Ensuring equity in higher education
A groundbreaking study challenges the narrative that race-conscious admissions compromise academic quality at US universities. The findings have significant implications for the higher education system in the UK, where debates about fairness, meritocracy and diversity in admissions are increasingly prominent, argues journalist Anil Dawar.
In June 2023, the US Supreme Court handed down a ruling that prohibits colleges and universities from considering a student’s race when deciding whether to offer them a place. In the court’s opinion, race-based affirmative action programmes in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Some campaigners have claimed that using race to decide admissions harms institutions’ academic excellence.
The landmark decision prompted researchers at Cornell University to conduct research simulating the impact of that decision using data from an unnamed university. By building an AI-based ranking algorithm using both race-blind and non-race blind data, the team found that eliminating race as a factor leads to a dramatic decline in diversity among admitted students but does not lead to a significant improvement in academic merit.
Specifically, the study found that the new criteria resulted in a 62 per cent drop in students from underrepresented backgrounds among the top-ranked applicants. At the same time, the average standardised test scores among admitted students saw a negligible increase – equivalent to the difference between a 1480 and a 1490 on the SAT.
Published last October, these findings challenge the narrative that race-conscious admissions compromise academic quality. As senior author of the Cornell research René Kizilcec put it: ‘We see no evidence that would support the narrative that Black and Hispanic applicants are admitted even though there are more qualified applicants in the pool.’
You may think that as the US has different racial dynamics, equality legislation and university admissions processes, the UK has little to learn from this. But I would argue against that. This groundbreaking research has significant implications not just for US institutions but for universities worldwide, including in the UK, where debates about fairness, meritocracy and diversity in admissions are increasingly prominent.
While the UK does not use overt affirmative action policies like those across the Atlantic, it faces similar challenges in ensuring equity in higher education.
Lessons on diversity and inclusion
The Cornell study highlights a key tension in higher education: the balance between promoting diversity and maintaining academic standards. The results show that diversity and quality are not mutually exclusive.
For UK universities, where contextual admissions and widening participation initiatives aim to address systemic inequities, the study underscores the importance of proactive measures to ensure representation. Ignoring structural inequalities such as disparities in school funding or socio-economic barriers, risks perpetuating existing disparities in access to elite institutions.
Comparative policy analysis
UK universities often emphasise socio-economic disadvantage in admissions, using measures such as POLAR (Participation of Local Areas) data and individual candidate backgrounds. However, the study findings suggest that without considering specific demographic factors like race, admissions policies may fail to capture the full scope of disadvantage.
In London for example, where extremes of wealth and deprivation can exist in close proximity, it is common to find students to be both pupil premium and living in high participation areas. In cases like these, POLAR works against them.
While this focus on socio-economic equity is commendable, integrating lessons from race-conscious policies could further enhance the inclusivity of admissions processes.
Debates on equality and meritocracy
The UK has long grappled with debates about fairness in admissions, particularly around perceived elitism at Oxbridge and other Russell Group institutions. The Cornell research challenges the notion that race-conscious policies compromise meritocracy, instead suggesting that excluding race makes admissions more arbitrary.
By this I mean that without explicitly considering race, admissions officers may rely more on extracurricular activities or familial connections which will favour the more privileged. Removing race conscious criteria also removes the context in which students have achieved what they have. Knowing that a student has had to walk to a public library every day to get similar grades to another with a bookcase full of Amazon-delivered titles will change your view of them.
This lack of a holistic overview of a student puts disproportionate weight on metrics which may fail to capture the individual’s full potential. The insight Cornell offers could inform ongoing efforts to strike a balance between recognising potential and rewarding achievement.
Policy implications in a changing landscape
The US Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action may inspire similar challenges to equity-based policies worldwide. UK universities must be prepared to defend and adapt their approaches to widening participation.
The Cornell study offers a cautionary tale, illustrating the unintended consequences of ignoring identity factors in admissions. Proactively addressing these issues could help institutions stay ahead of potential legal and cultural shifts.
Globalisation of education
As universities across the world are now in direct competition for international students, adopting policies that promote inclusivity and diversity is increasingly important. For many, going to university is the first meaningful time away from home. Diversity will enrich their academic experience.
For UK universities, enhancing diversity could make them more appealing to students and be a strategic advantage in a competitive global education market.
The UK context: challenges and opportunities
UK universities face unique challenges in addressing diversity and inclusion. Unlike in the US, where affirmative action explicitly considered race, the UK relies on initiatives like contextual admissions, which factor in socio-economic background, school performance and geographic data. While these policies are a step in the right direction, they may overlook intersecting forms of disadvantage, including race and ethnicity.
The Office for Students has found persistent attainment gaps between white students and students from minority ethnic backgrounds. Similarly, students from minority ethnic groups are underrepresented at top universities despite being equally or more likely to meet entry requirements. Addressing these disparities requires a nuanced approach that considers both socioeconomic and racial factors.
The lessons from Cornell’s study suggest that admissions policies that assess applicants’ full context, including identity, are essential for achieving true equity. UK universities could explore incorporating broader measures of disadvantage, such as neighbourhood diversity indices or local school demographics, to capture the varied nature of inequality.
Choosing a way forward
The findings from Cornell University offer a powerful reminder that policies that consider race in admissions foster diversity and do not automatically lead to a decline in academic excellence. In the UK where persistent attainment gaps and underrepresentation of minority students remain critical issues, there is an urgent need to take proactive steps. What admissions teams can learn from others’ experiences, is that diversity enriches the educational experience, can promote fairness and go some way to address historical inequities.
For a higher education system to serve all, it should embrace all-inclusive admissions practices. But that is not enough by itself. Structural inequalities that affect students' opportunities before they even apply to universities need to be addressed.
Policymakers, educators, and institutions must collaborate to ensure transparency, equity, and the use of best practices in decision-making processes. That way, they can create a more equitable and inclusive higher education system that equips future leaders to thrive in an increasingly interconnected and diverse world.
Anil Dawar is a journalist born in London to Asian and British parents. He specialises in home affairs and education issues.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Runnymede Trust.
Join the fight for racial justice: support the Runnymede Trust’s work by making a donation.
© Photo Italia LLC/iStock
