加州209号提案后的平权行动、错配与经济流动性

Zachary Bleemer
{"title":"加州209号提案后的平权行动、错配与经济流动性","authors":"Zachary Bleemer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3484530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Proposition 209 banned race-based affirmative action at California public universities in 1998. This study analyzes Prop 209's impact on student outcomes using a difference-in-difference research design and a newly-constructed longitudinal database linking all 1994-2002 University of California applicants to their college enrollment, course performance, major choice, degree attainment, and wages into their mid-30s. Ending affirmative action caused UC's 10,000 annual underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality public and private universities. URM applicants' undergraduate and graduate degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among lower-testing applicants. As a result, the average URM UC applicant's wages declined by 5 percent annually between ages 24 and 34, almost wholly driven by declines among Hispanic applicants. By the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused a cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least 3 percent. Prop 209 also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. Enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students' performance or persistence in STEM course sequences. Complementary regression discontinuity and institutional value-added analyses suggest that affirmative action's net wage benefits for URM applicants exceed its (potentially small) net costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants. These findings are inconsistent with the university \"Mismatch Hypothesis\" and provide the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.","PeriodicalId":143058,"journal":{"name":"Econometric Modeling: Microeconometric Studies of Health","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California's Proposition 209\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Bleemer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3484530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Proposition 209 banned race-based affirmative action at California public universities in 1998. This study analyzes Prop 209's impact on student outcomes using a difference-in-difference research design and a newly-constructed longitudinal database linking all 1994-2002 University of California applicants to their college enrollment, course performance, major choice, degree attainment, and wages into their mid-30s. Ending affirmative action caused UC's 10,000 annual underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality public and private universities. URM applicants' undergraduate and graduate degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among lower-testing applicants. As a result, the average URM UC applicant's wages declined by 5 percent annually between ages 24 and 34, almost wholly driven by declines among Hispanic applicants. By the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused a cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least 3 percent. Prop 209 also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. Enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students' performance or persistence in STEM course sequences. Complementary regression discontinuity and institutional value-added analyses suggest that affirmative action's net wage benefits for URM applicants exceed its (potentially small) net costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants. These findings are inconsistent with the university \\\"Mismatch Hypothesis\\\" and provide the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometric Modeling: Microeconometric Studies of Health\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometric Modeling: Microeconometric Studies of Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3484530\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometric Modeling: Microeconometric Studies of Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3484530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

1998年,第209号提案禁止了加州公立大学基于种族的平权行动。本研究采用差异中差异研究设计和新建立的纵向数据库,分析了209号提案对学生成绩的影响,该数据库将所有1994-2002年加州大学的申请人与他们的大学入学情况、课程表现、专业选择、学位获得情况和35岁左右的工资联系起来。取消平权法案导致加州大学每年有1万名未被充分代表的少数族裔(URM)新生申请者涌向质量较低的公立和私立大学。URM申请人的本科和研究生学位成绩总体下降,在STEM领域,尤其是在考试成绩较低的申请人中。结果,在24岁到34岁之间,URM加州大学申请人的平均工资每年下降5%,几乎完全是由西班牙裔申请人的下降造成的。到2010年代中期,209号提案导致收入超过10万美元的早期加州URM人数累计下降至少3%。209号提案还阻止了数千名符合条件的加州大学欧文分校学生申请加州大学任何分校。入读不那么挑剔的加州大学校园并没有提高URM学生在STEM课程中的表现或坚持度。互补回归不连续和制度增值分析表明,平权行动对URM申请人的净工资福利,超过了对边缘白人和亚裔申请人的净成本(可能很小)。这些发现与大学的“错配假说”不一致,并提供了禁止平权行动加剧社会经济不平等的第一个因果证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California's Proposition 209
Proposition 209 banned race-based affirmative action at California public universities in 1998. This study analyzes Prop 209's impact on student outcomes using a difference-in-difference research design and a newly-constructed longitudinal database linking all 1994-2002 University of California applicants to their college enrollment, course performance, major choice, degree attainment, and wages into their mid-30s. Ending affirmative action caused UC's 10,000 annual underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality public and private universities. URM applicants' undergraduate and graduate degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among lower-testing applicants. As a result, the average URM UC applicant's wages declined by 5 percent annually between ages 24 and 34, almost wholly driven by declines among Hispanic applicants. By the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused a cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least 3 percent. Prop 209 also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. Enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students' performance or persistence in STEM course sequences. Complementary regression discontinuity and institutional value-added analyses suggest that affirmative action's net wage benefits for URM applicants exceed its (potentially small) net costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants. These findings are inconsistent with the university "Mismatch Hypothesis" and provide the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of Airbnb on the Housing Market: Evidence from London. Education and Food Consumption Patterns: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Indonesia New Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Affirmative Action in School Choice On Non-Negative Equity Guarantee Calculations with Macroeconomic Variables Related to House Prices Forecasting the Taipei House Prices Index: An Application of Factor Model with Google Trend Index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1