Running Head: APPLICANT POOLS.
1
Applicant Pool Discrimination: How Minorities are Viewed Differently in the College
Application Process.
Camden E. Dechert
Virginia Commonwealth University
APPLICANT POOLS.
Racial stereotyping and profiling is a prevalent factor in today’s world, yet it is a topic
that most people would prefer to avoid. With the increasing pressure to get an education and the
selectiveness of American colleges, students are finding it even harder to secure acceptances at
their top choices; especially those that fall out of the majority. Copious qualifications are strung
throughout the college application process and will racism still existing today it often appears
that under-qualified students are granted spots at elite schools simply because of the color of
their skin. In addition, the college application process segregates minorities between those that
are privileged, i.e. Caucasians and Asian Americans, and those who are underprivileged, i.e.
American Indian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander. This perception does not fall short of the application process though; the
correlation between race and income is one that much of the population fails to consciously
realize they perceive. Thus, this facet is consistently swept under the rug and financial status is
constantly considered a non-contender for applicants; however, it appears that it is deliberately
studied. It seems fair for universities to reserve spots for particular races to ensure a level of
diversity; yet, the favoring of those who suffer from discrimination is unfair to very qualified
students who may not be considered because they are not a minority. According to the CDC
(2015), approximately 36.3% of the population is considered a minority. The United States is a
melting pot for diversity, including American Indian, Asian American, Black or African
American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (Racial & Ethnic
Minority Populations, para. 1).
In order for a college or university to attract a diverse student body, they must appeal to
all races, ethnicities, genders, etc. Many colleges implement the process called “Affirmative
Action,” where they exhibit special preference to applicants that suffer from discrimination.
2
APPLICANT POOLS.
3
Thus, the question emerges as to whether it is wrong to racially stereotype students in the college
admission process? Furthermore, why are college applicants that are minorities more likely to be
accepted, and what are the implications of the affirmative action process? The consequences of
racial stereotyping and favoritism are explored through McCauley’s “Are stereotypes
exaggerated? A sampling of racial, gender, academic, occupational, and political stereotypes,”
Silver’s “Why It's OK for Colleges to Accept Minorities With Lower SAT Scores,” PérezPeña’s “To Enroll More Minority Students, Colleges Work Around the Courts,” Espenshade’s
“No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in elite college admission and campus life,”
Francis and Tannuri- Pianto’s “The Redistributive Equity of Affirmative Action: Exploring the
Role of Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender in College” and along with data from the CDC,
an ethical and conclusive result must arise.
First, evaluation of the consequences and perspectives of minority students applying to
America’s top colleges is imperative. Secondly, the general population must understand how the
fairness in education applies to the United State’s work force. According to McCauley (1995),
some occupations are predominantly held by particular genders, as occupations are heavily
gender and race stereotyped. Additionally, certain jobs may be stereotyped as being held by
certain races. This, however, can be exaggerated. McCauley (1995) stresses that these “simple
pictures in our heads save us from the complexity of the world outside” (p. 238). Similarly,
colleges can show tendencies to accept minorities over Caucasians, even when they may not be
as qualified. Most jobs require some form of completed education, so if minorities were not
granted secured spots in colleges they might have trouble finding jobs. Francis and TannuriPianto (2012) note that “even though the rate of ethnic intermarriage has remained relatively
high, significant racial disparities in education… continue to exist” (para. 1). Regarding this
APPLICANT POOLS.
4
standard, several different universities have begun to adopt “racial quotas” for admissions. In
2004, the University of Brasilia reserved 20% of available admissions slots for students who
self-identified as Negro, or black which is a considerable amount of the admitting class (Francis,
Tannuri-Pianto, 2012, para. 2). Of the 20% admitted, not all were as qualified as the rejected
students who did not identify Negro or black. Furthermore, the University also factored income
into the 20% of black students admitted, which precedes the stereotype that minorities are not as
financially stable as non-minority students. The persistence of racial inequality notably exists;
Francis and Tannuri-Pianto (2012) touch on the prevalence in their assertion that “a number of
universities have policies targeted to the underprivileged and a few… to blacks specifically”
(para. 4). Thomas Espenshade states that colleges do this by targeting minority high schools
using recruitment officers who are also minorities. Furthermore, Silver (2012) highlights that
affirmative action when selecting students “operates under the assumption that minorities either
do not value SAT prep of cannot afford it” (para. 5). Although she believes this statement to be
false and only circumstantial, she asserts that it “adequately compensates… for the fact that some
minorities may not have the same preparation opportunities as other applicants” (Silver, 2012,
para. 6-7).
