中文摘要
随着平权行动在政治上日益缺乏可行性，许多大学实施了顶尖百分比政策和整体性审查等种族中立替代方案，以增加弱势学生的入学人数。我利用加州大学的行政数据，研究这些政策对申请、录取和入学的影响。加州大学的平权行动和顶尖百分比政策分别使代表性不足的少数族裔（URM）入学人数增加了20%以上和不到4%。整体性审查使实施该政策的校区的URM入学人数增加了约7%。顶尖百分比政策和整体性审查对较低收入学生入学人数的影响微乎其微，而基于种族的平权行动则使极低收入学生的入学人数略有增加。这些发现表明，与平权行动本身相比，最常见的种族中立替代方案对黑人和西班牙裔入学人数的促进作用要小得多；同时，这些发现还揭示，上述政策均未对大学的社会经济构成产生实质性影响。
Abstract
As affirmative action loses political feasibility, many universities have implemented race-neutral alternatives like top percent policies and holistic review to increase enrollment among disadvantaged students. I study these policies’ application, admission, and enrollment effects using University of California administrative data. UC’s affirmative action and top percent policies increased underrepresented minority (URM) enrollment by over 20 percent and less than 4 percent, respectively. Holistic review increases implementing campuses’ URM enrollment by about 7 percent. Top percent policies and holistic review have negligible effects on lower-income enrollment, while race-based affirmative action modestly increased enrollment among very low-income students. These findings highlight that the most common race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action increase Black and Hispanic enrollment far less than affirmative action itself and reveal that none of these policies substantially affect universities’ socioeconomic composition.