The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 20 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California’s Proposition 209
Open accessAbstract
Proposition 209 banned race-based affirmative action at California public universities in 1998. Using a difference-in-differences research design and a newly constructed longitudinal database linking all 1994–2002 University of California applicants to their educational experiences and wages, I show that ending affirmative action caused underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality colleges. The “mismatch hypothesis” implies that this cascade would provide net educational benefits to URM applicants, but their degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among less academically qualified applicants. URM applicants’ average wages in their twenties and thirties subsequently declined, driven by declines among Hispanic applicants. These declines are not explained by URM students' performance or persistence in STEM course sequences, which were unchanged after Prop 209. Ending affirmative action also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. Complementary regression discontinuity and institutional value-added analyses suggest that affirmative action’s net educational and wage benefits for URM applicants exceed its net costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Ending race-based affirmative action at UC after Proposition 209 caused underrepresented minority applicants to cascade into less-selective universities, reducing degree attainment and early-career wages, especially for Hispanic applicants. The results are inconsistent with the Mismatch Hypothesis and suggest affirmative action's net wage benefits for URM applicants exceeded its small costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants.
Key findings
- Prop 209 reduced URM applicants' likelihood of admission to UC's most selective campuses by as much as 50 percentage points relative to academically comparable non-URM applicants; URM enrollment at more-selective UC campuses fell 7.6 percentage points, with at least 1,200 URM UC applicants exiting UC campuses and 800 entering. UC also received about 250 fewer Black and 900 fewer Hispanic applications annually after Prop 209.
- Bachelor's degree attainment declined by 4.3 percentage points among URM UC applicants in the bottom AI quartile; unconditional STEM degree attainment declined by 1.0 percentage point; graduate degree attainment declined by 1.3 percentage points, with STEM master's/doctoral attainment declining 0.58 percentage points.
- URM UC applicants' average annual wages declined by 5 percent between ages 24 and 34; each applicant became 1.4 percentage points less likely to earn $100,000 annually in their early 30s. By 2014, Prop 209 had caused at least a 3 percent aggregate decline in high-earning early-career URM Californians, almost wholly driven by Hispanic applicants.
- Less-selective UC enrollment did not improve URM students' STEM performance or persistence; STEM persistence change had a 95% confidence interval of -2.3 to 3.5 percentage points, and STEM course grades were precisely unchanged. A Berkeley regression discontinuity found on-the-margin non-URM students enrolled at similar-quality universities and had similar educational and labor market outcomes.
Methods
- Difference-in-difference design comparing URM and non-URM California-resident freshman UC applicants before and after Prop 209 (1996-97 vs. 1998-99; robustness using 1994-95), with high school fixed effects and Academic Index covariates. The sample links all 1994-2002 UC applicants to National Student Clearinghouse enrollment/degree records, California Employment Development Department wages, and UC transcript records.
- Additional analyses include an application-deterrence model using UC-eligible high school graduates by school, ethnicity, and AI bin; a regression discontinuity at UC Berkeley's 1996-97 non-URM admissions threshold; institutional value-added estimates; and STEM course-sequence models across five UC campuses.
Limitations
- Stated: the reduced-form estimates average over many URM students likely unimpacted by Prop 209, so they likely substantially underestimate effects on students whose enrollment was shifted; they omit impacts on URM Californians dissuaded from UC application; and they omit labor market outcomes for non-Californian and self-employed workers.
- Stated/evident: value-added statistics likely retain some selection bias and tend to exaggerate differences across institutions; application deterrence could generate sample selection bias, though the paper reports baseline estimates are highly insensitive to detailed controls.
