Specifically, we found that:
• Those admitted to universities via affirmative action performed quite well in their studies. By the time they graduated, their grade-point averages were not much different from the GPAs of other students. In the most selective majors, the disparities in GPAs that existed when students began their studies had largely disappeared by graduation.
• Students admitted through affirmative action did not hamper the learning of their peers. Sometimes, they outperformed peers who entered college the regular way without affirmative action. This is a reminder that traditional admissions processes may not be as meritocratic as some people may think.
The dirty secret of top schools is that the selectivity is artificial. Probably 50% of the applicants to Ivy League schools would do well there. These universities are already selecting students based on arbitrary measures (SAT tests, sports and club participation, volunteering, “leadership”) that have no relation to performance in school.
That’s the real disparity. If someone can’t play the flute in the band because they have an after school job, they are penalized. If they play a different instrument, like guitar in a band with friends, they are penalized. If they help take care of their poor grandparents, instead of unrelated poor people, they are penalized.
Just to add to your comments: these brazilian universities included in the research are free.
These are public universities, and usually the best across most fields.
The private sector have no quotas.
My point is: let Ivy league do whatever they want. Instead, build world-class public universities that can rival them.
On those, because it’s a public service, the government has more flexibility to dictate policy.
