After reading a provocative, yet-to-be-published study about race and achievement by a Duke economics professor, an economics grad student and a colleague in sociology, I was left pondering this question: Are affirmative action admission policies at our nation's universities inadvertently narrowing the employment pool for engineering, economics and natural sciences?
I say yes, based on the case made by Professor Peter Arcidiacono and grad student Esteban M. Aucejo (both in economics) and sociology Professor Kenneth I. Spenner in "What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice."
The study, based on analysis of Duke student data, found that minority students enter Duke academically behind their white counterparts but that much of the gap is erased by the fourth year. Terrific, until you get to the details. Much of the academic gain is achieved, the authors say, when minority students switch from academically rigorous majors to easier majors in the humanities and social sciences.
Arcidiacono, Aucejo and Spenner back up their claim about differences in degree difficulty with data showing that economics, engineering and natural science courses require more study and have little leeway when it comes to grading. Their research also showed that the SAT scores of science, engineering and economics majors were, on average, 50 points higher than those in the humanities and social sciences.
They found that as freshmen, black and white Duke students were equally likely to major in economics, engineering and natural science. But 54 percent of black male students who expressed an initial interest in these fields made the switch to humanities or social sciences, compared to less than 8 percent of white male students. For black females, 51 percent switched to the less rigorous fields of study while 33 percent of white women did so.
These findings could have more impact than being an interesting academic talking point. The study has been cited in an affirmative action challenge that's being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court could decide as soon as this week if it will hear the case, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin.
The authors write about a particular finding that could be used by affirmative action opponents. They cite a $1 billion effort by the National Science Foundation and a $675 million campaign by the National Institutes of Health to encourage more minorities in the sciences. But the Duke researchers conclude that affirmative action policies may negate these substantial governmental efforts.
They wrote: "Attempts to increase representation at elite universities through the use of affirmative action may come at a cost of perpetuating under-representation of blacks in the natural sciences and engineering. Namely, the difference in course difficulty and grading standards between the natural sciences, engineering, and economics and their humanities and social sciences counterparts naturally leads the least prepared students away from the sciences."
It is significant the authors refer to "least prepared students." Their reasoning tells me that if preferences were eliminated, minority students accepted by Duke would be academically better prepared to take on more challenging course work in economics, engineering and the natural sciences instead of finding refuge in the humanities and social sciences.
As expected, black Duke students and alumni are offended by the study, even though 68 percent of blacks at Duke choose humanities and social sciences as majors. I suggest the offended scholars and scholars in training replace their outrage with constructive questions for the study's authors.
Such as: is the problem with affirmative action or with Duke's application of the preference? Should Duke mentor all students who express interest in rigorous degree programs, instead of letting them migrate to less academically challenging fields?
What is not in dispute is that minority students must come to universities better prepared academically.
