“We Count What Matters”: Students’ Color-Blind “Merit-Based” Logic and the Reproduction of Inequality in a College Admissions Activity

Abstract

The authors introduce a college admissions simulation activity that facilitates discussions of affirmative action and racial disparities in the seemingly objective college admissions process. In this activity, students serve as mock admissions committees in small groups. On the basis of activity sheets collected from multiple courses across several institutions, the authors disclose quantitative patterns in students’ applicant choices and qualitative themes reflecting students’ decision making processes. The authors discuss how this activity and subsequent class discussion help students to recognize and think through meritocratic assumptions and color-blind practices that reproduce racial inequality.

Keywords

color-blind pedagogy higher education affirmative action group processes

Affirmative action—the set of “voluntary and mandatory efforts undertaken by federal, state and local governments; private employers; and schools to combat discrimination and promote equal opportunity in education and employment for all”—continues to be one of the most contested policies in the United States (Crosby et al. 2003:94). In higher education, race-conscious affirmative action policies emerged in the 1960s in response to collective action and administrator decisions to address inequities against people of color (Stulberg and Chen 2013). Today, dominant frameworks on affirmative action include the notion that discrimination against people of color has declined, rendering contemporary affirmative action efforts problematic in that they take opportunities away from whites and threaten group equality (Bobo 2000; Norton and Sommers 2011). Indeed, there exists a popular perception that race-conscious policies constitute “reverse discrimination” against whites (Crosby et al. 2003). Such beliefs involve not only dismissals of continuing racial inequality and disparate impacts in institutional procedures but also dominant ideas about meritocracy, color blindness, and individualism in the United States (Bonilla-Silva 2017; Crosby et al. 2003).

By the time they enter college, students have learned to adopt color-blind ideology as the set of logics and discourses denying the presence and significance of contemporary racial inequality (Bonilla-Silva 2017; Byrd 2017). Thus, students have learned to remove race from discussions about social outcomes and decision making while viewing race as a topic to avoid. Extant research suggests that college students, even those exposed to progressive ideas in school, support color-blind policies as part of “meritocratic” notions of university admissions (Warikoo 2016). Additionally, students often approach discussions on affirmative action and other controversial topics while relying on misinformation and myths stemming from media or anecdotal accounts, as well as moral frameworks focusing on how one side appears to have greater moral worth than the other (Hedley and Markowitz 2001).

Existing work on the teaching of affirmative action often supports this debate-centered approach, in which “affirmative action is simply presented uncritically as a pro and con debate” (Beeman, Chowdhry, and Todd 2000:111). Other literature provides guides for teaching educational statistics and affirmative action history, helping students dispel myths about “reverse discrimination” (Bohmer and Oka 2007; Poon 2018). However, these strategies still operate within a debate-centered framework in which students learn evidence to dispute one side of the debate. Even after exposure to historical and contemporary college admissions policies and procedures, students may have difficulties understanding the realities of racial inequality and how institutional officials, even those who are well meaning, deliver decisions that reproduce racial and other hierarchical systems. We argue that exposing and unpacking color-blind and meritocratic logics is necessary when teaching about the topic of affirmative action, and we offer and analyze a simulation activity to help in this process.

Simulation Activities and Revealing Inequality to Students

Students often lack empirically based understanding of racial inequality and the role of institutions in contemporary racial structures. Moreover, many students are resistant to understanding institutionalized racial structures and insulated from the realities of racial injustices and inequality (Brunsma, Brown, and Placier 2012). To help make sociological concepts such as social institutions and structures more concrete and to counter resistance in the learning process, articles on teaching sociology point to simulation activities. These activities often involve games in which students take on a social role or status position, such as in Starpower or Sociopoly (a version of Monopoly), in which student “players” experience firsthand the effects of unequal opportunity and resource distribution systems (Fisher 2008). Simulation activities can help counter widespread beliefs about individual ability and effort as determinants of social outcomes and about the utility of color-blind “merit-based” policies, while helping students take ownership in the learning experience and engage with controversial topics.

