Amanpour and Company

SINCE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S CONTROVERSIAL DECISION TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AMERICAN COLLEGES ARE NOW BEING PRESSURED TO STOP LEGACY ADMISSIONS.

IT'S A PROCESS THAT HISTORICALLY BENEFITS WHITE, WEALTHY BENEFITS.

RAJ CHETTY RECENTLY INVESTIGATED THIS PRACTICE, AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH HIGHLY SELECTIVE ADMISSIONS, AND HE IS JOINING HARI TO DISCUSS THOSE FINDINGS.

THIS CONVERSATION IS PART OF OUR ONGOING INITIATIVE ABOUT POVERTY, JOBS, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA CALLED "CHASING THE DREAM."

>> RAJ, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

YOU RUN OPPORTUNITY INSIGHTS, WHICH LOOKS AT THE DIFFERENT FORCES THAT ARE GIVING KIDS CHANCES OR NOT GIVING THEM CHANCES AT SUCCESS.

SO, YOU JUST CRANKED OUT A REPORT HERE ABOUT HIGHLY SELECTIVE COLLEGES, WHAT WE THINK OF IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS.

WHY DID YOU DO THAT, AND WHAT DID YOU FIND?

>> THANKS, HARI.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS LOOKING AT THE ROLE OF A SMALL NUMBER OF COLLEGES, HIGHLY SELECTIVE COLLEGES AND WHAT IMPACT THEY HAVE ON ECONOMIC MOBILITY IN THE U.S. NOW, TO START, YOU MIGHT SAY, THESE COLLEGES, THEY EDUCATE ONLY SOMETHING LIKE HALF A PERCENT OF AMERICANS, SO, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, THEY CAN'T BE VERY IMPORTANT IN DRIVING INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL MOBILITY IN THE U.S. AS A WHOLE.

HOWEVER, THEY DO PLAY THAT VERY OUTSIZED ROLE IN SHAPING AMERICA'S LEADERS.

SO, IF YOU LOOK AT MEASURES LIKE WHAT FRACTION OF LEADING POLITICIANS, WHAT FRACTION OF INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, LEADING ARTISTS, ET CETERA, BENT TO ONE OF THESE I I HAVE LEAGUE OR OTHER SIMILAR COLLEGES, THOSE NUMBERS ARE VERY LARGE.

OFTEN 30%, 50% OF FOLKS IN THESE POSITION OF INFLUENCE HAVE GONE TO ONE OF THESE COLLEGES.

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE REPORT HERE, AND IT SAYS THAT -- IF YOU GRADUATED FROM ONE OF THESE 12 COLLEGES, 15% OF THE TOP 0.1% OF THE UNITED STATES OF INCOME DISTRIBUTION, A QUARTER OF ALL U.S.

SENATORS, HALF OF ALL THE RHODES SCHOLARS AND THREE-QUARTERS OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES APPOINTED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS WENT TO ONE OF THESE 12 SCHOOLS.

YOU MEAN, THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY SMALL GROUP OF SCHOOLS THAT PRODUCES THIS GROUP OF LEADERSHIP.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THESE SCHOOLS IN PARTICULAR.

THE PEOPLE THEY'RE CHANNELING INTO THESE POSITIONS HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE ON SOCIETY IN GENERAL, AS CEOs OF COMPANIES, MAKING OUR LAWS, INVENTING NEW THINGS AND SO ON.

SO, MOTIVATED BY THAT, WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON IS ASKING, WHO IS GETTING INTO THESE COLLEGES?

BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO MATTER IN TERMS OF WHO MIGHT BE IN THESE POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE.

WHO IS GETTING IN, AND HOW MIGHT WE MAKE COLLEGES MORE EQUITABLE?

SUPPOSE, HARI, YOU TAKE A SET OF KIDS THAT HAVE THE SAME S.A.T.

SCORES.

AND YOU ASK, SUPPOSE YOU'RE A KID FROM A HIGH INCOME FAMILY, SAY, THE TOP 1% OF THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION, AND I'M A KID FROM A MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY, AND WE BOTH HAVE THE SAME S.A.T.

SCORES, SAY WE BOTH GOT A 1500 ON THE S.A.T., WHICH PUTS US AT IN THE 99th PERCENTILE.

WHAT ARE THE OLDS THAT YOU GO TO ONE OF THESE COLLEGES AND THAT I GO?

IT TURNS OUT, YOU ARE 2 1/2 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO GO TO AN IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE, RELATIVE TO ME, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE SAME EXACT S.A.T.

SCORES, IF YOU COME FROM A FAMILY IN THE TOP 1%.

