black and Hispanic students at their top public universities fell by 30 to 50 percent, and they made up a smaller share of the first-year class.
These figures are given in a 2004 study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger. A later study of California found that the ban pushed many students from under-represented minority groups into less selective colleges. It also put thousands of qualified students from these groups off applying to the University of California at all (see AA-04).
“At the states' elite public universities admission rates of black and Hispanic students fell by 30-50 percent”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Would the Elimination of Affirmative Action Affect Highly Qualified Minority Applicants? Evidence from California and Texas (NBER Working Paper 10366)Independent research institute · 1 Mar 2004 ↗ - AA-02Mostly false
“Affirmative action hurts the students it is meant to help, by putting them in universities where they fall behind.”
The strongest evidence mostly points the other way. When California banned affirmative action at its public universities in 1998, students from under-represented minority groups moved to less selective colleges, but fewer of them finished degrees, including science degrees, and their later wages fell.
This idea is called the 'mismatch' theory. If it were right, moving to less selective colleges should have helped these students. The 2022 study linked every University of California applicant from 1994 to 2002 to their later education and pay; the fall in wages was mainly among Hispanic applicants. Its author estimated that affirmative action did these students more good than the harm it did to the white and Asian applicants who only just missed out. In India, a study of quotas for disadvantaged castes and for women at more than 200 engineering colleges also found no evidence that they harmed the students they helped. Some research does find a narrower effect on science degrees (see AA-03).
“The “mismatch hypothesis” implies that this cascade would provide net educational benefits to URM applicants, but their degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields”
The Quarterly Journal of Economics (Oxford University Press)·Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California's Proposition 209 (The Quarterly Journal of Economics 137(1))Peer-reviewed research · 1 Feb 2022 ↗ - AA-03Mixed
“Affirmative action makes minority students less likely to finish science and engineering degrees.”
The evidence is split. A 2016 study of University of California data found that less-prepared minority students at top campuses would have been more likely to finish science degrees at lower-ranked campuses. But a 2022 study found that after California's ban, minority students did no better or worse in their science classes, and fewer of them ended up with science degrees.
The 2016 study, in the American Economic Review, found that less-prepared minority students at higher-ranked campuses were more likely to give up on science and took longer to graduate. A separate study by some of the same authors found that graduation rates rose by 4.4% after California's ban. In their main estimate, 18% of that rise came from students being better matched to campuses, and between 23% and 64% seemed to come from universities investing more in their students.
“We find less prepared minority students at top ranked campuses would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower ranked campuses.”
American Economic Association·University Differences in the Graduation of Minorities in STEM Fields: Evidence from California (American Economic Review)Peer-reviewed research · 1 Mar 2016 ↗Further sources for this card
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (Oxford University Press) · Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California's Proposition 209 (Bleemer, 2022) ↗
- National Bureau of Economic Research · Affirmative Action and University Fit: Evidence from Proposition 209 (NBER Working Paper 18523) ↗
- AA-04Mixed
“Ending affirmative action scares talented minority students away from even applying to top universities.”
The evidence is mixed. A study of California and Texas found no change in where highly qualified Black and Hispanic students sent their SAT scores after the bans. But a later study found that California's ban put thousands of qualified students from under-represented minority groups off applying to any University of California campus.
The first study, by David Card and Alan Krueger (2004), compared SAT takers before and after the bans of 1996 to 1998. The second, by Zachary Bleemer (2022), studied the University of California from 1994 to 2002. They looked at slightly different groups: top-scoring students in the first, and qualified students more widely in the second.
“We find no change in the SAT-sending behavior of highly qualified black or Hispanic students in either state.”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Would the Elimination of Affirmative Action Affect Highly Qualified Minority Applicants? Evidence from California and Texas (NBER Working Paper 10366)Independent research institute · 1 Mar 2004 ↗ - AA-05True
“At elite US universities, rich applicants get in more often than middle-class applicants with the same test scores.”
Confirmed: at Ivy-Plus colleges (the Ivy League plus Stanford, MIT, Duke and Chicago), children from the richest 1% of families are more than twice as likely to attend as middle-class children with similar SAT or ACT scores.
Two-thirds of that gap comes from higher admission rates for rich applicants with similar scores; the rest is because they apply and accept places more often. The study links the edge to three things: an edge for children of former students (legacies), weight on non-academic achievements, and recruiting athletes. Rich applicants had no such edge at the main public universities in each state. The study, by Raj Chetty, David Deming and John Friedman, was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2026.
“Children from families in the top 1% are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college as those from middle-class families”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Diversifying Society's Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges (NBER Working Paper 31492)Independent research institute · 1 Jul 2023 ↗ - AA-06True
“Legacy and athlete preferences at Harvard mainly help white applicants.”
Confirmed: over 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were recruited athletes, legacies (children of former students), on the dean's interest list, or children of faculty and staff. For African American, Asian American and Hispanic admits, the share was under 16% each.
The study used data made public in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard lawsuit. Recruited athletes, legacies and applicants on the dean's interest list (which includes applicants whose families have given money to Harvard) were each over 68% white, compared with under 41% of other applicants. The authors estimated that roughly three in four white admits from these groups would have been rejected without those boosts, and that dropping athlete and legacy preferences would lower the share of white admits. Two of the authors had worked for the group that sued Harvard; that group did not fund the paper. It was published in the Journal of Labor Economics in 2022.
“Among white admits, over 43% are ALDC. Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each.”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard (NBER Working Paper 26316)Independent research institute · 1 Sept 2019 ↗Further sources for this card
- AA-07Mixed
“Harvard's admissions process discriminated against Asian American applicants.”
