Fighting Education Fighting Education Inequality:Inequality:

Segregation in K-12 Segregation in K-12 Schooling &Schooling &

Legacy Preferences in Legacy Preferences in Higher EducationHigher EducationRichard D. Kahlenberg, Senior Richard D. Kahlenberg, Senior

Fellow, Fellow,

The Century FoundationThe Century Foundation

November 10, 2011November 10, 2011

Education Law AssociationEducation Law Association

Chicago, IllinoisChicago, Illinois

School Integration in the School Integration in the U.S. U.S.

Continuum of Voluntary Racial and Continuum of Voluntary Racial and Socioeconomic PlansSocioeconomic Plans

•Most Racial Diversity Guaranteed•Least Legally Sustainable

•Least Racial Diversity Guaranteed•Most Legally Sustainable

Race OnlyNeither Race nor SES

•Old Louisville Plan•Old Seattle Plan

•13,000 + districts

Use both Race & SES

•New Louisville Plan•Berkeley

SES with race as “last resort”

•Cambridge

SES Only

•Omaha•Champaign

Districts Pursuing Districts Pursuing Socioeconomic Socioeconomic

Integration TodayIntegration Today 80 U.S. Districts, educating 4 million 80 U.S. Districts, educating 4 million

students, using socioeconomic status as a students, using socioeconomic status as a factor in student assignment. Examples:factor in student assignment. Examples:

Cambridge, MA. All schools should fall Cambridge, MA. All schools should fall within + or – 10 percentage points of district within + or – 10 percentage points of district average for free and reduced price lunch average for free and reduced price lunch (40%).(40%).

Chicago, IL. 85% low-income so begin by Chicago, IL. 85% low-income so begin by integrating a subset of magnet and selective integrating a subset of magnet and selective schools, with the goal of integrating more as schools, with the goal of integrating more as middle-class return.middle-class return.

Racial vs. Socioeconomic Racial vs. Socioeconomic IntegrationIntegration

Socioeconomic integration produces significant Socioeconomic integration produces significant racial diversity in a manner that’s perfectly legalracial diversity in a manner that’s perfectly legal Among 4Among 4thth graders nationally, 24% whites eligible graders nationally, 24% whites eligible

free and reduced lunch; 70% African Americans; 73% free and reduced lunch; 70% African Americans; 73% LatinosLatinos

Graduated income tax legally fine by income, not by Graduated income tax legally fine by income, not by race.race.

Enormous benefits to preserving racial integration.Enormous benefits to preserving racial integration. Not just a clumsy proxy. Research: Academic Not just a clumsy proxy. Research: Academic

benefits of integration not from proximity to benefits of integration not from proximity to whiteness but middle-class environmentwhiteness but middle-class environment Racial Desegregation in Charlotte vs. Boston (1970s)Racial Desegregation in Charlotte vs. Boston (1970s) Roosevelt Perry Elementary in Louisville.Roosevelt Perry Elementary in Louisville.

Classmate Characteristics, by School or Classmate Characteristics, by School or

Student SESStudent SES

a Percentage of schools reporting student acts of disrespect for teachers in classrooms at least once per week. High-poverty refers to schools with 50 percent or more of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; and low-poverty refers to schools with 20% or less of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. b Percentage of students who have attended two or more schools between first and third grades. High-poverty refers to the study’s lowest family income group (family income is less than $10,000). Low-poverty refers to the study’s highest family income group (family income is $50,000 or more).c Number of words in student’s vocabulary by 36 months of age. High-poverty means child is part of a family receiving welfare, and low-poverty means child is part of a professional family.Source: Rachel Dinkes, Emily Forrest Cataldi, and Wendy Lin-Kelly, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., December 2008, Table 7.2, p. 99 (teacher disrespect); U.S. General Accounting Office, Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994) (mobility); and Paul Barton and Richard Coley, Windows on Achievement and Inequality (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 2008), p. 9, Figure 2 (vocabulary).

Parental Involvement, by Parental Involvement, by Student SESStudent SES

Source: 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study data on PTA membership cited in Richard D. Kahlenberg, All Together Now (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001), p. 62; National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education, 2006-07 School Year, August 2008, p. 9, Table 3 (volunteer and committee service). NCES considers students living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold to be poor, or low-SES. Both studies gauge parental involvement based on the socioeconomic status of students—not schools.

