Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose
Century Foundation
March 2003
This study makes the case for modifying college admissions programs to include greater consideration for those of low socioeconomic status (SES), in addition to existing affirmative action plans. Its authors rely partly on idealism - rewarding those who overcome hardships - and partly on public opinion (surveys show broad support for such policies). Their report analyzes hypothetical applicant pools for selective colleges under five different sets of admissions policies, four of which it knocks down. Pure meritocracy, it is said, would reduce diversity. The public won't put up with a simple lottery. Relying on class rank would admit too many ill-qualified students if it didn't incorporate a minimum SAT score - and would yield too little diversity if it did. Left standing is their proposal to employ economic affirmative action. In the end, their argument boils down to the conviction that colleges have many qualified but poor applicants and "once high-performing students from low-SES families get the chance, they are able to succeed." This may be a worthwhile cause, but the authors don't subject their own recommendation to the same scrutiny as those they dismiss. What happens once we combine racial and economic affirmative action? Do poor students do as well in college? At what rate do they graduate? How much preference should they be given? The authors don't say. For a free copy, visit the Century Foundation's website at http://www.tcf.org/Publications/White_Papers/carnevale_rose.pdf.