SO, THESE COLLEGES TEND TO ENROLL A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF KIDS FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES.

>> SO, WHAT ABOUT IF THESE HIGH INCOME STUDENTS WERE TO APPLY TO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS?

HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY MIGHT NOT GET IN THERE?

BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU POINT OUT IS THE INFLUENCE OF LEGACY ADMISSIONS, MEANING, IF MY DAD WENT THERE OR I HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT WENT THERE, HOW MUCH OF A FACTOR IS THAT?

>> IF YOUR PARENTS WENT TO ONE OF THESE COLLEGES, YOU TYPICALLY HAVE A QUITE SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF YOUR ODDS OF GETTING IN.

WE ESTIMATE YOU ARE ABOUT FIVE TIMES AS LIKE LITTLE TO GET IN TO ONE OF THESE COLLEGES AS A CANDIDATE WITH COMPARABLE CREDENTIALS, WHOSE PARENTS DID NOT HAPPEN TO GO TO THAT COLLEGE.

NOW, WHY DOES THAT AMPLIFY THE HIGH INCOME ADMISSIONS ADVANTAGE?

FOLKS THAT WENT TO PLACES LIKE HARVARD AND YALE AND PRINCETON HAVE HIGH INCOMES, SO NATURALLY, THE KIDS OF THOSE PARENTS ARE COMING FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES ON AVERAGE, AND THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO THE HIGH INCOME ADMISSIONS ADVANTAGE THAT WE STARTED OUT TALKING ABOUT.

SO, THAT'S ONE IMPORTANT FACTOR.

THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS ARE WHAT WE CALL NON-ACADEMIC RATINGS.

SO, THESE SCHOOLS PRACTICE, AS YOU MIGHT KNOW, WHOLISTIC ADMISSIONS.

THEY DON'T JUST LOOK AT YOUR TEST SCORES, THEY LOOK AT OTHER THINGS.

WHAT KIND OF ACTIVITIES WERE INVOLVED IN?

WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL PORTFOLIO THAT YOU LOOK LIKE FROM YOUR HIGH SCHOOL AND SO ON?

AND WHAT WE FIND IS THAT KIDS FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES, THE TOP 1% IN PARTICULAR, ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO GET HIGH NONACADEMIC RATINGS FROM ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES, AND THAT'S COMING ENTIRELY FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ATTEND CERTAIN HIGH SCHOOLS, TYPICALLY ELITE PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS, VERY EXPENSIVE SCHOOLS, WHICH TEND TO PRODUCE VERY HIGH NONACADEMIC RATINGS FOR THEIR STUDENTS, RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

SO, WHY MIGHT THAT BE?

YOU KNOW, YOU GET INVOLVED IN MORE ACTIVITIES, YOU HAVE GREATER SUPPORT FROM YOUR TEACHERS AND GUIDANCE SCONCE LOR COUNSELORS IF YOU GO TO A SMALL SCHOOL, WHERE THEY ARE HELPING YOU BUILD YOUR PROFILE.

IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, ONE GUIDANCE KONS LAR FOR 600 KIDS ON AVERAGE, THAT'S JUST NOT AS FEASIBLE.

SO, THAT CREATES ANOTHER BIG ADVANTAGE FOR KIDS FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES.

AND THEN THE THIRD FACTOR IS ATHLETIC RECRUITMENT.

SO, YOU MIGHT HAVE THE INTUITION THAT ATHLETES COME ACROSS THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

10% OF THE STUDENTS ATTENDING ARE RECRUITED ATHLETES, AND THEY COME FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES, ACTUALLY.

>> WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IN THE WAKE OF AN IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULING THAT SAID THAT USING RACE AS ONE OF THE DATA POINTS TO CONSIDER A STUDENT'S ADMISSION INTO A COLLEGE IS BASICALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

SO, WHAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT HERE IS INTERESTING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT RACE, BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY FACTORS THAT TIP THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF HIGH INCOME STUDENTS, IN A WAY THAT, WELL, THE REST OF US DO NOT EVEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE ON, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST NOT WEALTHY, WE DIDN'T GO TO THOSE PERFECT SCHOOLS THAT CREATED THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US, AND WE NIGHT NOT HAVE HAD PARENTS THAT ALREADY WENT TO THESE SCHOOLS.

>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, HARI.

AND SO, FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, FOCUSED ON RACE, WHERE AS WE'RE FOCUSED ON CLASS HERE, THEY ARE RELATED BUT DIFFERENT.

A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT HAS ENSUED HAS FOCUSED ONLY POSSIBLE CLASS-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES.

SO, IF WE CAN'T LOOK DIRECTLY AT RACE, MAYBE WE CAN GIVE A HAND TO KIDS FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES, MAYBE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.