- Evident: wage records cover only California unemployment-insurance-covered employment; NSC records are incomplete for some institutions and periods; and non-URM applicants are not a true control group because some likely crowded into more-selective universities after Prop 209.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
152 Own result · 56 Own interpretation · 48 No basis given · 26 Own method · 8 Sources not found · 6 Not checked yet · 2 Supported · 2 Partly supported · 1 No full text of the sources · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Second, that latter return substantially exceeds the average observed change in institutional value-added faced by URM UC applicants, suggesting that selective universities' positive treatment effects are considerably above-average for the URM applicants impacted by Prop 209 (as in Dale and Krueger (2014)).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dale and Krueger (2014) source
The Introduction reports that selection-adjusted effects of college characteristics were generally indistinguishable from zero, with large estimates remaining for Black and Hispanic students. The Conclusion specifies a positive effect of attending a higher-SAT college for those students in the 1989 cohort. The citation supports that comparative pattern; the application to UC applicants affected by Prop 209 is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Second, that latter return substantially exceeds the average observed change in institutional value-added faced by URM UC applicants, suggesting that selective universities' positive treatment effects are considerably above-average for the URM applicants impacted by Prop 209 (as in Dale and Krueger (2014)).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dale and Krueger (2014) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Conclusion report that, unlike the generally near-zero selection-adjusted estimates, returns to college selectivity remain positive for Black and Hispanic students in the 1989 cohort. That supports the cited analogy, but the paper does not establish a comparison with institutional value-added for URM UC applicants or estimate effects for applicants affected by Prop 209. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with a simultaneous sharp rise in URM admits' average test scores.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.3 University of California Descriptive Statistics
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while only about three percent of similar-AI non-URM applicants did so.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.4 UC Applicants' University Enrollment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students' performance or persistence in STEM course sequences.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are about four times as many non-URM UC applicants as URM applicants”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 2. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with the top AI quartile of Black applicants facing a 15 percentage point enrollment decline”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 3.1 Institutional Quality
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and if anything became even less likely to earn degrees after affirmative action was eliminated, with a 95-percent confidence interval of -1.69 to 0.27 percentage point change in average six-year degree attainment.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 3.2 Degree Attainment
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average number of non-URM annual applications received by UC increased by more than 25 percent in the period, with increases of 42 percent at the more-selective campuses.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.3 University of California Descriptive Statistics
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At UCLA, for example, average SAT scores rose 17 points among non-URM applicants and 27 points among admits.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.3 University of California Descriptive Statistics
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 53
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The distribution of applicants is smooth across the threshold, with the McCrary (2008) test yielding a p-value of 0.58 at the threshold.Baseline characteristics are also smooth across the threshold.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
What the sources say
- Supportedcites McCrary (2008) source
The Introduction describes McCrary’s density test for a discontinuity in the running variable at a cutoff. In the citing sentence, “McCrary (2008)” identifies the test used; the p-value of 0.58 and the statements about Berkeley applicants and baseline characteristics are the citing authors’ reported results, not findings attributed to McCrary. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“increased university selectivity tends to decrease students' likelihood of earning STEM degrees along different margins”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Arcidiacono, Aucejo, and Hotz, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion reports lower science graduation rates for less-prepared students at more selective UC campuses. But it also finds that more selective campuses have an advantage in graduating better-prepared science students, so the claim is too broad when applied to students generally. The supplied passages do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Mountjoy and Hickman, 2020 source
The Introduction states that attending a more selective college has a significantly negative effect on completing a STEM degree. Section 6.1 likewise finds a negative relationship between selectivity and causal value-added for STEM degree completion, while distinguishing it from the positive correlation in raw completion rates. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites Bleemer, 2018a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to academicallycomparable white applicants, Asian applicants enrolled at similar universities and had indistinguishable long-run labor market outcomes after Prop 209, suggesting proportional effects of affirmative action for both groups.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 1 shows that most campuses continued providing large admissions advantages to URM applicants in 1996 and 1997 (though UCLA, Irvine, and Santa Cruz curtailed their programs), but those advantages shrank considerably in 1998.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.1 University of California Admissions in the 1990s
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After Prop 209, high-AI URM applicants tended to flow from UC's more-selective campuses to less-selective campuses and -especially among Black applicants -elite private universities, while lower-AI URM applicants mostly flowed to less-selective California colleges and universities.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 4 presents estimates from Equation 1 for six-year BA attainment among bottom-AI-quartile applicants, unconditional STEM degree attainment, and graduate degree attainment, showing that all three abruptly and persistently decline in 1998 following Prop 209.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 3.2 Degree Attainment