We outline a college admissions simulation activity in which students serve in small groups as mock admissions committees. We build upon literature on simulation activities and discuss the benefits of our activity for teaching about racial (and other) structures and affirmative action. Second, we report students’ admissions logics and choices from several years of implementing this activity in different classes and institutions. In our analysis, we uncover the pervasive color-blind “merit-based” logic used by students, even after weeks of discussing theories on, and evidence of, racial inequality and other social structures. We discuss the utility of displaying patterns in admission decisions to help students work through their logics and understand the routine ways in which social inequalities are reproduced over time. The unveiling of patterned admissions decisions illuminates the roles of institutional actors in racial structures and incites a deeper analysis of affirmative action and redistributive programs in the United States.

Because most students have recently applied to college, this is a relatable activity and allows connections to numerous sociological topics, such as diversity in higher education and inequality in educational opportunities, family and school resources, extracurricular activities, college counseling, and SAT and ACT preparation. Such discussions are useful for a variety of sociology courses, including social inequality and stratification, race, education, social policy, and introductory courses. This activity also allows students to make connections between college admissions and future stratification. Instructors could, for example, adapt this activity to discuss employment hiring decisions or other bureaucratic and policy decisions. Last, this activity can incite conversations about the goals and reasoning behind affirmative action policies, helping students connect the decisions of individuals to broader social movements and programs.

College Admissions Simulation Activity

The first and second authors used the following activity at four-year universities—three public universities and one private university—over the course of several years. We present emergent patterns in students’ handwritten activity sheets from seven of our recent classes (~260 total students). These classes range from lower division courses (general education courses on race and introduction to sociology) to upper division sociology of education courses, although a majority of these classes are lower division general education or introductory courses. We have used the activity in classes with diverse racial and ethnic makeups and sizes ranging from 9 to 120 students. The activity can be successfully implemented in a class session of 40 minutes or longer, although it works best in classes with at least 20 students present and when there is time for the presentation of activity sheet results and further debriefing during a subsequent class session.

Activity Description

Before implementing this activity, we recommend that instructors cover various forms of social inequality and (briefly) the history and evolution of U.S. affirmative action. Instructors should then organize students into groups encompassing three or four students each; groups of two may also work in smaller classes, while large classes (such as introductory courses) may need groups with five students each. Once groups are organized, distribute an activity sheet to each group, as well as individual copies of the applicant profiles so that each student can read through the applicant list. Instructors should verbally discuss the activity requirements and solicit clarifying questions. The activity sheet details the following instructions:

You are on a university admissions board. Decisions have been made on most applications, but now there are two open spots remaining and 10 applicants for them. Your job is to decide as a group which two applicants should gain admission into your school.

On the activity sheet, the group must indicate its two chosen applicants (in rank order), their characteristics, and the reasons for their selections. Once all groups are clear on the task, allow approximately 10 to 15 minutes, offering a 5-minute warning to ensure that groups complete the activity sheet.

Applicant Profiles

Each applicant list contains 10 fictional profiles: applicant A through applicant J (Table 1). These profiles were constructed by the first author to approximate racial and socioeconomic differences in grade point average (GPA) and standardized exam performance (Kao and Thompson 2003), school quality (Hanushek and Rivkin 2009), and extracurricular participation (Stearns and Glennie 2010). Variables for each profile include age, race, sex/gender, high school GPA, SAT math and verbal scores (ranging from 200 to 800 in increments of 10 for each), whether the applicant attended a public or private high school, school rating–based schoolwide passing rates on state standardized exams, extracurricular activities, and whether applicants would need financial assistance if admitted.

Table 1.

Applicant Profiles.