WHAT WE'RE FINDING HERE IS, BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT, IN A SENSE, PUTTING A THUMB ON THE SCALE FOR KIDS FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES, THE FIRST THING WE CAN DO IS JUST TAKE THE THUMB OFF THE SCALE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IN FAVOR OF KIDS FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES.

JUST MAKE IT MORE NEUTRAL BY INCOME BEFORE THINKING ABOUT GIVING AN ADVANTAGE, EVEN, TO KIDS FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES.

THAT ITSELF WOULD HAVE QUITE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON DIVERSITY AT THESE COLLEGES THAT ARE SHAPING SOCIETY.

>> YOU KNOW, JUST RECENTLY, WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY BECAME THE FIRST ONE TO COME OUT AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE LEGACY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE FACT THAT YOUR PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS WENT TO THIS COLLEGE AS ONE OF THOSE DECISION CRITERIA.

DO YOU THINK THAT WILL CHANGE THINGS?

>> I THINK IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE.

I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING NOW ABOUT WHETHER THESE KINDS OF ADMISSIONS PRACTICES MAKE SENSE.

PROMPTED PARTLY BY THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.

I THINK LOTS OF COLLEGES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REVISIT HOW THEY DO ADMISSIONS.

AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THIS NEW STUDY IS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, A BROAD LOOK AT WHETHER WHAT WE'RE DOING MAKES SENSE, AND ONE THING I'D EMPHASIZE IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT LEGACY, NONACADEMIC RATINGS AND ATHLETICS, SO FORTH, YOU MIGHT MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT SOME WEIGHT ON THOSE FACTORS BECAUSE THOSE KIDS MAYBE ARE GENUINELY MORE QUALIFIED, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES, THEY'RE GOING TO REACH THOSE POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP THAT WE STARTED OUT TALKING ABOUT.

BUT ACTUALLY, WITH THESE DATA, WE'RE ABLE TO FOLLOW HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KIDS OVER TIME, AND LOOK AT HOW THEY ENDED UP DOING TEN YEARS AFTER COLLEGE.

AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE KIDS WHO ARE GETTING THESE ADMISSIONS ADVANTAGES, THE LEGACY STUDENTS, THE ONES WITH THE HIGH NONACADEMIC RATINGS, HAVE ANY BETTER OUTCOMES.

IN FACT, THEY HAVE SOMEWHAT WORSE OUTCOMES THAN THE KIDS WHO DON'T HAVE THOSE ADVANTAGES, WHICH, IN MY VIEW, MAKINGS IT QUITE A BIT HARDER TO JUSTIFY WHY WE'D HAVE THOSE PREFERENCES.

>> WHERE IS THE DATA?

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT?

>> RIGHT, SO, IN OUR TEAM, HARI, WE STUDY ISSUES OF ECONOMIC MOBILITY AND OUR APPROACH IS A BIG DATA APPROACH.

SO, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, LINKING DATA FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES.

FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX RECORDS, COVERING STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS, TO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DATA ON COLLEGE ATTENDANCE TO INTERNAL DATA FROM MANY COLLEGES ACROSS AMERICA ON WHO APPLIED, WHO GOT IN, WHO ENDED UP COMING.

SO, INTERNAL ADMISSIONS RECORDS.

ALL OF THAT DATA IS LINKED AND THEN ANALYZED.

SO, THAT'S WHAT ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE'S PARENTAL INCOME BACKGROUNDS, FOLLOW THEIR TRAJECTORIES OVER TIME, LOOK IN DETAIL AT HOW ADMISSIONS OFFICE RATINGS ARE AFFECTS OUTCOMES.

THAT'S THE POWER OF BIG DATA, BEING ABLE TO STUDY THESE QUESTIONS.

>> WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT SURPRISED YOU WHEN YOU SAW THIS?

>> YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK TWO THINGS SURPRISED US.

SO, FIRST, IF YOU WERE ACTUALLY TO LOOK AT PRIOR WORK ON THESE ISSUES, IT SUGGESTS THAT GOING TO ONE OF THESE COLLEGES MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY MATTER SO MUCH BASED ON THIS LOGIC THAT -- THINK ABOUT THE VERY SELECTIVE SET OF KIDS WHO ARE GETTING INTO A PLACE LIKE HARVARD OR YALE AT THIS POINT, HAVE ADMISSIONS RATES OF LESS THAN 5%, YOU ARE PICKING A VERY SMALL SET OF VERY TALENTED KIDS WHO PRESUMABLY COULD HAVE DONE WELL, EVEN HAD THEY NOT GONE TO THESE COLLEGES.