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 4 shows that the institutions where URM UC applicants enrolled remained relatively steady in terms of their”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 3.1 Institutional Quality
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as were the average scores of students admitted to each campus.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.3 University of California Descriptive Statistics
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prop 209 also caused a 1.3 percentage point decline in each URM applicant's likelihood of earning a graduate degree, with much of that decline in STEM fields.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prop 209 curbed the large admissions advantages provided to all underrepresented minority (URM) UC applicants by affirmative action, with many URM applicants becoming 50 percentage points less likely to earn admission to UC's most selective campuses relative to academically-comparable non-URM applicants.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Employing a regression discontinuity design, I find that students just below Berkeley's admissions threshold nevertheless enrolled at similar-quality universities and ended up with similar educational and labor market outcomes, though the confidence intervals cannot rule out positive treatment effects.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Almost 20 percent of UC applicants were URM in 1997”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.3 University of California Descriptive Statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While I find that before Prop 209 URM UC students earned lower grades and were less likely to persist along introductory STEM course sequences than their non-URM peers, these gaps are largely explained by students' prior academic opportunities and preparedness, not their enrollment institution.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Abstract
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“URM applicants' wages sharply decline between 1997 and 1998, reflecting the impact of Prop 209, but there is also evidence of a decline after 1996 and continued declines between 1998 and 2000.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is no further combination of these highly-detailed control functions and covariates that meaningfully changes any of the 𝛽𝛽 98-99 estimates, with the exception of the six-year degree attainment measure growing slightly more negative.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 4. APPLICATION DETERRENCE AND MODEL ROBUSTNESS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“URM enrollees STEM performance and persistence were unchanged when their class rank improved; the 95 percent confidence interval around the estimated change in STEM persistence narrowly bounds 0, from -2.3 to 3.5 percentage points, small effects relative to the raw STEM persistence ethnicity gap of 11.2 percentage points before Prop 209.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 5. STEM COURSE PERFORMANCE AND PERSISTENCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The last column of Table A-18 shows that before Prop 209, Berkeley's URM students earned lower average grades by 0.77 grade points and were 19 percentage points less likely to persist along STEM course sequences.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While Prop 209 led URM students to enroll at universities with lower early-30s wage value-added by as much as $1,000, those students' actual early-30s annual wages fell by more than $2,000 (see Tables 2 and 4).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 7. DISCUSSION: THE EFFICIENCY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, Prop 209 does lead Berkeley's (higher-testing) URM students to earn slightly higher STEM grades (by 0.14 grade points), but if anything their STEM persistence slightly declined.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“URM UC applicants' university enrollment sharply shifted away from UC's more-selective Berkeley and UCLA campuses, causing a cascade of students to enroll at lower-quality public institutions and some private universities.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the students would likely have otherwise enrolled at UCLA or UCSD (6.1 percentage points, s.e.3.5) or out-of-state universities (8.0 percentage points, s.e.3.4).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complementing the previous section's finding that Prop 209 failed to increase URM UC applicants' likelihood of earning a STEM degree -indeed, it led to the opposite effect”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 5. STEM COURSE PERFORMANCE AND PERSISTENCE
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Panels (d) to ( f) of Figure 10 show that graduate school enrollment, early-30s wages, and the number of years spent by each applicant in their early 30s earning over $150,000 per year are smooth across the Berkeley admissions threshold.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“UC had 56,300 URM applicants between 1998 and 2002.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 4.3.1 Contextualizing Prop 209's Labor Market Impact
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About 80 percent of URM UC applicants were Hispanic, and those applicants received the full observed wage benefits of UC affirmative action policies,”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These poorer educational outcomes in turn contributed to a five percent average annual decline in applicants' wages throughout their 20s and early 30s, which resulted in a decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least three percent.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While Black and Hispanic UC applicants faced similar declines in university quality and educational outcomes after Prop 209, and Hispanic UC applicants' wages and wage percentile sharply declined after 1998, there was no observable parallel decline among Black UC applicants.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 3.3 Employment and Wages
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, single-difference estimates of the baseline outcomes show that non-URM wage outcomes are notably smooth in the years before and after Prop 209, while URM wage outcomes sharply and persistently decline in 1998 (see Figure A-13).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 7. DISCUSSION: THE EFFICIENCY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sum across the scaled statistics suggests that the number of Black and Hispanic UC applicants declined by 12-13 percent (about 1,200 per year), most of whom would have likely been admitted to some UC campus.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 4. APPLICATION DETERRENCE AND MODEL ROBUSTNESS
