Affirmative action policies can result in a mismatch between students and colleges, leading to lower graduation rates and academic difficulties.
Re-implementing standardized testing requirements highlights the ongoing debate around their use in college admissions.
Legacy admissions favor privileged applicants, raising concerns about fairness and trustworthiness in the admissions process.
Affirmative action policies should address the root causes of inequality and prioritize transparency and informed decision-making.
Deep dives
The Mismatch Effect in Affirmative Action
Affirmative action policies, particularly in higher education, can lead to a mismatch between students and colleges, resulting in lower graduation rates and reduced academic performance. Research has shown that students admitted through affirmative action tend to be academically behind their peers, leading to difficulties in keeping up with coursework and potentially switching to easier majors. This mismatch effect is particularly evident among African American students who may face larger bumps in admissions and struggle to perform at the same level as their classmates. Furthermore, legacy admissions, another form of affirmative action, tend to favor more advantaged applicants, undermining the intended goal of promoting diversity and equal opportunity. The transparency between colleges and applicants regarding the potential effects of affirmative action, especially the mismatch effect, needs improvement to allow for informed decision-making.
Testing Requirements and the Value of Standardized Exams
The trend of re-implementing standardized testing requirements, such as the SAT and LSAT, highlights the value these exams have in predicting academic success. MIT's decision to bring back the SAT requirement and the American Bar Association's consideration to eliminate the LSAT reflect the ongoing debates surrounding the use of these tests. Proponents argue that standardized exams provide valuable information and serve as fair benchmarks for admissions, ensuring that students are academically prepared for certain fields of study. However, the lack of transparency in admissions data and the varying effects of affirmative action make it crucial for colleges to use holistic approaches in evaluating students' qualifications and providing necessary support for those with diverse backgrounds.
Legacy Admissions, Affirmative Action, and Wealth Disparities
Legacy admissions, a form of affirmative action, perpetuate inequalities by granting preferential treatment to students with family connections and financial advantages. The impact of legacy admissions on academic performance and major choices is complex. While specific data on graduation rates are limited, studies have shown that legacy preferences often benefit more advantaged applicants, such as white legacies, rather than addressing the educational disparities among underprivileged students. This approach raises questions about the fairness and trustworthiness of institutions and calls for a reevaluation of admissions criteria that prioritize group affiliations over individual qualifications.
Comparing Affirmative Action Policies Worldwide
Affirmative action policies vary across the globe, and their impacts can be counterintuitive. For instance, in Malaysia, affirmative action benefits the Malaysian majority rather than the Chinese minority, highlighting the complexity of addressing racial disparities. International examples further underscore the challenges of achieving proportional representation based on race alone, as it disregards other factors like income and individual abilities. The role of affirmative action in promoting equal opportunities should address root causes of inequality, rather than relying solely on group affiliation, ensuring transparency and informed decision-making.
Affirmative Action and Public Opinion
Public opinion in California reveals that a majority of people, including Democrats and Black individuals, believe that race should not be a factor in college admissions. In fact, a poll found that over 70% of respondents did not think race should be a factor. Even in a liberal state like California, where racial preferences would be expected to be popular, Proposition 16, which aimed to reinstate affirmative action, failed by a wide margin. The unpopularity of racial preferences, despite the pressure from corporations, highlights a stark contrast between public sentiment and the views held by the elites who advocate for affirmative action.
The Mismatch Theory and Empirical Verification
Research conducted in California after Prop 209 banned affirmative action in 1998 challenges the mismatch theory proposed by Thomas Sowell and others. The study examined the academic outcomes of black and Hispanic students who were previously admitted to more selective universities due to affirmative action. Contrary to the mismatch theory, these students did not experience improvements when they attended less selective schools. Instead, they achieved lower grades, were less likely to persist in STEM fields, had lower degree attainment, and ultimately earned less in their careers compared to their counterparts who were admitted to more selective institutions. These findings suggest that affirmative action provided access to a more beneficial educational environment for these students.
Different Views on Meritocracy and Affirmative Action
The debate over affirmative action also raises questions about different views on meritocracy and the role of undergraduate universities. Some proponents of affirmative action argue that meritocracy, based on academic preparation and capacity, may not be the optimal way to allocate undergraduate seats. They believe that affirmative action can help identify students who will gain the most from a rigorous undergraduate education and contribute back to the state in terms of economic growth or specific objectives. Conversely, opponents of affirmative action often emphasize the importance of meritocracy and view race-based preferences as undermining the meritocratic system. The clash between these perspectives reflects a broader battle between different notions of meritocracy and social engineering in various areas of society.
The Future of Affirmative Action and Meritocracy
With the upcoming consolidated case before the Supreme Court regarding affirmative action in Harvard and UNC, there is a possibility that race-based affirmative action may be prohibited nationwide. While the research suggests that ending affirmative action may lead to disadvantages for black and Hispanic students, the overwhelming public sentiment in California and the potential Supreme Court ruling indicate a growing opposition to racial preferences in college admissions. The question of meritocracy and how undergraduate seats should be allocated remains controversial, with proponents and opponents of affirmative action advocating for different approaches. The future of affirmative action and its role in shaping the balance between meritocracy and social engineering will continue to be a topic of debate.
NEW NEWS THAT'S NEWSWORTHY: Basic Books (Sowell's publisher) is teaming up with The Genius of Thomas Sowell Podcast to offer listeners a chance to win 4 Sowell books. Enter at SowellBooks.com for a chance to win!
In this episode, we continue to explore the subject of Affirmative Action which was inspired by reading Chapter 6 of Thomas Sowell's 1993 classic "Inside American Education."
We touch on the following subjects: • A case now before the US Supreme Court about affirmative action • MIT bringing back the SAT exam • Elite high schools turning away from academic admissions exams • Will law schools no longer require that applicants take the LSAT? • Why students can now get 100 extra points on their SAT for living in a rough neighborhood • Affirmative action in TV commercials? • Should casting TV commercials be the same as casting university students? • Social Engineering
Today's episode features two separate interviews with scholars who study Affirmative Action:
1) Peter Arcidiacono: Professor of Economics at Duke University. You can find Peter's CV and articles HERE.
2) Zachary Bleemer: Soon to be Assistant Professor of Economics at Yale University. You can find Zach's CV and articles HERE.
Notes: • Our updated listener statistics to the podcast can be found HERE.
There are 3 ways to support the show:
1) Rate and review the podcast on Apple Podcasts
2) Purchase our Thomas Sowell Post It Note pads: You can find all 50 digital images of the post it notes HERE, feel free to download them and use them however you like. To purchase pads of printed post it notes, please Paypal $3/pad to wolanalan@gmail.com or Venmo to @Alan-Wolan. Please put your mailing address as well as your email address in the notes of the payment. International orders will cost more, please ask.
3) Support the show financially by subscribing with a monthly contribution on Patreon, link HERE.
You can email Alan at: TheGeniusOfThomasSowell@gmail.com
• Find me on X (Twitter) at @alanwolan • Email me at WolanAlan@gmail.com • Support the show at https://www.patreon.com/SowellGenius • Purchase podcast merch at https://www.etsy.com/shop/GeniusSowell • See all my links at www.alanwolan.com
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
