In the battle over college admissions, we sometimes hear people say that while the current system of racial preferences is bad, we ought to encourage schools to preferentially admit students from poor family backgrounds. Rather than giving a boost to minority students who often grew up in comfortable circumstances, let’s boost any student who has had to strive against poverty or other difficulties.
In today’s Martin Center article, I take a look at the case for socio-economic preferences and find it weak.
First, it simply isn’t the case that going to an elite college or university is necessarily any benefit as opposed to going to a school where you’ll be admitted without any preference. The assumption that a degree from a more prestigious institution ensures a more successful future is mistaken. Sure, the leaders of schools like Harvard believe they are much better than their less famous rivals, but it’s not true. Often, students get a superior education at regional or local schools where the faculty actually teach and have time for undergrads.
Second, socio-economic preferences are apt to run into the same problem that racial preferences do, namely that students will be accepted into schools where they are at a significant academic disadvantage compared to their classmates — the mismatch problem. If schools establish such preferences, it’s inevitable that the people who run them will want to do their utmost, meaning that they’ll want to admit many poorer students who aren’t on the same academic plane as the majority of students.
Higher-education leaders should resist the temptation to engage in social engineering, which is what admission preferences are about.