This article uses four data sets to assess changes in the relative weights of test- and performance-based merit criteria on college enrollment during the 1980s and 1990s and considers their significance for affirmative action. Our results support the “shifting meritocracy” hypothesis, revealed by selective postsecondary institutions' increased reliance on test scores to screen students. This shift has made it difficult for institutions to achieve diversity without giving minorities a “boost” through race-sensitive preferences. Statistical simulations that equalize, hold constant, or exclude test scores or class rank from the admission decision illustrate that reliance on performance-based criteria is highly compatible with achieving institutional diversity and does not lower graduation rates. Evidence from a natural experiment in Texas after the implementation of the “top 10 percent” law supports this conclusion. The apparent tension between merit and diversity exists only when merit is narrowly defined by test scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderKarl L.HolupkaScottPallasAaron M..1987. “Social Background and Academic Determinants of Two-Year Versus Four-Year College Attendance: Evidence from Two Cohorts a Decade Apart.”American Journal of Education96: 56–80.
2.
AlexanderKarl L.PallasAaron M.HolupkaScott.1987. “Consistency and Change in Educational Stratif ication: Recent Trends Regarding Social Background and College Access.”Research in Social Stratification6: 161–85.
3.
AlonSigalTiendaMarta.2005. “Assessing the Mismatch Hypothesis: Differences in College Graduation Rates by Institutional Selectivity.”Sociology of Education78: 294–315.
4.
AstinAlexander W.OsegueraLeticiaSaxLinda J.KornWilliam S..2002. The American Freshman: Thirty-Five Year Trends.Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
5.
Barron's.1982, 1992, 2003. Profiles of American Colleges.Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series.
6.
BennettPamela R.XieYu.2003. “Revisiting Racial Differences in College Attendance: The Role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”American Sociological Review68: 567–80.
7.
BlauJudith R.MollerStephanieJonesLyle V..2004. “Why Test? Talent Loss and Enrollment Loss.”Social Science Research33: 409–34.
8.
BowenWilliam G.BokDerek.1998. The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admission.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BowenWilliam G.KurzweilMartin A.TobinEugene M..2005. Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education.Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
10.
BowlesSamuelGintisHerbert.1976. Schooling in Capitalist America.New York: Basic Books.
11.
BrelandHunterMaxeyJamesGernandReneeCummingTammieTrapanCatherine.2002. Trends in College Admission 2000: A Report of a National Survey of Undergraduate Admission Policies, Practices, and Procedures.New York: The College Board.
12.
BridgemanBrentJenkinsLaura McCamleyErvinNancy.2000. “Predictions of Freshman Grade-Point Average from the Revised and Recentered SAT I Reasoning Test.”College Board Report No. 2000-1.New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
13.
ClaudiaBuchmannRoscignoVincent J.CondronDennis J.. 2006. “The Myth of Meritocracy? SAT Preparation, College Enrollment, Class and Race in the United States.”Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Montreal,
August 2006.
14.
CamaraWayne J.EchternachtGary.2000. “The SAT I and High School Grades: Utility in Predicting Success in College.”College Board Report RN-10.New York: College Board.
15.
CamaraWayne J.SchmidtAmy Elizabeth.1999. “Group Differences in Standardized Testing and Social Stratification.”College Board Report No. 99-5.New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
16.
CarnahanKristenColettiChira.2003. “SAT Verbal and Math Scores Up Significantly as a Record-Breaking Number of Students Take the Test: Average Math Score at Highest Level in More Than 35 Years.” Report N0218. New York: The College Board. Retrieved April 22, 2007
http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/26858.html.
17.
CarnevaleAnthony P.RoseStephen J..2004. “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions.” Pp. 101–56 in America's Untapped Resources, edited by KahlenbergR. D.. New York: The Century Foundation Press.
18.
ClarkeMargueriteShoreArnold.2001. “The Roles of Testing and Diversity in College Admissions.”National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy. Boston, MA: Lynch College.
19.
College Board, The.2002. “Guidelines on the Uses of College Board Tests Scores and Related Data.”New York: The College Board.
20.