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, including either of these p statistics as covariates in Equation 1 yields statistically-significant negative coefficients (implying negative selection out of UC application), while their inverse mills ratios yield significant positive coefficients.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 4. APPLICATION DETERRENCE AND MODEL ROBUSTNESS
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This hypothesis is supported by the finding that the relative decline in URM performance is driven by URM students in the bottom two terciles of SAT scores, with no observed declines among high-or low-GPA high-SAT students (see Table A -19).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first panel of Figure 9 shows that Prop 209 caused URM students to enroll in STEM courses in which their average SAT percentile was about four percentage points higher, closing that gap by more than half.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 5. STEM COURSE PERFORMANCE AND PERSISTENCE
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These gaps are fully explained by URM enrollees' poorer prior academic opportunity and preparedness; their performance and persistence was indistinguishable from those of academically-comparable non-URM students across the five UC campuses.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 5. STEM COURSE PERFORMANCE AND PERSISTENCE
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though Black UC applicants faced a decline in degree attainment after Prop 209, their early-career wages were not observably impacted.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not every UC-eligible applicant was admitted to a UC campus; many were rejected from each campus to which they applied”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 4. APPLICATION DETERRENCE AND MODEL ROBUSTNESS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“White and Asian students were proportionally impacted by Prop 209, with no evidence of disparate impacts for one or the other.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“URM applicants faced similar-magnitude declines in their admissions likelihood at San Diego and Davis, and their admissions advantage fell at every campus.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Additional information
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“conditioning on the set of UC campuses to which applicants were admitted flips the sign of the UC-wide coefficient (to 2.8 percentage points); compared to academically-similar students admitted to the same UC campuses, post-1998 URM students are more likely to enroll at some UC campus.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Additional information
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Admissions and enrollment statistics are slightly larger when estimated relative to the 1994-95 baseline”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Additional information
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While URM applicants were 37 and 27 percentage points more likely than comparable non-URM applicants to be admitted to Berkeley and UCLA under AA”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Additional information
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure A-4 shows, for example, that the difference was about 0.25 at UCLA in 1994-95, 0.15 in 1996-97, and less than 0.05 after 1998.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the components used to construct UC's Academic Index (𝑋𝑋 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ), which absorb variation in applicants' observed academic preparedness.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 2. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Instead, UC's primary policy response to the end of affirmative action was its Eligibility in the Local Context top percent policy, which did not begin until 2001 (Bleemer, 2019a).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.1 University of California Admissions in the 1990s
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bleemer, 2019a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with URM students from more-selective schools taking the less-selective university seats previously held by lower-AI URM students rejected in the absence of affirmative action, who themselves take the seats of other URM students who formerly enrolled at even less-selective universities.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 1.4 UC Applicants' University Enrollment
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each model includes high school fixed effects 𝛼𝛼 ℎ 𝑖𝑖 , which absorb spurious cross-school application and outcome variation”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 2. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if UC campuses' enrollment did not respond to Prop 209, every one percentage point average decrease in URM applicants' enrollment likelihood corresponds to almost a 0.25 percentage point average increase in non-URM applicants' enrollment likelihood.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 2. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: UC campuses' enrollment did not respond to Prop 209.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It remains possible that the 𝛽𝛽 𝑖𝑖 estimates reflect sample selection bias resulting from the impact of Prop 209 on the composition of UC applicants”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 2. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No UC campus implemented any substantial unrelated changes in their admissions processes in this period.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 2. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While Pareto efficiency is very unlikely in this context -even a single non-URM student benefiting from more-selective enrollment as a result of Prop 209 would prove the policy's inefficiency”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 7. DISCUSSION: THE EFFICIENCY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 1996 and 1997 Berkeley guaranteed admission to applicants above an annually-determined AI threshold.77 Admissions officers then admitted some lower-AI applicants based on other application characteristics.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because applicants near Berkeley's admissions threshold are quasi-randomly located on one or the other side of the threshold, differentiated by small test score or grade differences, I interpret outcome differences on either side of the threshold as resulting from the above-threshold applicants' greater access to UC Berkeley.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While gap may be partially explained by positively-selected Black students' greater likelihood of exiting California to enroll at Ivy+ and other highly-selective private universities”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 3.3 Employment and Wages