Teaching Quality, by School Teaching Quality, by School SESSES

Source: U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education 2008 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2008), p. 51; Richard M. Ingersoll, cited in “Parsing the Achievement Gap,” Educational Testing Service, 2003, p. 11; Linda Darling-Hammond, “Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching,” National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1997, pp. 25–27.

Salary Increase Needed to Counteract Turnover Effects Salary Increase Needed to Counteract Turnover Effects Caused by Differences in Student Characteristics Between Caused by Differences in Student Characteristics Between

Large Urban and Suburban Districts, by Experience Class of Large Urban and Suburban Districts, by Experience Class of Teacher (for Female, Nonminority Teachers)Teacher (for Female, Nonminority Teachers)

Source: Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin, “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers,” Journal of Human Resources 39:2 (2004): 326-54.

KIPPKIPP

Tremendously Successful High Poverty Tremendously Successful High Poverty SchoolsSchools

Scalable?Scalable? Self-selected students. Turnaround in Denver Self-selected students. Turnaround in Denver

Failed.Failed. 60% Attrition in San Francisco schools.60% Attrition in San Francisco schools. Parents who sign statements committing to Parents who sign statements committing to

read to their children every nightread to their children every night Crazy hours for teachers; 49% attrition in San Crazy hours for teachers; 49% attrition in San

Francisco area schools.Francisco area schools. Generous fundingGenerous funding

Bay Area KIPP Net Student Bay Area KIPP Net Student Enrollment by Grade Level, Enrollment by Grade Level, from 2003-04 to 2006-07from 2003-04 to 2006-07

Note: Although 24% of the original fifth cohort left during or immediately after the school year, roughly 82 new students entered in sixth grade, a common year for making the transition from elementary to middle school.

Source: Katrina R. Woodworth, Jane L. David, Roneeta Guha, Haiwen Wang, and Alejandra Lopez-Torkos, “San Francisco Bay Area KIPP Schools: A Study of Early Implementation and Achievement: Final Report,” Center for Education Policy, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, 2008, pp. 12-15, esp. see Exhibit 2-3 on p. 13. The study cites data from the California Department of Education. Four of the five Bay Area KIPP schools are included in this graph; enrollment numbers from the Heartwood Academy are excluded because it began a year later than the other schools and, accordingly, does not have a 2003 cohort of students progressing through these grades in the same timeframe.

Impact of Charter Schools on Math Impact of Charter Schools on Math Gains in 15 States and D.C.Gains in 15 States and D.C.

Source: “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, June 2009, p. 44, Table 9.

Percentage of Public Schools That are Percentage of Public Schools That are Persistently High-Performing, by SESPersistently High-Performing, by SES

Note: High-poverty is defined as at least 50 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; low-poverty is defined as fewer than 50 percent eligible. High-performing is defined as being in the top third in the state in two subjects, in two grades, and over a two-year period.Source: Douglas N. Harris, “Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity: A study of ‘High Flying’ Schools and NCLB,” Educational Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University, March 2006, p. 20.

National Assessment of National Assessment of Educational Progress 2007, 4th Educational Progress 2007, 4th

Grade Math ResultsGrade Math Results

260 258 257

251248 246

242

232

240 241236 234 234

228

221 220

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

0% 1 - 5% 6-10% 11-25% 26-34% 35-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%

Percentage of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

NAE

P M

ath

Scor

e

Middle Class

Low Income

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessments of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Math Assessment, Grade 4.

40 Years of Research40 Years of Research 1966 Coleman Report: SES of family the biggest 1966 Coleman Report: SES of family the biggest

predictor of achievement; SES of school the second predictor of achievement; SES of school the second biggest predictor.biggest predictor.

2006 Programme for International Student 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for 15 year olds in science showed Assessment (PISA) for 15 year olds in science showed a “clear advantage in attending a school whose a “clear advantage in attending a school whose students are, on average, from more advantaged students are, on average, from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.” Finland least socioeconomic backgrounds.” Finland least economically segregatedeconomically segregated

2006 Douglas Harris CAP study: Math data from 18 2006 Douglas Harris CAP study: Math data from 18 million students found minority students have greater million students found minority students have greater gains in racially integrated schools and that “a gains in racially integrated schools and that “a substantial portion of the ‘racial composition’ effect is substantial portion of the ‘racial composition’ effect is really due to poverty and peer achievement.”really due to poverty and peer achievement.”

