ABSTRACT Selective colleges have increasingly considered a variety of factors, such as academic rigor, extracurriculars, essays, interviews, recommendations, and background characteristics, alongside traditional academic factors in determining who is admitted. These efforts have been hailed as a strategy to expand access to selective higher education for talented students from racially and economically marginalized backgrounds. But such efforts introduce ambiguous admissions criteria—excellence in extracurriculars, subjective assessments of character and talent gleaned from essays, interviews, and recommendations—that may favor students from socially privileged families. We draw on nearly a decade of data on selective college admissions processes to examine how the importance of various admissions criteria relate to enrollment among racially and economically marginalized students. Using panel data from 2008 to 2016 and random effects analyses, our findings indicate ambiguous criteria that often comprise a more comprehensive approach to admissions may do little to ameliorate—and in some cases, may exacerbate—existing enrollment inequities. We also find that moving away from test scores and focusing on academic rigor represent potentially promising strategies for expanding access at some institutions.

中文翻译：

---

选择性大学录取标准在中断或再现种族和经济不平等方面的作用

摘要 选择性大学越来越多地考虑各种因素，例如学术严谨性、课外活动、论文、面试、推荐和背景特征，以及传统的学术因素来决定录取对象。这些努力被誉为扩大种族和经济边缘化背景的优秀学生接受选择性高等教育的战略。但这些努力引入了模棱两可的录取标准——在课外活动中表现出色，从论文、面试和推荐中收集的对性格和才能的主观评估——这可能有利于来自社会特权家庭的学生。我们利用近十年关于选择性大学录取过程的数据来研究各种录取标准的重要性与种族和经济边缘化学生的入学率之间的关系。使用 2008 年至 2016 年的面板数据和随机效应分析，我们的研究结果表明，通常包含更全面的招生方法的模棱两可的标准可能无助于改善 - 在某些情况下，可能会加剧 - 现有的入学不平等。我们还发现，摆脱考试成绩并专注于学术严谨性代表了在某些机构扩大入学机会的潜在有希望的策略。我们的研究结果表明，通常包含更全面的招生方法的模棱两可的标准可能无助于改善 - 在某些情况下，可能会加剧 - 现有的招生不平等。我们还发现，摆脱考试成绩并专注于学术严谨性代表了在某些机构扩大入学机会的潜在有希望的策略。我们的研究结果表明，通常包含更全面的招生方法的模棱两可的标准可能无助于改善 - 在某些情况下，可能会加剧 - 现有的招生不平等。我们还发现，摆脱考试成绩并专注于学术严谨性代表了在某些机构扩大入学机会的潜在有希望的策略。