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“An alternative hypothesis is that SAT scores are relatively negatively-biased measures of low-testing URM students' academic preparedness, such that Berkeley's selection away from those students causes a decline in URM enrollees' relative overperformance (Vars and Bowen, 1998; Niu and Tienda, 2010).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vars and Bowen, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Niu and Tienda, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“diverse evidence suggest that those impacted non-URM students -whose more-selective university enrollment increased following Prop 209 -already had access to similar-quality universities even without broader UC admissions, and that their more-selective enrollment following Prop 209 had relatively small long-run effects on their economic outcomes.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are few remaining unobservables that could contribute to selection bias in this case -while applicants' academic, demographic, and socioeconomic status and cross-school application behavior are observed in detail, orthogonal dimensions of their high school leadership activities remain unobserved -and it appears very likely that the magnitude of remaining bias is small.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 4. APPLICATION DETERRENCE AND MODEL ROBUSTNESS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, this study documents the meaningful potential of affirmative action policies to promote economic mobility in the US -though perhaps not to close white-black mobility gaps -and the consequences of the policies' prohibition.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Berkeley chose its annual threshold so that 50 percent of its admitted applicants had AI above the threshold.As a result, the threshold could not be chosen until after Berkeley observed all applicants' AIs, prohibiting applicants from manipulating their AI to exceed the threshold (as occurred at UC Davis, another institution with a contemporaneous admissions threshold).”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The targeted URM students, on the other hand, received substantially above-average wage returns to more-selective university enrollment under affirmative action, and thus faced disproportionate declines after Prop 209.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the observed effects suggest that on-themargin non-URM students have access to alternative similar-value universities, and switching enrollment to UC Berkeley provides little measurable long-run economic return.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 6. IMPACT OF PROP 209 ON NON-URM APPLICANT OUTCOMES
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results strikingly differ from several existing estimates of the impact of affirmative action, even those focusing on Prop 209's effect at the University of California, and highlight the importance of high-quality and detailed administrative data and a transparent research design to account for sample selection and omitted variable bias.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, this concern does not extend to the graduate degree estimates; most such degrees are not earned at the same institutions where applicants earned their undergraduate degrees, and NSC coverage was very wide by the time applicants in the sample were earning graduate degrees.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two lines poorly mirror each other, suggesting both that VA poorly-explains and substantially underestimates the observed labor market effects of Prop 209.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among enrollees, the verified social security number differs from that reported on their application in fewer than 0.25 percent of cases.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Grades may differ across classes as a result of grade inflation, but I cannot separately identify inflation from actual differences in mean crossclass performance differences.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 5. STEM COURSE PERFORMANCE AND PERSISTENCE
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“All employment results are replicated from institutional research conducted at the UC Office of the President”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bleemer (2019b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social security numbers on UC applications are not verified unless the student enrolls at a UC campus.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Dynarski, Hemelt, and Hyman (2015) show that national NSC enrollment coverage at four-year institutions was below 50 percent in 1996, rising to over 80 percent by 2000.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dynarski, Hemelt, and Hyman (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About nine percent of near-threshold students have no observed four-year enrollment, with only one percent enrolling at a community college but no four-year institution within six years.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Family income is not reported by about 15 percent of applicants.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“$150,000 is a better indicator of unusually high earnings, achieved in an average 0.60 out of 5 years for in-sample applicants.”
§ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 209 > 8. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Non-URM applicants can serve as a valid control group for URM applicants after Prop 209, despite potential crowd-in effects.
“Non-URM applicants may not represent a traditional”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many URM UC applicants would have enrolled at the same institution whether or not affirmative action was operative.
“These estimated effects are averaged across every URM UC applicant, many of whom likely would have enrolled at the same institution whether or not affirmative action was operative.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The true distribution of AI across school-year-ethnicity cohorts remains unchanged over time.
“implicitly assuming that the true distribution of AI across school-year-ethnicity cohorts remains unchanged over time.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The difference-in-difference coefficients reflect a decline in URM labor market outcomes.
“Assuming that these coefficients reflect a decline in URM labor market outcomes”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each UC applicant's admission is small relative to the size and composition of the applicant pool.
“Admit estimates implicitly assume that each UC applicant's admission is small relative to the size and composition of”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Universities' treatment effects for on-the-margin URM and non-URM students are equal.