Montgomery County, MD Montgomery County, MD 2010 Research2010 Research

RAND researcher Heather Schwartz’s Century RAND researcher Heather Schwartz’s Century Foundation study: “Housing Policy is School Policy: Foundation study: “Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland”Success in Montgomery County, Maryland”

Tests the effectiveness to two strategies: extra Tests the effectiveness to two strategies: extra resources (class size reduction, professional resources (class size reduction, professional development, extended learning time) in high poverty development, extended learning time) in high poverty “red zone” schools ($2,000 more/pupil) vs. “red zone” schools ($2,000 more/pupil) vs. “inclusionary housing” policy that allows low-income “inclusionary housing” policy that allows low-income students to attend low poverty “green zone” schools students to attend low poverty “green zone” schools with fewer resources. with fewer resources.

Examined 858 children randomly assigned to public Examined 858 children randomly assigned to public housing units scattered throughout Montgomery housing units scattered throughout Montgomery County and enrolled in Montgomery County public County and enrolled in Montgomery County public elementary schools 2001-2007.elementary schools 2001-2007.

Public Housing Students in Green Zone Public Housing Students in Green Zone Schools Outperformed Those in Red Schools Outperformed Those in Red

Zone SchoolsZone Schools

Source: Heather Schwartz, Housing Policy Is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland (New York: The Century Foundation, 2010), p. 24, Figure 6.

Montgomery County Montgomery County StudyStudy

Low-income public housing students in low Low-income public housing students in low poverty schools performed at .4 of a standard poverty schools performed at .4 of a standard deviation better in math than low-income deviation better in math than low-income public housing students in higher poverty public housing students in higher poverty schools with more resourcesschools with more resources

Low-income students in green zone schools Low-income students in green zone schools cut their large initial math gap with middle-cut their large initial math gap with middle-class students in half. The reading gap was class students in half. The reading gap was cut by one-thirdcut by one-third

Most of the effect (2/3) was due to attending Most of the effect (2/3) was due to attending low-poverty schools, and some (1/3) due to low-poverty schools, and some (1/3) due to living in low-poverty neighborhoodsliving in low-poverty neighborhoods

Effect of Socioeconomic Effect of Socioeconomic Integration on Middle-Class Integration on Middle-Class

StudentsStudents No research findings of negative No research findings of negative

effects on academic achievement in effects on academic achievement in integrated environmentsintegrated environments

Numbers matter: numerical majority Numbers matter: numerical majority sets tonesets tone

Differential sensitivity to schoolingDifferential sensitivity to schooling Benefits of learning in a diverse Benefits of learning in a diverse

environmentenvironment

Effect on High School Graduation:Effect on High School Graduation:Cambridge, Massachusetts, and BostonCambridge, Massachusetts, and Boston

Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates, Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates,

20082008

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Cohort 2008 Four-Year Graduation Rates – State Results, < http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/gradrates/08_4yr.html>.

Chance of Adult Poverty, by School SES Chance of Adult Poverty, by School SES (Controlling for Individual Ability and Family (Controlling for Individual Ability and Family

Home Environment)Home Environment)

Source: Claude S. Fischer et al., Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 84.

Concluding K-12 Concluding K-12 ThoughtsThoughts

Poor kids can learn, if given the Poor kids can learn, if given the right environment.right environment.

Poverty and Economic Segregation Poverty and Economic Segregation are the major drivers of inequality, are the major drivers of inequality, not Teachers and their Unions.not Teachers and their Unions.

95% of education reform about 95% of education reform about making separate but equal work making separate but equal work rather than reducing the number of rather than reducing the number of high poverty schools. Research high poverty schools. Research suggests more balance is needed.suggests more balance is needed.

Inequality in Higher Inequality in Higher EducationEducation

Numerous challenges to affirmative action in Numerous challenges to affirmative action in the courts (the courts (BakkeBakke, , GrutterGrutter, now , now Fisher v. Fisher v. TexasTexas))

Numerous challenges to affirmative action Numerous challenges to affirmative action through voter initiative or executive order through voter initiative or executive order (CA, WA, FL, MI, NE, AZ, now OK)(CA, WA, FL, MI, NE, AZ, now OK)

Dozens of books and articles on affirmative Dozens of books and articles on affirmative action (including one by me)action (including one by me)

Little on Legacy Preferences in College Little on Legacy Preferences in College Admissions, what we call “Affirmative Action Admissions, what we call “Affirmative Action for the Rich.”for the Rich.”

