IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v627y2010i1p60-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minority Higher Education Pipeline: Consequences of Changes in College Admissions Policy in Texas

Author

Listed:
  • Angel Harris

    (Princeton University, angelh@princeton.edu)

  • Marta Tienda

    (Princeton University)

Abstract

The authors uses administrative data for the two most selective Texas public institutions to examine the application, admission, and enrollment consequences of rescinding affirmative action and implementing the top 10 percent admission regime. The authors simulate the gains and losses associated with each policy regime and those from assigning minorities the corresponding rates for white students. Challenging popular claims that the Top Ten Percent Law restored diversification of Texas’s public flagships, analyses that consider both changes in the size of high school graduation cohorts and institutional carrying capacity show that the uniform admission regime did not restore Hispanic and black representation at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M even after four years. Simulations of gains and losses for Hispanics and blacks at each stage of the college pipeline across admission regimes confirm that affirmative action is the most efficient policy to diversify college campuses, even in highly segregated states like Texas.

Suggested Citation

  • Angel Harris & Marta Tienda, 2010. "Minority Higher Education Pipeline: Consequences of Changes in College Admissions Policy in Texas," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 627(1), pages 60-81, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:627:y:2010:i:1:p:60-81
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716209348740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716209348740
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716209348740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Card & Alan B. Krueger, 2005. "Would the Elimination of Affirmative Action Affect Highly Qualified Minority Applicants? Evidence from California and Texas," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 58(3), pages 416-434, April.
    2. Marta Tienda & Sunny Xinchun Niu, 2006. "Capitalizing on Segregation, Pretending Neutrality: College Admissions and the Texas Top 10% Law," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 312-346.
    3. Long, M.C.Mark C., 2004. "College applications and the effect of affirmative action," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1-2), pages 319-342.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Klasik, Daniel & Cortes, Kalena E., 2022. "Uniform admissions, unequal access: Did the top 10% plan increase access to selective flagship institutions?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dickson, Lisa & Pender, Matea, 2013. "Do in-state tuition benefits affect the enrollment of non-citizens? Evidence from universities in Texas," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 126-137.
    2. Andrews, Rodney J. & Ranchhod, Vimal & Sathy, Viji, 2010. "Estimating the responsiveness of college applications to the likelihood of acceptance and financial assistance: Evidence from Texas," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 104-115, February.
    3. Dennis L. Weisman & Dong Li, 2017. "Weeds in the Ivy: college admissions under preference constraints," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(3), pages 303-312, January.
    4. Fernanda Estevan & Thomas Gall & Louis-Philippe Morin, 2019. "Redistribution Without Distortion: Evidence from an Affirmative Action Programme at a Large Brazilian University," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(619), pages 1182-1220.
    5. David Welsch, 2012. "Affirmative Action in College Admission Decisions and the Distribution of Human Capital," Working Papers 12-02, UW-Whitewater, Department of Economics.
    6. Maria Eduarda Tannuri Pianto & Andrew Francis, 2011. "The Redistributive Efficacy Ofaffirmative Action: Exploring The Role Of Race And Socioeconomic Statusin College Admissions," Anais do XXXVIII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 38th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 218, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    7. Hinrichs, Peter, 2014. "Affirmative action bans and college graduation rates," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 43-52.
    8. Hinrichs, Peter, 2011. "The effects of attending a diverse college," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 332-341, April.
    9. Yagan, Danny, 2016. "Supply vs. demand under an affirmative action ban: Estimates from UC law schools," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 38-50.
    10. Francis, Andrew M. & Tannuri-Pianto, Maria, 2012. "The redistributive equity of affirmative action: Exploring the role of race, socioeconomic status, and gender in college admissions," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 45-55.
    11. Sandra E. Black & Kalena E. Cortes & Jane Arnold Lincove, 2020. "Apply Yourself: Racial and Ethnic Differences in College Application," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 209-240, Spring.
    12. Juliana Silva-Goncalves & Uwe Dulleck & Anita Hong & Markus Schaffner & Stephen Whyte, 2016. "Affirmative action and effort choice An experimental investigation," WIDER Working Paper Series 054, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Li, Dong & Weisman, Dennis L., 2011. "Why preferences in college admissions may yield a more-able student body," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 724-728, August.
    14. Lise Vesterlund, 2008. "How Costly is Diversity? Affirmative Action in Light of Gender Differences in Competitiveness," Working Paper 342, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Mar 2008.
    15. Kate Antonovics & Ben Backes, 2013. "Were Minority Students Discouraged from Applying to University of California Campuses after the Affirmative Action Ban?," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 208-250, April.
    16. Peter Arcidiacono & Cory Koedel, 2014. "Race and College Success: Evidence from Missouri," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 20-57, July.
    17. Jessica S. Howell, 2010. "Assessing the Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action in Higher Education," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 113-166, January.
    18. Bleemer, Zachary, 2019. "DIVERSITY IN UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS: Affirmative Action, Percent Plans, and Holistic Review," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt1kb1b4cq, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    19. Zachary Bleemer, 2022. "Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California’s Proposition 209," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(1), pages 115-160.
    20. Dylan Conger & Lisa Dickson, 2017. "Gender Imbalance in Higher Education: Insights for College Administrators and Researchers," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(2), pages 214-230, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:627:y:2010:i:1:p:60-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.