In order to accurately answer the question at hand, we must also determine the benefits of
affirmative action and the consequences of eliminating it. Racial quotas appear unfair, yet
Tannuri-Pianto and Francis (2012) point out that black students selected for admission at the
University of Brasilia “are required to attend an interview with a university panel to verify they
are ‘black enough’ to qualify” (para. 11). The verifications include “lectures and events on the
value of blacks in society, academic tutoring programs, and a permanent space on campus to
study, meet, and have cultural activities” (Francis, Tannuri-Pianto, 2012, para. 11). While
APPLICANT POOLS.
5
Espenshade realizes that this process is controversial, he also evaluates the consequences if race
were not considered. He exclaims, “minority students may have a lower tendency to apply to an
institution that no longer appears as committed to attracting a diverse student body”
(Espenshade, 2009, p. 34). He also poses the possibility that colleges could continue to racially
stereotype minorities without explicitly using affirmative action. Additionally, Espenshade
predicts that if racial favoritism were to be banned or eliminated, acceptance rates for minorities
would dramatically decrease. Furthermore, he cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s words that
“if the number of underrepresented minority students at these selective colleges and universities
were to become so small,” they would no longer serve as social pathways for leadership
(Espenshade, 2009, p. 345).
The most striking effect on admissions that Espenshade points out pertains to Caucasians
and asian applicants. If every student were to be considered with no regard to race, acceptance
rates for white students would fall by three percent and acceptance rates for Asians would
increase by fifteen percent. Although this would dramatically skew the diversity of students at
universities, it would increase the fairness of the college application process (Espenshade, 2009,
p. 346), along with increasing the overall value of knowledge in the United States. Our Country
is one that thrives off of competition, the destruction of racial consideration would in turn
increase competitiveness amongst every race to ultimately achieve higher knowledge rather than
relying on aspects such as race or gender.
In a New York Times article, affirmative action is shown as “open to interpretation” by
college admissions deans. Pérez- Peña (2012) quotes that “even if the supreme court limits the
options, colleges and universities will be seeking diversity by any means possible” (para. 6). He
also asserts that this leads to obvious stereotyping that minorities aren't as academically qualified
APPLICANT POOLS.
6
as Caucasians, and while this can be the case, it is an unfair generalization (Pérez- Peña , 2012,
para. 5-7). For example, a school in Texas “admits the top students at every high school in the
state, but also admits additional students with a system that takes race into account” (PérezPeña, 2012, para. 10). While university officials “insist that their systems are race-blind,” it
appears that many colleges give special consideration to minorities to regulate ratios for the
“what-ifs” (Pérez- Peña, 2012, para. 25). The stance on affirmative action varies from author to
author, yet all seem to come to the same consensus that the help it gives to minorities is
explicitly notable. Silver argues that it is perfectly fine to accept less qualified students since they
are under privileged and misrepresented; in contrast, Espenshade notes that it is simply unfair.
He points out that the elimination of affirmative action could be catastrophic, while Francis and
Tannuri-Pianto’s postulation suggests that racial quotas are a ubiquitous force in acceptance
decisions.
Ultimately, the implementation and usage of racial quotas are both positive and negative.
They are very supportive of minorities and can influence students to be more successful while
making further education more attractive. However, the quotas give minorities leverage over
non-minority students, which impedes on the fairness of the application process as a whole.
Essentially, affirmative action can be both favorable and unacceptable for students, as stated by
both Francis and Tannuri-Pianto and Pérez- Peña, who both write about the several different
perspectives. Although the usage and elimination of affirmative action has varying
consequences, the main focus of American colleges should be to further the education of young
people wholesomely. Regardless, it does not appear that every person can be satisfied in such a
situation. Thus, in conclusion, it appears that a definite answer to a question of ethics is
impossible.
APPLICANT POOLS.
7
References
Are stereotypes exaggerated? A sampling of racial, gender, academic, occupational, and political
stereotypes. McCauley, Clark R. Lee, Yueh-Ting (Ed); Jussim, Lee J. (Ed); McCauley,
Clark R. (Ed), (1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences.
(pp.215-243). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xiv, 330 pp.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10495-009
Espenshade, T., Radford, Alexandria Walton, & Chung, Chang Young. (2009). No longer
separate, not yet equal : Race and class in elite college admission and campus
life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Francis, Andrew M., & Tannuri-Pianto, Maria. (2012). The Redistributive Equity of Affirmative
Action: Exploring the Role of Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender in College
Admissions. Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 45-55.
Pérez- Peña, R. (2012, April 1). New York Times. To Enroll More Minority Students, Colleges
Work Around the Courts. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/
2012/04/02/us/college-affirmative-action-policies-change-with-laws.html?_r=0
Racial & Ethnic Minority Populations. (2015, August 11). Retrieved October 14, 2015, from
http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/remp.html
Silver, N. (2012, April 11). Why It's OK for Colleges to Accept Minorities With Lower SAT
Scores. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from http://mic.com/articles/6827/why-it-s-ok-forcolleges-to-accept-minorities-with-lower-sat-scores