Are legacy preferences Are legacy preferences legal?legal?

Chapter by Steve Shadowen and Sozi TulanteChapter by Steve Shadowen and Sozi Tulante Only one district court case, discussed legacy in just Only one district court case, discussed legacy in just

five sentences.five sentences. Public institutions – may violate 14Public institutions – may violate 14thth amendment’s amendment’s

“equal protection clause” which is meant to outlaw “equal protection clause” which is meant to outlaw discrimination based on lineage, of which race is a discrimination based on lineage, of which race is a subset.subset.

Private institutions – may violate 1866 Civil Rights Act Private institutions – may violate 1866 Civil Rights Act which prohibits “ancestry” discrimination.which prohibits “ancestry” discrimination.

May be litigation in the near future.May be litigation in the near future. If If Fisher v. TexasFisher v. Texas severely limits affirmative action, severely limits affirmative action,

may put new pressure on legacy preference. may put new pressure on legacy preference. California and Texas A&M abolished legacy after California and Texas A&M abolished legacy after racial affirmative action curtailed. racial affirmative action curtailed.

Issues that will may come Issues that will may come up in litigation and public up in litigation and public

policy discussions over policy discussions over legacy preferenceslegacy preferences

Does it matter who goes to selective Does it matter who goes to selective colleges?colleges?

How significant are legacy preferences?How significant are legacy preferences? What are the historical originals of What are the historical originals of

preferring alumni children?preferring alumni children? Are legacy preferences consistent with the Are legacy preferences consistent with the

ideals of a democratic republic?ideals of a democratic republic? Do legacy preferences increase alumni Do legacy preferences increase alumni

giving?giving? How do legacies affect students of color?How do legacies affect students of color?

Q 1: Does it Matter Who Q 1: Does it Matter Who Goes to Selective Colleges Goes to Selective Colleges

and Universities?and Universities?

A.A. Higher SpendingHigher Spending

B.B. Higher Graduation RatesHigher Graduation Rates

C.C. Higher EarningsHigher Earnings

D.D. Greater Chance at LeadershipGreater Chance at Leadership

Spending by SelectivitySpending by SelectivityPer-student Spending at Colleges, by Selectivity, 2006

$12,000

$92,000

$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

Least-selective Colleges Most Selective Colleges

Per

-stu

den

t S

pen

din

g (

in d

olla

rs)

Note: Selectivity is measured by ranking all colleges according to the national percentile that corresponds with each college’s mean SAT or ACT score. Spending is reported in 2007 dollars.

Source: Caroline M. Hoxby, The Changing Selectivity of American Colleges, NBER Working Paper 15446 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009), 15.

Higher Graduation RatesHigher Graduation RatesGraduation Rates, by Selectivity and SAT-Equivalent Score

86% 85%

96% 96%

83%

70%

85%90%

71%68%

78% 78%

67%

0%

78%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1000 to 1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 >1300

SAT-Equivalent Score

Per

cen

tag

e o

f In

itia

l A

tten

dee

s W

ho

Gra

du

ate

Tier 1 (highest selectivity) Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 (lowest selectivity)

Data limitations

Data limitations

Note: SAT-equivalent scores are based on SAT scores or equivalent percentile correspondences of ACT scores to SAT equivalence. The correspondence was developed by ETS.

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 151, Table 3.5. Authors’ analysis of survey data from High School and Beyond, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/.

Higher EarningsHigher Earnings

Note: Dollar amounts are in 2007 dollars.

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 149, Figure 3.17. Authors’ calculations from Barron’s Selectivity Rankings, various years; National Education Longitudinal Study: Base Year through Fourth Follow-Up, 1988-2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Entry-level Earnings of College Graduates, by Selectivity, 1999

$33,177

$39,880$41,779

$53,817

$37,081

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Community college Less andnoncompetitive

college

Competitive college Very competitivecollege

Most and highlycompetitive college

LeadershipLeadership

Note: Undergraduate population data for the 12 schools came from each institution’s website. All population counts are for 2009-2010, except for those from Yale, Cornell, and Northwestern, which are for 2008-2009.