This is disputed. An analysis of data from the Harvard court case estimated that Asian American applicants would have been admitted about 19% more often without a penalty. But two of the three economists who did it had worked for the group that sued Harvard, and the answer depends on how applicants are compared: Asian Americans outside the special groups, such as athletes and legacies, actually had a slightly higher raw admission rate than white applicants.
The penalty appears once applicants with similar records are compared, because Asian American applicants were on average much stronger on paper than white applicants. In the study's preferred model, being Asian American cut an applicant's chance by about 1 percentage point, on an admission rate of around 5%. Part of the penalty, but less than half, ran through Harvard's 'personal rating'. Students for Fair Admissions made this argument in its case against Harvard, which the Supreme Court decided in 2023.
“Our preferred model shows that Asian Americans would be admitted at a rate 19% higher absent this penalty.”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Asian American Discrimination in Harvard Admissions (NBER Working Paper 27068)Independent research institute · 1 Apr 2020 ↗ - AA-08True
“SAT and ACT scores predict how well students do after university, while things like legacy status do not.”
Confirmed for elite US colleges: a major study found SAT and ACT scores are highly predictive of success after college, while legacy status, non-academic ratings and athletic recruitment are not linked to better outcomes, or are linked to worse ones.
Success here means things like reaching the top 1% of earners, getting into an elite graduate school, or working at a top firm. The study looked at Ivy-Plus colleges (the Ivy League plus Stanford, MIT, Duke and Chicago). It also found that going to one instead of a typical main state university raised a student's chance of reaching the top 1% of earners by 50%.
“academic credentials such as SAT/ACT scores are highly predictive of post-college success”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Diversifying Society's Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges (NBER Working Paper 31492)Independent research institute · 1 Jul 2023 ↗ - AA-09Mostly true
“Most Americans oppose universities using race in admissions.”
Mostly right, but it depends on how the question is asked. In a 2023 Pew survey, half of US adults disapproved of selective colleges considering race and ethnicity, 33% approved and 16% were unsure. In a December 2022 Pew survey, 82% said colleges should not consider race. Yet in 2021, 62% told Gallup they favoured affirmative action programmes for racial minorities in general.
Views split by group. In the 2023 survey, 47% of Black adults approved and 29% disapproved, while 57% of White adults and 52% of Asian adults disapproved. 74% of Republicans disapproved, while 54% of Democrats approved. These are US figures from before the 2023 Supreme Court rulings.
“half of U.S. adults say they disapprove of selective colleges and universities taking prospective students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds into account when making admissions decisions”
Pew Research Center·More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of Colleges Considering Race, Ethnicity in Admissions DecisionsIndependent research institute · 8 Jun 2023 ↗ - AA-10False
“Affirmative action decides who gets into most US universities.”
Most US four-year colleges admit most people who apply. In 2021-22, only 202 of the 1,550 four-year colleges Pew studied admitted half or fewer of their applicants, and race was mostly considered at highly selective private colleges.
Pew checked 123 selective colleges that publish admissions data. 91 of them (74%) said they considered race and ethnicity, but only 10 called it an important factor, and 82 of the 91 were private. In 2023, US Supreme Court rulings in cases about Harvard and the University of North Carolina severely limited affirmative action in college admissions. Pew said the change would mainly affect this small group of schools.
“only 202 out of 1,550 four-year colleges and universities admitted half or fewer of the people who applied to them”
Pew Research Center·Private, selective colleges are most likely to use race, ethnicity as a factor in admissions decisionsIndependent research institute · 14 Jul 2023 ↗ - AA-11Mostly true
“Race-neutral plans, like Texas guaranteeing places to the top 10% of every high school, can widen access without harming the students who lose out.”
Mostly right, based on Texas. The Top 10 Percent rule helped top students from high schools that used to send few students to the state's top public university: more of them enrolled and graduated, with some sign of higher earnings 7 to 9 years after college. Students who lost out went to less selective colleges, but they did not enrol, graduate or earn less overall.
This is one study of one state, by Sandra Black, Jeffrey Denning and Jesse Rothstein, published in 2023. It compares students from different high schools; it does not directly measure racial diversity. The authors say the rule, brought in to make access fairer, also seems to have made the system more efficient.
“students in the second group attend less selective colleges but do not see declines in overall college enrollment, graduation, or earnings”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Winners and Losers? The Effect of Gaining and Losing Access to Selective Colleges on Education and Labor Market Outcomes (NBER Working Paper 26821)Independent research institute · 1 Mar 2020 ↗ - AA-12Mostly true
“Studying alongside students of other races makes students more understanding of other groups.”
Mostly right, but the evidence is limited. At one large US state university, white students randomly given an African American roommate in their first year were more likely to support affirmative action, to see a diverse student body as essential for a good education, and to say they had more contact with, and felt more at ease with, people from minority groups.
Because roommates were assigned at random, this is stronger evidence than a simple survey. But the authors say their samples were too small to be sure, and the study measured attitudes, not grades or learning. A 2019 study at the US Air Force Academy, where students are placed in groups at random, found that white men whose first-year group had higher-achieving Black classmates were more likely to choose a Black roommate the next year. A 2023 Pew survey found Americans split on whether considering race makes students' education better (27%) or worse (26%).
“white students at a large state university randomly assigned African American roommates in their first year were more likely to endorse affirmative action”
American Economic Association·Empathy or Antipathy? The Impact of Diversity (American Economic Review)Peer-reviewed research · 1 Dec 2006 ↗Further sources for this card
The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.