College Board, The.2006. “Apply to College.”New York: The College Board. Retrieved April 22, 2007 (http://collegeboard.com/student/apply/the-application/53.html).
21.
CrouseJamesTrusheimDale.1988. The Case Against the SAT.Chicago, IL and London, UK: The University of Chicago Press.
22.
DelbancoAndrew.2005. “Colleges: An Endangered Species?”The New York Review of Books, March 10. Retrieved April 22, 2007 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17777).
23.
DiverColin.2005. “Is There Life After Rankings? A Report Card from One College President, Whose School Now Shuns the U.S. News Ranking System—And Has Not Only Survived but Thrived.”The Atlantic Monthly, November. Retrieved April 22, 2007 (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/shunning-college-rankings).
24.
DuffyElizabeth A.GoldbergIdana.1998. Crafting a Class: College Admissions and Financial Aid, 1955–1994.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
EllwoodDavid T.KaneThomas J..2000. “Who is Getting a College Education? Family Background and the Growing Gaps in Enrollment.” Pp. 283–324 in Securing the Future: Investing in Children from Birth to College, edited by DanzigerS.WaldfogelJ.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
26.
EspenshadeThomas J.ChungChang Y..2005. “The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities.”Social Science Quarterly86: 293–305.
27.
EspenshadeThomas J.ChungChang Y.WallingJoan L..2004. “Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities.”Social Science Quarterly85: 1422–46.
28.
FarkasGeorge.2003. “Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratification Processes.”Annual Review of Sociology29: 541–62.
29.
FaulknerLarry R.2000. “‘Top 10 Percent’ Helps Students.”San Antonio Express-News, October 25, p. B5.
30.
FaulknerLarry R.2002. “Class Rank Predicts Student Success.”USA Today, April 5, p. A11.
31.
Fischer ClaudeS.HoutMichaelJankowskiMartin SanchezLucasSamuel R.SwidlerAnnVossKim.1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
FishkinJames S.1988. “Do We Need a Systematic Theory of Equal Opportunity?” Pp. 15–21 in Equal Opportunity, edited by BowieN. E.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
FreedleRoy O.2003. “Correcting the SAT's Ethnic and Social-Class Bias: A Method for Reestimating SAT Scores.”Harvard Educational Review72: 1–43.
34.
GeiserSaulStudleyRoger.2002. “UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and the SAT II at the University of California.”Oakland, CA: University of California.
35.
GlazerNathan.1987. Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy.Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 (2003).
37.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).
38.
HoffmanJohn L.LowitzkiKatie E..2005. “Predicting College Success with High School Grades and Test Scores: Limitations for Minority Students.”The Review of Higher Education28: 455–74.
39.
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996).
40.
HornCatherineFloresStella M..2003. Percent Plans in College Admissions: A Comparative Analysis of Three States 'Experiences.Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu).
41.
JacksonGregory.1988. “Did College Choice Change During the Seventies?”Economics of Education Review1: 15–27.
42.
JencksChristopher.1988. “Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?”Ethics98: 518–33.
43.
JencksChristopherPhillipsMeredith.1998. The Black-White Test Score Gap.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
44.
JencksChristopherRiesmanDavid.1968. The Academic Revolution.Garden City, NJ: Doubleday and Company Inc.
45.
KaneThomas J.1998. Misconceptions in the Debate Over Affirmative Action in College Admissions.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
46.
KarabelJerome.2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
47.
KarenDavid.2002. “Changes in Access to Higher Education in the United States: 1980–1992.”Sociology of Education75: 191–210.
48.
KatzJoseph.1978. “Epilogue: The Admissions Process—Society's Stake and the Individual's Interest.” Pp. 318–47 in Hurdles: The Admission Dilemma in American Higher Education, edited by SacksH. S.. New York: Atheneum.
49.
KlitgaardRobert.1985. Choosing Elites: Selecting the “Best and Brightest” at Top Universities and Elsewhere.New York: Basic Books Inc.
50.
KoretzDaniel M.HamiltonLaura S..2000. “Assessment of Students with Disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, Student Performance and Validity.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis22: 255–72.
