Testing and diversity in postsecondary education: The case of California

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 10, Issue , 2002, Pages

  Koretz, Daniel ^a,d   Russell, Michael ^b   Shin, Chingwei David ^c   Horn, Cathy ^a   Shasby, Kelly ^b,e  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^d HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

^e HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042632568     PISSN: 10682341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v10n1.2002     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 553 P. 2d 1152 (Cal., 1976).
2. Denniston, L. (2000, July 28). Judge dismisses interpretation of high court's Bakke decision Anti- affirmative action ruling could be next test for justices' current view. The Baltimore Sun, p. 3A.
3. Feinberg, W. (1998). On higher ground: Education and the case for affirmative action. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Fletcher, M. A. (1997). UC may drop SAT entry requirement; California system fears sharp decline in Black, Latino enrollment. The Washington Post, September 20, p. A3.
5. Holley, D. and Spencer, D. (Winter, 1999). The Texas 10 percent plan. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.
6. Geiser, S. (1998). Redefining UC's Eligibility Pool to Include a Percentage of Students from Each High School: Summary of Simulation Results. Oakland, CA: University of California Office of the President.
7. Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger and the University of Michigan, 97-CV-75231-DT (2000).
8. Grutter v. Bollinger and the University of Michigan, Civil Action # 97-75928.
9. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932, 946 (5th Cir. 1996).
10. Kane, T. J. (1998a). Misconceptions in the debate over affirmative action in college admissions. In G. Orfield and E. Miller (Eds.). Chilling Admissions: The Affirmative Action Crisis and the Search for Alternatives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group, pp. 17-32.
11. Kane, T. J. (1998b). Racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions. In C. Jencks and M Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap, Brookings, pp. 431-456.
12. Karabel, J. (1998). No alternative: The effects of color-blind admissions in California. In G. Orfield and E. Miller (Eds.). Chilling Admissions: The Affirmative Action Crisis and the Search for Alternatives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group, pp. 33-50.
13. Siegel, R. (1998). The racial rhetorics of colorblind constitutionalism: The case of Hopwood v. Texas. In Post, R. and Rogin, M. (Eds.), Race and representation: Affirmative action. New York: Zone Books.
14. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1997). Alternative diversity criteria: Analyses and recommendations. Austin, Texas: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
15. Tracy v. Board of Regents. CV 497-45 (2000).
16. United States v. Fordice, No. 90-1205 (1992).
17. U.S. Department of Education (1994). What do student grades mean? Differences across schools. Research Report (January).
18. University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
19. Wightman, L. F. (1997). The threat to diversity in legal education: An empirical analysis of he consequences of abandoning race as a factor in law school admission decisions. New York University Law Review, 72(1), 1-53.