THERE'S A BIG DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER WE SEE GREAT OUTCOMES FROM THESE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING THAT'S ADDING VALUE, OR IT'S JUST THAT THEY'RE SELECTING A SET OF KIDS THAT WOULD HAVE DONE WELL ANYWAY, RIGHT?

AND IF ANYTHING, THERE WAS SOME PRIOR WORK THAT'S BEEN PICKED UP IN POPULAR DISCUSSIONS WHICH SUGGESTED THAT MAYBE IT DOESN'T MATTER SO MUCH, MAYBE IT'S MORE ABOUT WHO IS GETTING IN AS OPPOSED TO THE AFFECTS OF THESE COLLEGES.

WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THESE NEW DATA IS USING AN APPROACH OF COMPARES KIDS WHO BARELY GET IN OFF THE WAIT LIST, VERSUS KIDS WHO DON'T, SO, LOOK AT A SET OF WAIT LISTED APPLICANTS, THEY'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE MARGIN OF GETTING IN, BUT IT TURNS OUT BY CHANCE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE HAPPENS TO PLACE THE RIGHT MUSICAL INSTRUMENT THAT'S NEEDED TO FILL A COLLEGE ORCHESTRA IN A GIVEN YEAR, AND THEY GET IN, AND SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T PLAY THAT INSTRUMENT, YOU ENDED UP NOT GETTING IN.

SO, THIS GIVES US KIND OF AN EXPERIMENT, WHERE WE CAN NOW COMPARE OUR OUTCOMES, LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS OVER TIME, AND WE SEE THAT IF YOU GOT LUCKY AND GOT IN, YOU HAVE TREMENDOUSLY BETTER OUTCOMES, IN PARTICULAR, TREMENDOUSLY BETTER CHANCES OF REACHING THE TOP OF SOCIETY DEFINED IN VARIOUS WAYS, HAVING EARNINGS IN THE TOP 1%, GOING TO A TOP GRADUATE SCHOOL, WORKING AT A VERY PRESTIGIOUS FIRM THAT IS OFTEN A PATHWAY TO POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE LIKE WE STARTED OUT TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO, I THINK THAT, THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, DOUBLING YOUR OLDS OF GETTING INTO THESE POSITIONS REALLY SURPRISED US.

>> SO, WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE TOP 12 SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO LOOK AT YOUR REPORT AND SAY, WELL, THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING WHAT WE THOUGHT, WHICH IS THAT WE PRODUCE PHENOMENAL OUTCOMES, AND OUR ALUMNI GO ONTO GREAT THINGS.

BUT YOU KNOW, HARVARD'S GOING TO SAY, LEGACIES ARE JUST ONE PART OF THIS AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU PLAY THE TUBA OR NOT IS JUST ONE PART OF THIS, WE LOOK AT THE WHOLISTIC STUDENT, SO, WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION ON WHAT COULD IMPROVE, I GUESS, SOCIETY AND GIVE PEOPLE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES?

HOW SHOULD THEY THINK ABOUT THEIR ADMISSIONS POLICIES?

>> WE CONSIDER TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPROACHES.

ONE IS TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE THREE FACTORS THAT EXPLAIN THE HIGH INCOME ADMISSIONS ADVANTAGE.

SO, TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, ENDING LEGACY ADMISSIONS, PUTTING LESS WEIGHT ON THESE NONACADEMIC FACTORS, THAT BASICALLY SEEM TO FAVOR HIGH INCOME STUDENTS BUT DON'T PREDICT FUTURE SUCCESS, SAND AND RECRUIT ATHLETES DIFFERENTLY.

IF YOU LOOK AT STATE FLAGSHIP PUBLIC COLLEGES, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FOR EXAMPLE, HARI, THERE, YOU FIND A VERY DIFFERENT PATTERN, WHERE THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN ADMISSIONS RATES CONDITIONAL ON S.A.T.

SCORES BY PARENTAL INCOME.

AND WHAT ARE THOSE COLLEGES DOING DIFFERENTLY?

THEY DON'T HAVE LEGACY ON THE NONACADEMIC FACTORS, AND THEY RECRUIT ATHLETES ACROSS THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION.

THEY DON'T HAVE SPORTS TEAMS THAT TILT TOWARDS VERY HIGH INCOME FAMILIES.

IF WE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, WE ESTIMATE THAT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME STUDENTS AT THESE COLLEGES AT 10%.