“If universities' treatment effects for on-the-margin URM and non-URM students are equal”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Prop 209's monotonicity holds.
“assuming Prop 209's monotonicity”
The authors state this as an assumption.
UC campuses' enrollment did not respond to Prop 209.
“if UC campuses' enrollment did not respond to Prop 209”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Admit estimates implicitly assume that each UC applicant's admission is small relative to the size and composition of the applicant pool.
“Admit estimates implicitly assume that each UC applicant's admission is small relative to the size and composition of the applicant pool.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The presented value-added statistics either approximate or relatively overestimate the average difference in treatment effects of enrolling at those universities.
“Assuming that the presented value-added statistics either approximate or relatively overestimate the average difference in treatment effects of enrolling at those universities”
The paper relies on this without support.
About one-third of UC students transfer from community colleges rather than applying as freshmen.
“About one-third of UC students transfer from community colleges rather than applying as freshmen.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Missing-ethnicity applicants are non-URM.
“These results justify the assumption in the baseline analysis that missing-ethnicity applicants are non-URM.”
The paper relies on this without support.
UC enrollment declined after Prop 209.
“Since UC enrollment declined after Prop 209”
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design: A Density Test,
McCrary, J. (2008) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.005 · Cited by 3,600
Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs
Calonico, S., Cattaneo, M. D., & Titiunik, R. (2014) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta11757 · Cited by 3,036
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20150572 · Cited by 2,315
When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?
Abadie, A., Athey, S. C., Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2017) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w24003 · Cited by 1,409
Dale, S. B., & Krueger, A. B. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302320935089 · Cited by 995
Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design: A Density Test
McCrary, J. (2007) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/t0334 · Cited by 959
Peer Effects in Education: How Might They Work, How Big Are They and How Much Do We Know Thus Far?
Sacerdote, B. (2011) · Handbook of the economics of education · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53429-3.00004-1 · Cited by 875
Ability sorting and the returns to college major
Arcidiacono, P. S. (2003) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.010 · Cited by 851
Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: an Intergenerational Perspective*
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2020) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjz042 · Cited by 842
Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjv036 · Cited by 805
Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?
Griffith, A. L. (2010) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010 · Cited by 691
The Effect of Attending the Flagship State University on Earnings: A Discontinuity-Based Approach
Hoekstra, M. (2009) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest.91.4.717 · Cited by 618
Does Your Cohort Matter? Measuring Peer Effects in College Achievement
Carrell, S., Fullerton, R. L., & West, J. E. (2009) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/600143 · Cited by 567
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G. (2011) · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.3.3.158 · Cited by 536
Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2018) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w24441 · Cited by 510
Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (1999) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.38.3.483 · Cited by 498
Racial Segregation and the Black-White Test Score Gap,
Card, D., & Rothstein, J. (2007) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.03.006 · Cited by 460
Income Segregation and Intergenerational Mobility Across Colleges in the United States*
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2020) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjaa005 · Cited by 459
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2015) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w21156 · Cited by 381
Cohodes, S. R., & Goodman, J. S. (2014) · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.6.4.251 · Cited by 359
The Returns to College Admission for Academically Marginal Students
Zimmerman, S. (2014) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/676661 · Cited by 357
Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2005) · Sociology of Education · doi:10.1177/003804070507800402 · Cited by 308
Elite Colleges and Upward Mobility to Top Jobs and Top Incomes
Zimmerman, S. (2019) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20171019 · Cited by 293
Hinrichs, P. (2012) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00170 · Cited by 283
Affirmative action in education: Evidence from engineering college admissions in India
Bertrand, M., Hanna, R., & Mullainathan, S. (2009) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.003 · Cited by 277
Dale, S. B., & Krueger, A. B. (2014) · Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.1353/jhr.2014.0015 · Cited by 273
Arcidiacono, P. S. (2005) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00627.x · Cited by 259
Billings, S. B., Deming, D. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2013) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjt026 · Cited by 248
Does Affirmative Action Work? Caste, Gender, College Quality, and Academic Success in India
Bagde, S., Epple, D. N., & Taylor, L. J. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20140783 · Cited by 209
Minimum Wages and Racial Inequality*
Derenoncourt, E., & Montialoux, C. (2020) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjaa031 · Cited by 200
University Differences in the Graduation of Minorities in STEM Fields: Evidence from California
Arcidiacono, P., Aucejo, E. M., & Hotz, V. J. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130626 · Cited by 198
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2005) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.1177/001979390505800306 · Cited by 197
Marshall, G. (2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203161739-11 · Cited by 187
Affirmative Action and the Quality–Fit Trade-off
Arcidiacono, P., & Lovenheim, M. (2016) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.54.1.3 · Cited by 186
Does Banning Affirmative Action Lower College Student Quality?
