禁令和信号:有和没有平权行动的州申请精英公立大学的种族和民族差异

IF 2.6 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Harvard Educational Review Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.17763/1943-5045-92.3.361
P. Bennett, Amy C. Lutz
{"title":"禁令和信号:有和没有平权行动的州申请精英公立大学的种族和民族差异","authors":"P. Bennett, Amy C. Lutz","doi":"10.17763/1943-5045-92.3.361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this research article, Pamela R. Bennett and Amy Lutz offer new hypotheses about how state bans on affirmative action affect application decisions based on students’ beneficiary positions vis-à-vis affirmative action and evaluate them for black, white, Latino, and Asian American students separately. They posit that bans discourage applications to selective colleges from prospective students who benefit from affirmative action (black and Latino) and encourage applications from prospective students who do not benefit from the policy (white and Asian American). Members of nonbeneficiary groups that have strong academic credentials are more responsive to bans because they are best positioned for admission under restrictions on race-conscious admissions policies. Citing results from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002–2006, the authors show how state restrictions on race-conscious admissions have contributed to racial inequality in higher education by further drawing into elite institutions’ application pools racial groups that already account for most of their students while also raising the chances that students from those groups will be admitted.","PeriodicalId":48207,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Educational Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bans and Signals: Racial and Ethnic Differences in Applications to Elite Public Colleges in States With and Without Affirmative Action\",\"authors\":\"P. Bennett, Amy C. Lutz\",\"doi\":\"10.17763/1943-5045-92.3.361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this research article, Pamela R. Bennett and Amy Lutz offer new hypotheses about how state bans on affirmative action affect application decisions based on students’ beneficiary positions vis-à-vis affirmative action and evaluate them for black, white, Latino, and Asian American students separately. They posit that bans discourage applications to selective colleges from prospective students who benefit from affirmative action (black and Latino) and encourage applications from prospective students who do not benefit from the policy (white and Asian American). Members of nonbeneficiary groups that have strong academic credentials are more responsive to bans because they are best positioned for admission under restrictions on race-conscious admissions policies. Citing results from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002–2006, the authors show how state restrictions on race-conscious admissions have contributed to racial inequality in higher education by further drawing into elite institutions’ application pools racial groups that already account for most of their students while also raising the chances that students from those groups will be admitted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Educational Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Educational Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.3.361\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Educational Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.3.361","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇研究文章中,Pamela R.Bennett和Amy Lutz根据学生相对于平权行动的受益地位,提出了关于州对平权行动禁令如何影响申请决定的新假设,并分别对黑人、白人、拉丁裔和亚裔美国学生进行了评估。他们认为,禁令阻碍了从平权行动中受益的潜在学生(黑人和拉丁裔)申请选择性大学,并鼓励没有从该政策中受益的未来学生(白人和亚裔美国人)申请。拥有强大学历的非营利团体成员对禁令的反应更为强烈,因为在种族意识招生政策的限制下,他们最适合被录取。引用2002-2006年教育纵向研究的结果,作者展示了国家对有种族意识的招生的限制是如何导致高等教育中的种族不平等的,因为这些限制进一步吸引了精英院校的申请库中已经占大多数学生的种族群体,同时也增加了这些群体的学生被录取的机会。
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
Bans and Signals: Racial and Ethnic Differences in Applications to Elite Public Colleges in States With and Without Affirmative Action
In this research article, Pamela R. Bennett and Amy Lutz offer new hypotheses about how state bans on affirmative action affect application decisions based on students’ beneficiary positions vis-à-vis affirmative action and evaluate them for black, white, Latino, and Asian American students separately. They posit that bans discourage applications to selective colleges from prospective students who benefit from affirmative action (black and Latino) and encourage applications from prospective students who do not benefit from the policy (white and Asian American). Members of nonbeneficiary groups that have strong academic credentials are more responsive to bans because they are best positioned for admission under restrictions on race-conscious admissions policies. Citing results from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002–2006, the authors show how state restrictions on race-conscious admissions have contributed to racial inequality in higher education by further drawing into elite institutions’ application pools racial groups that already account for most of their students while also raising the chances that students from those groups will be admitted.
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
Harvard Educational Review
Harvard Educational Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Harvard Educational Review (HER) accepts contributions from researchers, scholars, policy makers, practitioners, teachers, students, and informed observers in education and related fields. In addition to original reports of research and theory, HER welcomes articles that reflect on teaching and practice in educational settings in the United States and abroad.
期刊最新文献
“Whatever You Want to Call It”: Science of Reading Mythologies in the Education Reform Movement Language and Education in Africa: A Fresh Approach to the Debates on Language, Education, and Cultural Identity, by Bert van Pinxteren From Democratic Participation to Cariño: Exploring the Core Commitments of Foundational Scholars in the Field of Youth Participatory Action Research What Relationships Do We Want with Technology? Toward Technoskepticism in Schools Expanding the Reasons We Give: Black Parents’ Collective Engagement as Resisting White Supremacy at School
×
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