	Applicant
Variable	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J
Age (years)	17	17	16	18	17	18	17	17	18	17
Race	White	White	Hispanic	Asian	Black	Asian	Black	White	Hispanic	Black
Sex/gender	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Female	Male	Male	Male	Female
GPA	3.36	3.56	2.87	3.70	2.73	3.53	3.66	3.36	3.85	2.77
SAT math^a	620	710	650	720	610	580	520	620	550	660
SAT reading^a	450	610	570	530	350	660	470	450	450	600
HS type	Public	Public	Public	Private	Public	Public	Public	Public	Public	Private
HS classification	Below average	Above average	Average	Above average	Below average	Average	Way below average	Below average	Way below average	Above average
Extracurricular activities	Job at supermarket	Soccer; chorus	Babysitting; student government	Orchestra; math; tennis	Student government; youth shelter	Student government	Job at supermarket	Job walking dogs	None	None
Need financial aid	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

Note: GPA = grade point average; HS = high school.

Scores range from 200 to 800 in increments of 10.

Debriefing

After each group has selected its two applicants, instructors should ask all or several groups (depending on time and class size) to share their decision-making process and which applicants they admitted. When doing so, ask students the following questions:

What was your group’s decision-making process?

Which criteria were most important? Why?

Which criteria were least important? Why?

Was there any additional information you would have preferred to have? Why?

Was there any disagreement that had to be resolved? How did you resolve it?

As groups share, instructors should note group numbers and applicant selections on the board or projector so that all students can view groups’ choices. Ask students to point out any noticeable patterns in the candidates chosen most often and their respective characteristics. In particular, if not pointed out by students, ask the class to notice the selected candidates’ racial, class, and gender statuses and patterns in groups’ rationales for using criteria such as GPA, test scores, and extracurricular activities. We find that this is an important pedagogical moment, as students can both hear the logic of selection and visualize patterns of selection. This is necessary for students to start to unpack the consequences of logic and decisions made and identify the social nature of their individual decisions. As we later note, because groups tend to choose the Asian and White male applicants while prioritizing what they identify as “objective” measures, instructors can connect students’ logic and selections to color-blind ideology and racial inequality in higher education.

To help students recognize the racialized nature of seemingly “objective” measures, instructors should discuss research on racial disparities in GPA, standardized test performance, and extracurricular involvement. For example, educational research indicates that reliance on exam scores (Alon and Tienda 2007) and extracurricular activities (Posselt et al. 2012) reproduces differential access by race and social class. Additionally, high school GPA can be an unreliable predictor of college success (Hoffman and Lowitzki 2005). Instructors could extend the discussion to multiple class sessions if needed.

Last, some students have realized on their own that their attempts to avoid bias inadvertently perpetuated inequality. Instructors should stress that these default positions result from dominant ideology rather than personal failings but also solicit ideas from students about how to address the systemic inequalities they now recognize.

Revealing Students’ Admissions Logics and Decisions

We found that students greatly benefit from seeing and hearing patterns across groups’ decisions and justifications for “merit-based” college admissions decisions. We tabulated activity sheets from seven classes (75 total groups) taught over recent years, allowing us to examine common patterns in students’ applicant choices and themes in their logics for admissions selection. All groups that filled out the worksheet listed at least one of three factors—GPA, SAT scores, and extracurricular activities—as reason to admit their applicants of choice. Overall, very few groups considered criteria beyond GPA, SAT scores, and extracurricular activities when making admission decisions. Last, 97 percent of groups chose to admit either applicant B (Asian male) or applicant D (White male); only two groups selected neither of these applicants.

Although all students had been introduced to racial inequality research and the U.S. context of institutional racism and disparate impacts earlier in the course, students regularly conveyed commonsense beliefs about the need for “merit-based” decisions so as not to reproduce discrimination. They posited that GPA, SAT scores, and extracurricular activities fit with such meritocratic beliefs. Fifty-five groups followed what we call a color-blind merit-based logic whereby groups dismissed applicants’ racial status and the role of social context (high school ranking) altogether while privileging what they believed to be “fair,” “merit-based” measures of college potential. In addition to GPA, SAT scores, and extracurricular activities, 24 percent of these groups gave preference to applicants deemed to be “well rounded,” a phrase consistently written on their activity sheets. Additionally, 31 percent of these groups considered an applicant not needing financial aid as a positive attribute.

