Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:05:05.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2021

Jacob R. Brown Open the ORCID record for Jacob R. Brown [Opens in a new window]  and
Hanno Hilbig Open the ORCID record for Hanno Hilbig [Opens in a new window]
Jacob R. Brown*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Hanno Hilbig
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: jrbrown@g.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does an individual's criminal record shape interactions with the state and society? This article presents evidence from a nationwide field experiment in the United States, which shows that prospective applicants with criminal records are about 5 percentage points less likely to receive information from college admission offices. However, this bias does not extend to race: there is no difference in response rates to Black and White applicants. The authors further show that bias is all but absent in public bureaucracies, as discrimination against formerly incarcerated applicants is driven by private schools. Examining why bias is stronger for private colleges, the study demonstrates that the private–public difference persists even after accounting for college selectivity, socio-economic composition and school finances. Moving beyond the measurement of bias, an intervention designed to reduce discrimination is evaluated: whether an email from an advocate mitigates bias associated with a criminal record. No evidence is found that advocate endorsements decrease bureaucratic bias.

Keywords

bureaucratic discriminationincarcerationhigher educationexperimental methods
Type
Letter
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 1436 - 1446
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bastedo, M and Gumport, P (2003) Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in US public higher education. Higher Education 46(3), 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y and Hochberg, Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57(1), 289–300.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M and Mullainathan, S (2004) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review 94(4), 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, EP et al. (2012) The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: results from the H&R block fafsa experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3), 1205–1242.Google Scholar
Blomberg, TG et al. (2011) Incarceration, education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice 39(4), 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Hilbig JR, Hanno, H (2020), “Replication Data for: Locked Out of College: When Admissions Bureaucrats Do and Do Not Discriminate”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WAYA0D, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:VzVgpwcL2bT3vIJoSjjfuQ== [fileUNF]Google Scholar
Butler, D and Crabtree, C (2017) Moving beyond measurement: adapting audit studies to test bias-reducing interventions. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, R et al. (2017) Mobility report cards: the role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A (2018) Avoiding post-treatment bias in audit experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 6(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Costa, M (2017) How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deming, D and Dynarski, S (2010) College Aid. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 283–302.Google Scholar
Diaz-Serrano, L and Meix-Llop, E (2016) Do schools discriminate against homosexual parents? Evidence from a randomized correspondence experiment. Economics of Education Review 53, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN and Shafranek, RM (2020) The intersection of racial and partisan discrimination evidence from a correspondence study of four-year colleges. The Journal of Politics. Available from https://doi.org/10.1086/708776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynarski, S et al. (2018) Closing the gap: the effect of a targeted, tuition-free promise on college choices of high-achieving, low-income students. Working Paper 25349. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from https://www.nber.org/papers/w25349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, K and Glick, D (2017) Does race affect access to government services? An experiment exploring street-level bureaucrats and access to public housing. American Journal of Political Science 61(1), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Gaddis, M (2014) Discrimination in the credential society: an audit study of race and college selectivity in the labor market. Social Forces 93(4), 1451–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemker, J and Rink, A (2017) Multiple dimensions of bureaucratic discrimination: evidence from German welfare offices. American Journal of Political Science 61(4), 786–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjalmarsson, R, Holmlund, H and Lindquist, MJ (2015) The effect of education on criminal convictions and incarceration: causal evidence from microdata. The Economic Journal 125(587), 1290–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoxby, C and Turner, S (2015) What high-achieving low-income students know about college. American Economic Review 105(5), 514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoxby, CM (2009) The changing selectivity of American colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(4), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, S, King, G and Porro, G (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis 20(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jilke, S, Van Dooren, W and Rys, S (2018) Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets: does a public–private difference exist? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(3), 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell, HD (1936) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House.Google Scholar
Manza, J and Uggen, C (2006) Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Studies in Crime and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, KL, Akinola, M and Chugh, D (2015) What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(6), 1678–1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niskanen, W (1968) The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. The American Economic Review 58(2), 293–305.Google Scholar
Owens, M and Smith, A (2012) Deviants and democracy: punitive policy designs and the social rights of felons as citizens. American Politics Research 40(3), 531–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pager, D (2003) The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology 108(5), 937–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pager, D, Bonikowski, B and Western, B (2009) Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: a field experiment. American Sociological Review 74(5), 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1), 65–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, A et al. (2015) Boxed out: criminal history screening and college application attrition. Technical report. Brooklyn, NY: Center for Community Alternatives. Available from http://communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/BoxedOutullReport.pdf.Google Scholar
Stewart, R and Uggen, C (2020) Criminal records and college admissions: a modified experimental audit. Criminology 58(1):156–188. Available from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9125.12229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weaver, V and Lerman, A (2010) Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review 104(4), 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, A, Nathan, N and Faller, J (2015) What do I need to vote? Bureaucratic discretion and discrimination by local election officials. American Political Science Review 109(1), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Brown and Hilbig supplementary material

Brown and Hilbig supplementary material

Download Brown and Hilbig supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 299.1 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Brown and Hilbig Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WAYA0D
Link