Chan, J. T. S., & Eyster, E. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803322157124 · Cited by 158
Arcidiacono, P., Aucejo, E. M., & Spenner, K. (2012) · IZA Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1186/2193-8997-1-5 · Cited by 155
Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. L. (2015) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w20847 · Cited by 154
The Analysis of Field Choice in College and Graduate School: Determinants and Wage Effects
Altonji, J. G., Arcidiacono, P. S., & Maurel, A. (2015) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w21655 · Cited by 152
The Analysis of Field Choice in College and Graduate School
Altonji, J. G., Arcidiacono, P., & Maurel, A. (2016) · Handbook of the economics of education · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-63459-7.00007-5 · Cited by 148
College applications and the effect of affirmative action
Long, M. C. (2003) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.001 · Cited by 147
Dickson, L. M. (2005) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.11.005 · Cited by 130
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-5883 · Cited by 113
Backes, B. (2012) · Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.1353/jhr.2012.0013 · Cited by 105
An Economic Analysis of Color-Blind Affirmative Action
Fryer, R. G., Loury, G. C., & Yuret, T. (2007) · The Journal of Law Economics and Organization · doi:10.1093/jleo/ewm053 · Cited by 104
The Consequences of Academic Match between Students and Colleges
Dillon, E. W., & Smith, J. A. (2015) · The Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.3368/jhr.55.3.0818-9702r1 · Cited by 103
Racial Segregation and the Black-White Test Score Gap
Card, D., & Rothstein, J. (2006) · doi:10.3386/w12078 · Cited by 92
How Costly Is Affirmative Action? Government Contracting and California's Proposition 209
Marion, J. G. (2009) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest.91.3.503 · Cited by 84
The Missing Manual: Using National Student Clearinghouse Data to Track Postsecondary Outcomes
Dynarski, S. M., Hemelt, S. W., & Hyman, J. M. (2015) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373715576078 · Cited by 78
Does Your Cohort Matter? Measuring Peer Effects in College Achievement
Carrell, S., Fullerton, R. L., & West, J. (2008) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w14032 · Cited by 76
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2010) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.012 · Cited by 75
State Merit Aid Programs and College Major: A Focus on STEM
Sjoquist, D. L., & Winters, J. V. (2015) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/681108 · Cited by 73
The Returns to Elite University Education: a Quasi-Experimental Analysis
Anelli, M. (2020) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1093/jeea/jvz070 · Cited by 71
Affirmative action and university fit: evidence from Proposition 209
Arcidiacono, P., Aucejo, E., Coate, P., & Hotz, V. J. (2014) · IZA Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1186/2193-8997-3-7 · Cited by 70
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
(2000) · University Press of Kansas eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1jd94rn.5 · Cited by 68
The Labor Market Returns to Advanced Degrees
Altonji, J. G., & Zhong, L. (2020) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/710959 · Cited by 64
Blume, G. H., & Long, M. C. (2013) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373713508810 · Cited by 63
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2004) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w10366 · Cited by 56
Long-Run Changes in Underrepresentation After Affirmative Action Bans in Public Universities
Long, M. C., & Bateman, N. A. (2020) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373720904433 · Cited by 54
Castleman, B., Long, B. T., & Mabel, Z. (2017) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.22039 · Cited by 53
Black, S., Denning, J. T., & Rothstein, J. M. (2020) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w26821 · Cited by 52
Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Orlans, H. (1992) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716292523001013 · Cited by 51
Affirmative Action Bans and the "Chilling Effect"
Antonovics, K., & Sander, R. H. (2013) · American Law and Economics Review · doi:10.1093/aler/ahs020 · Cited by 49
Black Education-Myths and Tragedies
Spratlin, T. H., & Sowell, T. (1973) · The Journal of Negro Education · doi:10.2307/2967018 · Cited by 48
The Returns to College(s): Relative Value-Added and Match Effects in Higher Education
Mountjoy, J., & Hickman, B. (2020) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3537773 · Cited by 41
Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions: What Do Racial Preferences Do?