During debriefing and on activity sheets, these students disclosed that they avoided using race in the decision-making process and insisted that only “objective” measures should be used; as one student said, “We count what matters.” Some even blinded race, as well as gender and financial aid status, as variables on their applicant lists. Students inclined to prioritize opportunity pathways for underrepresented candidates reported being either outvoted by those following a color-blind approach or steered in the direction of color blindness on the basis of the group’s assumptions and process of rationalization with regard to the “objective” measures (Sims and Sauser 2013). On some occasions, groups said they included one “safe” choice (applicant B or D) on the basis of academic qualifications to offset one “risky” minority or financially needy selection. Nonetheless, most groups chose both applicants B and D, while very few chose to include an underrepresented minority applicant (G or I) with a high GPA. These patterns emerged regardless of the course, instructor, or institution.

Some students coupled their removal of race with stereotypes about applicants of low socioeconomic status. For example, one group wrote “bad: needs $ assistance” below applicant D. Another group wrote “outstanding enough for financial aid to not be an issue” below their applicant D choice, indicating that they negatively viewed his financial aid need and privileged applicants who did not need financial aid. On the basis of these findings, we encourage instructors to use an additional day to discuss patterns in students’ written justifications for admissions decisions and how such justifications connect to color-blind ideology and the reproduction of inequality.

Only 18 (of 75 total) groups considered either racial, gender, or socioeconomic diversity or low high school ranking as positive factors when deciding on applicants. Ten of these groups listed race as a factor, eight listed gender, and three listed financial aid need. However, these groups still prioritized GPA and test scores and chose either applicant B or D first and then an underrepresented minority candidate; one group, for example, chose applicant G (Black male) and wrote that this applicant “overcame their school classification,” indicating that they recognized high school ranking, but used GPA to make their final decision. Notably, only one group considered all three of factors of race, gender, and financial aid need when making their decision.

Overall, no groups selected applicant E, a Black female with the lowest GPA. Only a few groups chose applicant C (Hispanic female) or J (Black female), and even these groups also included either applicant B (Asian male) or D (White male). In summary, most groups admittedly disregarded race in their applicant decisions, while privileging the Asian and White male applicants through a seemingly color-blind, merit-based approach. By identifying racial patterns in admissions decisions on the chalkboard, students can see how they and their peers, despite being knowledgeable about racial inequality and operating with best intentions, have replicated a predictable racial order of opportunity that disadvantages underrepresented minority applicants. This analysis enables instructors to effectively emphasize the importance of guarding against disparate effect and equips students to discuss whether and how affirmative action policies can help offset these patterns.

Conclusion

This simulation exercise provides an intuitive path into discussions about affirmative action, a highly contested topic and path to addressing racial inequality. Through this exercise, students can interrogate seemingly “objective” measures for college admissions and learn that rather than offering undue advantage to people of color, affirmative action is an approach to placing observed racial disparities on selection criteria into context. The activity also highlights the reality that even well-intentioned institutional actors embrace logics and practices that lead to the perpetuation of racial inequality. The revealing process is particularly beneficial as students can see firsthand patterns of inequality and decision making that they may have avoided understanding in a traditional lecture. In line with research on active learning in the classroom, this activity encourages students to identify patterns and arrive at conclusions on their own or during the debriefing discussion (Baepler 2016). This activity can be used for a variety of classes and discussions on race and other forms of inequality, as well as on the social consequences of color-blind and meritocratic logics. Our goal in sharing this activity and patterns in students’ decisions over time is to make these explorations easier for educators.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank W. Carson Byrd for his helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article.

Author Biographies

Ervin (Maliq) Matthew is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Cincinnati. His work examines racial gaps in academic and occupational outcomes, as well as broader theoretical questions about how social stratification processes operate in society.

Melanie Jones Gast is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Louisville. Her research focuses on mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion and the structuring of support in schools and community programs serving racial and ethnic minority youth and families. She has other work examining information and resource gaps during the transition to college. She has published in journals such as the Du Bois Review, the Journal of Adolescent Research, the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Social Science Research, Sociological Perspectives, Teachers College Record, and Urban Education.

