The article quotes Heriot referencing Mismatch theory here: > By eliminating racial preferences, Heriot wrote last week, the 1996 amendment did away with the p

The article quotes Heriot referencing Mismatch theory here: > By eliminating racial preferences, Heriot wrote last week, the 1996 amendment did away with the pressure to admit minority students to competitive institutions their credentials hadn’t prepared them for. > I haven’t found good data, but it’s entirely plausible that the outreach works, the applicant pool has a larger (and less under-represented?) fraction of “URM” applicants, that a comparable number but smaller fraction are admitted, that a larger number and a larger fraction go to the lower-tier schools (Cal State and community colleges, for example), and that this is all a good thing. The paper is more or less about minority enrollment going up at non-UC schools, so UCLA's outreach is irrelevant here. > IMO, society does not benefit when a too-small proportion of qualified minority high school students apply to top-tier schools and a too-large fraction of the applicants get in. Why?