JUST TO PUT THAT NUMBER IN CONTEXT, IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT DISCUSSIONS IN OTHER DOMAINS, OTHER STUDIES HAVE MAES ITTED THAT ENDING RACE-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, IF IT DIDN'T RESULT IN ANY OTHER CHANGES IN ADMISSIONS PRACTICES AT THESE COLLEGES, WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS BY ABOUT 10% ON THESE COLLEGES.

SO, THAT'S JUST TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF MAGNITUDES, THE ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE, HERE FOCUSED ON THE CLASS DIMENSION, THERE FOCUSED ON THE RACE DIMENSION.

LET ME MAKE ONE FINAL POINT HERE, SO, SOMETIMES COLLEGES WILL SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, SITTING THERE IN YOUR OFFICE, LIKE, THEORETICALLY, THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SPORTS TEAM, WE CARE ABOUT ALUMNI RELATIONS.

I CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A COMPLICATED DECISION, THERE ARE MANY FACTORS GOING INTO PLAY.

ANOTHER WAY YOU CAN LOOK AT IT IS, WHAT IF WE PROVIDED A LITTLE BIT OF SUPPORT IN THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS, A LITTLE BIT OF A PREFERENCE FOR THE KID WHO GOT A 1500 ON THE S.A.T.

COMING FROM A LOW INCOME FAMILY.

JUST LIKE WE GIVE A PREFERENCE FOR LEGACY STUDENTS OR KIDS FROM HIGH INCOME FAMILIES, EFFECTIVELY, WHAT IF WE GIVE A PREFERENCE FOR THOSE KINDS OF KIDS?

HIGH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT KIDS FROM LOW INCOME FAMILIES.

WE PROVIDED SOME SUPPORT THERE, THAT COULD ALSO HAVE A VERY SIMILAR, I THINK, POSITIVE EFFECT IN THE LONG RUN.

>> IF YOU HAD A MAGIC WAND AND YOU COULD TELL THE PRESIDENT OF THESE 12 COLLEGES ONE THING THAT THEY CAN DO, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THAT THEY OUGHT TO DO, AND WHY IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST?

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE SYSTEM THAT THEY'RE IN, WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT, GIVES THEM THE PRESTIGE OF BEING SUPER EXCLUSIVE, WHETHER THAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, AND IT ALSO SAYS, OUR ALUMNI GO ON TO DO GREAT THINGS.

SO, HOW DO YOU KIND OF THINK OF THAT ECONOMICALLY AND SAY TO THIS PRESIDENT, HERE'S A REASON WHY IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU TO DO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT TO CHANGE YOUR ADMISSIONS POLICIES?

>> YEAH, SO, HARI, I'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH MANY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS AND LEADERS OF COLLEGES IN THE CONTEXT OF DOING THIS WORK, AND THE FIRST THING I WOULD NOTE IS, I THINK MANY PEOPLE HAVE A SINCERE INTENTION OF TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THESE KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS.

THEY RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE A SOCIAL PURPOSE.

I THINK THAT'S MANIFESTED IN THE FACT THAT MANY COLLEGES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT RACIAL DIVERSITY, RIGHT?

SO, THERE IS AN INTEREST IN DIVERSITY, I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT DIMENSION OF DIVERSITY THAT PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN.

NOW, I WOULD SAY, CONCRETELY, THERE ARE THINGS ONE CAN DO IN ADMISSIONS THAT WILL GENUINELY MAKE A DIFFERENCE, WE SEE THAT VERY CLEARLY IN THE DATA NOW.

DO THEY COME AT A COST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HARDER TO SAY.

ARE THEY GOING TO AFFECT DONATIONS AND FUND-RAISING AND OTHER ASPECTS OF CAMPUS LIFE THAT UNIVERSITIES HAVE TO CONSIDER?

WE DON'T DIRECTLY SPEAK TO THAT IN THIS STUDY.

WHAT I WILL NOTE, THOEP, IT'S NOT TOTALLY OBVIOUS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIG COST THERE.

YOU COULD IMAGINE, FOR INSTANCE, A SCENARIO WHERE CHILD FROM A LOWER INCOME FAMILY WHO GETS INTO ONE OF THESE COLLEGES AND GOES ON TO BECOME EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL, MAY ACTUALLY FEEL MORE COMPELLED TO DONATE BACK AND SUPPORT THE INSTITUTION, BECAUSE THEY GENUINELY FEEL THAT IT MADE A DIFFERENCE, AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE FROM A HIGH INCOME FAMILY WHO KIND OF FELT LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE IT ANYWAY, THIS WAS KIND OF A -- A PLACE TO STOP, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ALONG THAT PATHWAY.

SO, I THINK IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THEY'RE TRADEOFFS, AND WE NEED TO EXPLORE THESE ISSUES MORE DIRECTLY.

>> RAJ CHETTY, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU, HARI.