Rothstein, J., & Yoon, A. (2008) · doi:10.3386/w14276 · Cited by 41
Denning, J. T., & Turley, P. (2016) · The Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.3368/jhr.52.1.0414-6340r1 · Cited by 40
Affirmative Action in Higher Education.
Yocom, D. J. (1988) · Cited by 35
Antonovics, K., & Backes, B. (2013) · Education Finance and Policy · doi:10.1162/edfp_a_00090 · Cited by 34
State affirmative action bans and STEM degree completions
Hill, A. (2017) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.01.003 · Cited by 33
Barrow, L., Sartain, L., & de la Torre, M. (2020) · American Economic Journal Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20170599 · Cited by 27
College Major Restrictions and Student StratificationPreprint
Bleemer, Z., & Mehta, A. S. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3981921 · Cited by 22
Self-citationAsian American Discrimination in Harvard Admissions
Arcidiacono, P. S., Kinsler, J., & Ransom, T. (2020) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w27068 · Cited by 21
The Effects of Affirmative Action Programs: Evidence From the University of California at San Diego
Rose, H. (2005) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737027003263 · Cited by 16
Robinson, N. L. (2003) · Cited by 14
Supply vs. demand under an affirmative action ban: Estimates from UC law schools
Yagan, D. (2016) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.02.006 · Cited by 14
Affirmative Action and the Quality-Fit Tradeoff
Arcidiacono, P., & Lovenheim, M. (2015) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w20962 · Cited by 14
The Health Effects of Cesarean Delivery for Low-Risk First Births
Card, D., Fenizia, A., & Silver, D. W. (2018) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w24493 · Cited by 12
(2004) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 10
The Labor Market Returns to Advanced Degrees
Altonji, J. G., & Zhong, L. (2020) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w26959 · Cited by 8
Top Percent Policies and the Return to Postsecondary SelectivityPreprint
Bleemer, Z. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3272618 · Cited by 5
Self-citationThe UC Cliometric History Project and Formatted Optical Character RecognitionPreprint
Bleemer, Z. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3240266 · Cited by 4
Self-citationDiversity in University Admissions: Affirmative Action, Percent Plans, and Holistic ReviewPreprint
Bleemer, Z. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3399166 · Cited by 4
Self-citationBleemer, Z. (2021) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/x0njlx · Cited by 1
Self-citationBleemer, Z. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3399167
Self-citationRuggles, S., & Sobek, M. (2019) · Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_980-1
Geiser, S., & Caspary, K. (2005) · Educational Policy · doi:10.1177/0895904804274059
Prestige Matters: Wage Premium and Value Addition in Elite Colleges
Sekhri, S. (2020) · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20140105
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Johnson, 2019, Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works
- Juhn, 1991), Accounting for the Slowdown in Black-White Wage Convergence, 107
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chetty, R., Deming, D. J., & Friedman, J. N. (2023) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w31492 · Cited by 138
Bleemer, Z., & Mehta, A. S. (2022) · American Economic Journal Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20200447 · Cited by 83
Self-citationLy, D. P., Essien, U. R., Olenski, A. R., & Jena, A. B. (2022) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m21-4312 · Cited by 55
The Costs of Employment Segregation: Evidence from the Federal Government Under Woodrow Wilson
Aneja, A., & Xu, G. (2021) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjab040 · Cited by 53
Black, S. E., Denning, J. T., & Rothstein, J. M. (2022) · American Economic Journal Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20200137 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Bleemer, Z.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bleemer, Zachary
- ORCID
- Bleemer, Zachary
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-09-01
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 115-160
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W3135767981
- Semantic Scholar
- 936e1e4588aee40d43dd49d83a6f8370c26fcfe8
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 35.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Academy of Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
- Keywords
- affirmative action, Proposition 209, California public universities, mismatch hypothesis, underrepresented minority students, university admission, educational attainment, STEM degree attainment, wage outcomes, Hispanic students, racial discrimination in higher education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