Source: Thomas Dye, Who’s Running America? (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 148. Current Population Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008), available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2008.html, retrieved August 24, 2010.

Current Students or Graduates of 12 Elite Institutions as a Percentage of Various Populations

0.7%

54%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Current UndergraduateCollege Students

Government Leaders Corporate Leaders

Po

pu

lati

on

Sh

are

Current Students orGraduates of Harvard, Yale,the University of Chicago,Stanford, Columbia, MIT,Cornell, Northwestern,Princeton, Johns Hopkins,the University ofPennsylvania, and Dartmouth

Q 2: How much difference Q 2: How much difference do legacy preferences do legacy preferences

make?make?

Used in almost ¾ of selective Used in almost ¾ of selective universities and almost all selective universities and almost all selective colleges.colleges.

Increase chances of admissions Increase chances of admissions substantially.substantially.

Increased Chances of Increased Chances of Admissions for Legacies in Admissions for Legacies in

Three StudiesThree Studies160 SAT points 19.7 percentage

point increase45.1 percentage point increase

Child of Undergraduate Alumnus:

Legacy Bonus

Legacy Bonus

Legacy Bonus

1200

1360

40 %

59.7 %

40 %

85.1 %

Source: Thomas J. Espenshade, Chang Y. Chung, and Joan L. Walling, “Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities,” Social Science Quarterly 85, no. 5 (December 2004): 1431.

Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press, 2005), 105-06.

Source: Michael Hurwitz, “The Impact of Legacy Status on Undergraduate Admissions at Elite Colleges and Universities,” Economics of Education Review 30, Issue 3 (June 2011): pp.480-492, and Elyse Ashburn, “At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously Thought,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 5, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys-Advantage-May-Be/125812/

Q 3: What are the Historical Q 3: What are the Historical Origins of Legacy Origins of Legacy

Preferences?Preferences? Peter Schmidt’s chapter outlines the Peter Schmidt’s chapter outlines the

rise of legacy preferences after WWI rise of legacy preferences after WWI as one way to limit admissions of as one way to limit admissions of immigrant students, particularly immigrant students, particularly Jews.Jews.

Q 4: Are legacy preferences Q 4: Are legacy preferences consistent with the ideals of consistent with the ideals of

a Democratic Republic?a Democratic Republic?

Michael Lind’s chapter on American Michael Lind’s chapter on American experiment in Jeffersonian natural experiment in Jeffersonian natural aristocracy vs. Old World’s artificial aristocracy vs. Old World’s artificial inherited aristocracy.inherited aristocracy.

Carlton Larson’s chapter on U.S. Carlton Larson’s chapter on U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on granting Constitution’s prohibition on granting titles of nobility. Concludes legacy titles of nobility. Concludes legacy preferences are likely to have been preferences are likely to have been viewed by founders as profoundly un-viewed by founders as profoundly un-American.American.

Q 5: Do legacy preferences Q 5: Do legacy preferences increase alumni giving?increase alumni giving?

Surprisingly little research to date.Surprisingly little research to date. Chad Coffman’s chapter examines top 100 Chad Coffman’s chapter examines top 100

national universities as identified by U.S. national universities as identified by U.S. News 1998-2008.News 1998-2008.

Those with alumni preferences had higher Those with alumni preferences had higher annual giving ($317 vs. 201) but once control annual giving ($317 vs. 201) but once control for wealth of alumni, the difference was for wealth of alumni, the difference was reduced to $15.39, and was statistically reduced to $15.39, and was statistically insignificant.insignificant.

Concludes that with appropriate controls, “ Concludes that with appropriate controls, “ there is no statistically significant evidence of there is no statistically significant evidence of a causal relationship between legacy-a causal relationship between legacy-preference policies and total alumni giving at preference policies and total alumni giving at top universities.”top universities.”

Q5: Alumni giving (cont.)Q5: Alumni giving (cont.)

7 institutions dropped legacy preferences 7 institutions dropped legacy preferences during the period of the study and there during the period of the study and there was “no short-term measurable reduction was “no short-term measurable reduction in alumni giving as a result of abolishing in alumni giving as a result of abolishing legacy preferences.”legacy preferences.”

