In 1997, the University of California, Berkeley changed its admissions process to accept students based entirely on their SAT scores. (SATs test math and grammar skills. They’re a close cousin to IQ tests, which mostly measures cognitive ability.)
The results were shocking:
After the change, 35.5 per cent of the study body was made up of East Asian-Americans (Japanese, Korean, and Chinese), even though that group is only 3 million, or around one per cent, of the American population
Indian-Americans and Jews were also disproportionately accepted.
At the same time, white students accounted for only 33 per cent, despite being over 75 per cent of the U.S. population. Blacks made up 6 per cent of Berkeley students, despite being 12 per cent nationally.
As the years went on, the number of black and white students continued to fall, while the number of Asian students either increased or stayed the same.
We’ve seen this same scenario play out in the Ivy League Schools, MIT, Stanford, and so on. If you were a policy-maker, what could you do to make those numbers statistically more representative?
For a long time, one approach, the Marxist one, has been to push for “positive discrimination,” or affirmative action.
WATCH as I explain why affirmative action isn’t just wrong, it doesn’t even work, in a practical sense.
This libertarian solution would actually help more students achieve.