In clumsily worded comments citing a Supreme Court brief, Justice Antonin Scalia recently made waves by suggesting that affirmative-action admissions policies are harmful for black students with below-average test scores and academic credentials for the selective colleges that admit them to fulfill diversity goals.
This is known as the “mismatch theory.” Though there is substantial supportive evidence, this theory has been roundly condemned in the liberal press — at times by those unwittingly supporting its thesis while purporting to debunk it.
Like a recent New York Times oped by Jedidah Isler. Isler condemned mismatch-thesis proponents by highlighting her own success in a Harvard Ph.D. physics program. But the point she tried to make was undermined by her note that she began her academic career at Norfolk State, a historically black college.
And Isler is typical of black students who get doctorates in the STEM fields. A 2011 National Institutes of Health study found that “the nation’s top 10 producers of undergraduates who go on to earn doctorates in science and engineering are historically black colleges.” In a more supportive environment, black students gain the background and academic maturity that enable them to compete.
Indeed, my own college system, the City University of New York, exemplifies the benefits when many capable black students attend a nonselective school that is more consistent with their entering academic skills. Its Minority Access to Research Careers program has been quite effective in providing needed support and mentoring to these students.
By contrast, if they had gone to more selective colleges, most would have been unable to compete when immediately thrust into very demanding freshmen science and calculus classes. The CUNY pipeline program serves this purpose for students in the humanities and social sciences, giving them the research training and mentoring that prepare them for doctoral programs.
Many successful students who don’t attend selective colleges, particularly in the STEM areas, often have some difficulties in adjusting to life in doctoral programs since they must compete with students who had completed stronger undergraduate programs.
Indeed, aware of these difficulties, the American Economic Association instituted well-funded summer programs at which promising black and Latino students spend eight weeks intensively enhancing their technical skills.
This is similar to the program run by the US Army. Black candidates recommended for admission to West Point tended to have SAT scores and high-school records substantially below the median of other students accepted. But rather than reject them, the Army offered a one-year preparatory program at Fort Dix.
Sixty percent successfully completed the program and were admitted to West Point, where they performed well: Their four-year graduation rate was higher than for the other students.
In many of the science doctoral programs, promising black students from less-selective colleges are required to retake some demanding undergraduate courses before they fully transition into doctoral courses. After Norfolk State, Isler enrolled in the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master’s-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program, a pioneering effort to expand access to advanced STEM degrees for students of color.
The resources provided in their undergraduate programs, along with the post-graduate developmental programs that help them adjust to doctoral programs, have enabled many black students to be successful in their chosen careers.
One doesn’t have to like Scalia or his insensitive articulation, but the evidence is clear: Many black students benefit from beginning their academic careers at less-competitive colleges instead of attending selective colleges when they have academic and social credentials that are substantially below those of the average students at those schools.
Robert Cherry is Stern Professor at Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center.