University Differences in the Graduation of Minorities in STEM Fields: Evidence from California
Open accessAbstract
We examine differences in minority science graduation rates among University of California campuses when racial preferences were in place. Less prepared minorities at higher ranked campuses had lower persistence rates in science and took longer to graduate. We estimate a model of students' college major choice where net returns of a science major differ across campuses and student preparation. We find less prepared minority students at top ranked campuses would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower ranked campuses. Better matching of science students to universities by preparation and providing information about students' prospects in different major-university combinations could increase minority science graduation. (JEL D14, E23, E32, E43, E52, E61, E62)
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Increased university selectivity tends to decrease students' likelihood of earning STEM degrees along different margins.
“increased university selectivity tends to decrease students' likelihood of earning STEM degrees along different margins”
From Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California’s Proposition 209 (2021) · cites this paper as Arcidiacono, Aucejo, and Hotz, 2016
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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Missing "One-Offs": The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students
Hoxby, C., & Avery, C. (2012) · doi:10.3386/w18586 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
The Missing "One-Offs": The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students
Hoxby, C., & Avery, C. (2013) · Brookings Papers on Economic Activity · doi:10.1353/eca.2013.0000 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110908 · DOI
- Alvarez Lizette, 2012, New York Times, 9, 2012
- 10.1353/jhr.2014.0014 · DOI
- 10.1186/2193-8997-3-5 · DOI
- 10.1093/aler/ahs020 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.010 · DOI
- 10.3982/QE83 · DOI · Paper page
- Arcidiacono Peter, 2012, IZA Journal of Labor Economics 1 (5): doi, 10
- 10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.06.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.10.003 · DOI
- 10.1093/qje/qjs017 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/jep.28.3.205 · DOI
- 10.1162/003355302320935089 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1353/jhr.2014.0015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/iere.12040 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010 · DOI
- 10.1257/jep.23.4.95 · DOI
- 10.1257/aer.p20151027 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s40172-014-0019-8 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11162-011-9238-z · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1353/foc.2013.0001 · DOI
- 10.1086/678520 · DOI
- 10.1111/jors.12161 · DOI
- 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000027391.05986.79 · DOI
- 10.1002/pam.21803 · DOI
- 10.1093/restud/rdt025 · DOI
- World Report, 1996, US News & World Report, 121, 110
- 10.1093/restud/rdu044 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1353/jhr.2013.0022 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does STEM Stand Out? Examining Racial/Ethnic Gaps in Persistence Across Postsecondary Fields
Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., & Irizarry, Y. (2019) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x19831006 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California’s Proposition 209
Bleemer, Z. (2021) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjab027 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
- Authors
- Arcidiacono, P., Aucejo, E. M., & Hotz, V. J.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hotz, V. Joseph
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2016-03-01
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 525-562
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6675032
- OpenAlex
- W3023939415
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 76.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/M010341/1)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD065563)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Keywords
- minority students, racial preferences, college major choice, university rankings, student preparation, University of California, university admission
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.
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