51.
LemannNicholas.1999. The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
52.
LewinTamar.2006. “Public Universities Chase Excellence, At a Price.”New York Times, December 20. Retrieved April 22, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/education/20colleges.html?ex=1324270800&en=16bdda3485fff6a3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).
53.
LongBridget Terry.2004. “How Have College Decisions Changed Over Time? An Application of the Conditional Logistic Choice Model.”Journal of Econometrics121: 271–96.
54.
LongJ. Scott.1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
55.
LongMark.2004. “Race and College Admissions: An Alternative to Affirmative Action.”The Review of Economics and Statistics86: 1020–33.
56.
McDonoughPatricia M.1994. “Buying and Selling Higher Education: The Social Construction of the College Applicant.”Journal of Higher Education65: 427–46.
57.
The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC).2006. State of College Admission. Retrieved September 18, 2006 (http://www.nacacnet.org/NR/rdonlyres/4B4C0DF4-BF0A-4B10-89F4-A3D631061305/0/06StateofCollegeAdmissionpdf.pdf).
58.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).2004. Digest of Education Statistics, Chapter 3, Tables 175 and 182. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved September 18, 2006 (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006005).
59.
RawlsJohn.1993. Political Liberalism.New York: Columbia University Press.
60.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
61.
RosenbaumJames.2001. Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
62.
RothsteinJesse M.2004. “College Performance Predictions and the SAT.”Journal of Econometrics121: 297–317.
63.
SacksPeter.2000. Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It.Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
64.
SchneiderBarbaraMartinezSylviaOwensAnn.2006. “Expanding the Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the U.S.” Pp. 179–227 in Hispanics and the Future of America, edited by TiendaM.MitchellF.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
65.
SowellThomas.2003. “Damaging Admissions: Increasing Faculty Diversity.”Capitalism Magazine, February 8. Retrieved July 31, 2003 (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2448).
66.
SteehCharlotteKrysanMaria.1996. “The Polls-Trends, Aff irmative Action and the Public, 1970–1995.”Public Opinion Quarterly60: 128–58.
67.
StrickerLawrence J.RockDonald A.BurtonNancy W..1991. “Sex Differences in SAT Predictions of College Grades.”College Board Report.New York: The College Board.
68.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB).1998. Report on the Effects of the Hopwood Decision on Minority Applications, Offers, and Enrollments at Public Institutions of Higher Education in Texas.Austin, TX: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
69.
Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom.1997. America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible.New York: Simon and Schuster.
70.
Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom.1999. “Reflections on The Shape of the River.” [Book Review]. UCLA Law Review46: 1583–1631.
71.
TiendaMarta.2006. “Harnessing Diversity in Higher Education: Lessons from Texas.” Pp. 53–56 in Ford Policy Forum, 2006, edited by DevlinM.. Washington, DC: NACUBO and the Forum 7 for the Future of Higher Education.
72.
TiendaMartaNiuSunny.2006. “Capitalizing on Segregation, Pretending Neutrality: College Admissions and the Texas Top 10% Law.”American Law and Economics Review8: 312–46.
73.
TurleyRuth N. LopezSantosMartinCejaCecilia.2007. “Social Origin and College Opportunity Expectations Across Cohorts.”Social Science Research, forthcoming.
74.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.1950–2000. United States Census of Population: 1950–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
75.
UT-Austin.2005. “The Performance of Students Attending UT Austin.” A report by the Office of Admission. Retrieved April 19, 2005 (http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/).
76.
WalkerBruceLavergneGary.2001. “Affirmative Action and Percent Plans: What We Learned in Texas.”The College Board Review193: 18–23.
77.
WellsPeter.1978. “Applying to College: Bulldog Bibs and Potency Myths.” Pp. 48–75 in Hurdles: The Admission Dilemma in American Higher Education, edited by SacksH. S.. New York: Atheneum.
78.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).2003. Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State, Income, and Race/Ethnicity.Boulder, CO: Office of Policy Analysis and Research.
79.
YoungMichael.1958. The Rise of Meritocracy.Baltimore, MD: Thames & Hudson.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
