Affirmative action at work: a survey of graduates of the University of California, San Diego, Medical School.

Penn, Nolan E.; Russell, Percy J.; Simon, Harold J.; Jacob, Tamar; Stafford, Cynthia; Castro, Eneida Lazzarini de; Cisneros, José Miguel; Bush, Maybell G.

doi:10.2105/ajph.76.9.1144

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also consistent with two studies of doctors in California (Penn et al 1986;Davidson and Lewis 1997) that found weaker credentials on paper but little difference in observable performance between minorities/women admitted to medical school under Affirmative Action and their white male counterparts.47…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

What Does Affirmative Action Do?

Holzer¹,

Neumark²

2000

ILR Review

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors use data from a survey of employers to investigate how Affirmative Action in recruiting and hiring influences hiring practices, personnel policies, and ultimately employment outcomes. They find that Affirmative Action increases the number of recruitment and screening practices used by employers, raises employers' willingness to hire stigmatized applicants, increases the number of minority or female applicants as well as employees, and increases employers' tendencies to provide training and formally evaluate employees. When Affirmative Action is used in recruiting, it generally does not lead to lower credentials or performance of women and minorities hired. When it is also used in hiring, it yields minority employees whose credentials are somewhat weaker, though performance generally is not. Overall, the more intensive search, evaluation, and training that accompany Affirmative Action appear to offset any tendencies of the policy to lead to hiring of less-qualified or less-productive women and minorities.Affirmative Action remains a highly con-I. troversial issue in the United States. Recent court decisions (such as Adarand v. Pena, U.S. Supreme Court) and state-level referenda (such as Proposition 209 in California) are likely to influence the use of Affirmative Action in employment and education, and other actions by courts and legislatures are pending.' Yet the effects of

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

What Does Affirmative Action Do?

Holzer¹,

Neumark²

2000

ILR Review

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This interpretation is consistent with anecdotal evidence provided by Caplan (1997), who argues that Affirmative Action requirements are flexible enough that employers can adapt to them in ways that are not very costly (and are sometimes beneficial) over the longer term. It is also consistent with two studies of doctors in California (Penn et al, 1986;Davidson and Lewis, 1997) that found weaker credentials on paper but little difference in observable performance between minorities/females admitted to medical school under Affirmative Action and their white male counterparts. 43 56 44 For evidence on administrative and enforcement costs of EEO and Affirmative Action, see Conrad (1995).…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

What Does Affirmative Action Do?

Holzer¹,

Neumark²

2000

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use data from a survey of employers to investigate how Affirmative Action in recruiting and hiring influences hiring practices, personnel policies, and ultimately employment outcomes. Our results show that Affirmative Action increases the number of recruitment and screening practices used by employers, raises their willingness to hire stigmatized applicants, increases the number of minority and female applicants as well as employees, and increases employers' tendencies to provide training and to formally evaluate employees. When Affirmative Action is used in recruiting, it does not lead to lower credentials or performance of women and minorities hired. When it is also used in hiring, it yields female and minority employees whose credentials are somewhat weaker, though performance generally is not. Overall, then, the more intensive search, evaluation, and training that accompany Affirmative Action appear to offset any tendencies of the policy to lead to hiring of less-qualified or less-productive women and minorities. 1 Adarand v. Pena concerns minority set-asides, but these may have strong influences on minority employment (Bates, 1993). We expect future court decisions to address Affirmative Action in employment directly, as almost occurred in the recent case involving teachers in Piscataway, NJ. 2 Effects on educational as opposed to employment outcomes have been analyzed by Kane (1996) and Attiyeh and Attiyeh (1997). 3 An exception is a paper by Leonard (1985), which analyzes the targeting of compliance reviews across companies by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

show abstract

“…The results show quite uniformly that "special admit" and even more so minority physicians are more likely to treat patients who are minorities, poor (especially those paying through Medicaid), non-English speakers, and/or those located in rural/inner-city (or "physician shortage") areas (Keith, et al, 1987;Penn, et al, 1986;and Cantor, et al, 1996;Komaromy, et al, 1996). Thus, the special admissions programs seem to be generating social benefits to disadvantaged groups that go beyond the physician in question.…”

Section: Gains Experienced By Beneficiaries Of Preferential Admissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Affirmative Action

Holzer

Neumark

2000

Journal of Economic Literature

362

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic research provides extensive evidence regarding discrimination against women and minorities, and some evidence on the redistributive effects of affirmative action. However, it provides much less evidence on affirmative action's impact on efficiency or performance, perhaps the key economic issue in the debate over affirmative action. This review covers all of these issues, but focuses on the efficiency/performance question, drawing on economics and other disciplines. The evidence suggests to us that affirmative action can be implemented with relatively little efficiency loss. Most importantly, the empirical case against affirmative action on the grounds of efficiency is weak at best.

show abstract

Affirmative action at work: a survey of graduates of the University of California, San Diego, Medical School.

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

What Does Affirmative Action Do?

What Does Affirmative Action Do?

What Does Affirmative Action Do?

Assessing Affirmative Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About