Of top 10 universities in the world in Of top 10 universities in the world in 2008 according to Shanghai University 2008 according to Shanghai University rankings, four (Caltech, UC Berkeley, rankings, four (Caltech, UC Berkeley, Oxford and Cambridge) do not employ Oxford and Cambridge) do not employ legacy preference.legacy preference.

Q 6: What is the effect of Q 6: What is the effect of legacy preference on legacy preference on

students of color?students of color? After a generation of affirmative After a generation of affirmative

action, is now the wrong time to pull action, is now the wrong time to pull out the rug on legacy preference just out the rug on legacy preference just as students of color will benefit?as students of color will benefit?

Chapter by John Brittain and Eric Chapter by John Brittain and Eric Bloom finds under-represented Bloom finds under-represented minorities hurt, not helped, by minorities hurt, not helped, by legacy preferences.legacy preferences.

Under-represented Minority Proportions of Under-represented Minority Proportions of National Applicant Pool at 18 National National Applicant Pool at 18 National

Universities, Legacy Pool, and U.S. Universities, Legacy Pool, and U.S. Population (2005)Population (2005)

12.5

6.7

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Entire ApplicantPool

Legacy ApplicantPool

U.S. Population

Per

cen

t M

ino

rity

Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press, 2005), 168 (under-represented minority proportion of entire and legacy applicant pools); applicant pool data from all 18 national schools for which authors had legacy data. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program, Vintage 2005, July 1, 2005 (minority proportion of U.S. population).

Texas A&M Legacy Admits in 2002 Who Texas A&M Legacy Admits in 2002 Who Otherwise Would Not Have Been Otherwise Would Not Have Been

AdmittedAdmitted

325

321

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

White Black Hispanic

Leg

acy

Stu

den

ts A

dm

itte

d

Source: Todd Ackerman, “Legislators Slam A&M over Legacy Admissions,” Houston Chronicle, Jan 4, 2004, A1.

Expected vs. Actual Black and Hispanic Expected vs. Actual Black and Hispanic Enrollment at Top 50 Elite Colleges in Enrollment at Top 50 Elite Colleges in

20082008

05

1015

2025

3035

Black &Hispanic

Black Hispanic

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f E

nro

llme

nt

at

To

p 5

0 C

olle

ge

s

ExpectedProportion

Actualproportion

Expected proportion is based on the demographic group’s proportion of the traditional college-aged population. The “Top 50 Colleges” refer to the 50 national universities ranked highest by U.S. News & World Report. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Peer Analysis System, 2008 Four-year, Not-for-profit and Public, Degree-Granting, Title-IV Participating Institutions; U.S. News & World Report: Best Colleges 2008; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics (2008), Table 227.

Contact InformationContact Information

Richard D. KahlenbergRichard D. Kahlenberg Senior FellowSenior Fellow The Century FoundationThe Century Foundation 1333 H Street, N.W. 101333 H Street, N.W. 10thth Floor Floor Washington, D.C. 20005Washington, D.C. 20005 kahlenberg@tcf.orgkahlenberg@tcf.org www.equaleducation.orgwww.equaleducation.org

For More InformationFor More Information Richard D. Kahlenberg, Richard D. Kahlenberg, All Together Now: Creating All Together Now: Creating

Middle Class Schools through Public School ChoiceMiddle Class Schools through Public School Choice (Brookings Press, 2001; paperback, 2003).(Brookings Press, 2001; paperback, 2003).

Divided We Fail: Coming Together through Public Divided We Fail: Coming Together through Public School Choice: Report of The Century Foundation School Choice: Report of The Century Foundation Task Force on the Common SchoolTask Force on the Common School (Lowell Weicker, (Lowell Weicker, Chair) (Century Foundation Press, 2002).Chair) (Century Foundation Press, 2002).

Jennifer Jellison Holme and Amy Stuart Wells Jennifer Jellison Holme and Amy Stuart Wells chapter in chapter in Improving on No Child Left BehindImproving on No Child Left Behind, ed. by , ed. by Richard D. Kahlenberg (Century Foundation, 2008).Richard D. Kahlenberg (Century Foundation, 2008).

Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy is School Policy” Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy is School Policy” (Century Foundation, 2010).(Century Foundation, 2010).

Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in Higher Educationin Higher Education, ed. by Richard D. Kahlenberg , ed. by Richard D. Kahlenberg (Century Foundation, 2010).(Century Foundation, 2010).