Molly Broscoe is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests are whiteness, masculinity, power, and violence.

References

Alon

Sigal

Tienda

Marta

. 2007. “Diversity, Opportunity, and the Shifting Meritocracy in Higher Education.” American Sociological Review 72(4):487–511.

Baepler

Paul Michel

. 2016. A Guide to Teaching in the Active Learning Classroom: History, Research, and Practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Beeman

Mark

Chowdhry

Geeta

Todd

Karmen

. 2000. “Educating Students about Affirmative Action: An Analysis of University Sociology Texts.” Teaching Sociology 28(2):98–115.

Bohmer

Susanne

Oka

Kayleen U.

2007. “Teaching Affirmative Action: An Opportunity to Apply, Integrate, and Reinforce Sociological Concepts.” Teaching Sociology 35(4):334–49.

Bobo

Lawrence

. 2000. “Race and Beliefs about Affirmative Action: Assessing the Effects of Interests, Group Threat, Ideology, and Racism.” Pp. 137–64 in Racialized Politics: The Debate about Racism in America, edited by Sears

D. O.

Sidanius

Bobo

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2017. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. 5th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brunsma

David L.

Brown

Eric S.

Placier

Peggy

. 2012. “Teaching Race at Historically White Colleges and Universities: Identifying and Dismantling the Walls of Whiteness.” Critical Sociology 39(5):717–38.

Byrd

W. Carson

. 2017. Poison in the Ivy: Race Relations and the Reproduction of Inequality on Elite College Campuses. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Crosby

Faye J.

Iyer

Aarti

Clayton

Susan

Downing

Roberta A.

2003. “Affirmative Action: Psychological Data and the Policy Debates.” American Psychologist 58(2):93–115.

10.

Fisher

Edith

. 2008. “USA Stratified Monopoly: A Simulation Game about Social Class Stratification.” Teaching Sociology 36(3):272–82.

11.

Hanushek

Eric A.

Rivkin

Steven G.

2009. “Harming the Best: How Schools Affect the Black-White Achievement Gap.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28(3):366–93.

12.

Hedley

Mark

Markowitz

Linda

. 2001. “Avoiding Moral Dichotomies: Teaching Controversial Topics to Resistant Students.” Teaching Sociology 29(2):195–208.

13.

Hoffman

John L.

Lowitzki

Katie E.

2005. “Predicting College Success with High School Grades and Test Scores: Limitations for Minority Students.” Review of Higher Education 28(4):455–74.

14.

Kao

Grace

Thompson

Jennifer S.

2003. “Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:417–42.

15.

Norton

Michael I.

Sommers

Samuel R.

2011. “Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(3):215–18.

16.

Poon

OiYan

. 2018. “‘I Had a Friend Who Had Worse Scores Than Me and He Got into a Better College’: The Legal and Social Realities of the College Admissions Process.” Pp. 185–202 in Getting Real about Race, 2nd ed., edited by McClure

S. M.

Harris

C. A.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Posselt

Julie Renee

Jaquette

Ozan

Bielby

Rob

Bastedo

Michael N.

2012. “Access without Equity: Longitudinal Analyses of Institutional Stratification by Race and Ethnicity.” American Educational Research Journal 49(6):1074–1111.

18.

Sims

Ronald R.

Sauser

William I.

2013. “Toward a Better Understanding of the Relationships among Received Wisdom, Groupthink, and Organizational Ethical Culture.” Journal of Management Policy and Practice 14(4):75–90.

19.

Stearns

Elizabeth

Glennie

Elizabeth J.

2010. “Opportunities to Participate: Extracurricular Activities’ Distribution across and Academic Correlates in High Schools.” Social Science Research 39(2):296–309.

20.

Stulberg

Lisa M.

Chen

Anthony S.

2014. “The Origins of Race-Conscious Affirmative Action in Undergraduate Admissions: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Change in Higher Education.” Sociology of Education 87(1):36–52.

21.

Warikoo

Natasha Kumar

. 2016. The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions, and Meritocracy at Elite Universities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.