Less transparency is not the answer
How well-intended policies to hide information might hurt more than they help
Bringing back the SAT
I was doing college access work with high school students during the COVID-19 pandemic when colleges stopped requiring applicants to submit their scores from the SAT and/or ACT, and it seemed like many schools were never going to go back.
I thought this was great. I hated the SAT and ACT in high school. The reading comprehension and vocabulary sections never came naturally to me, and I resented the kids who paid for expensive tutors to teach them all the tricks. I, like many of the students I was working with, was the exact type of student who I felt was unfairly disadvantaged.
Then, MIT brought the test requirement back. Why?
The primary focus was on mathematics. All MIT students are required to take a lot of advanced calculus courses as part of their general education requirements, and having math scores allows the university to better predict student preparedness for and success through a very intense math curriculum. The worst outcome would be that MIT admits a bunch of students to make the school look more accessible that don’t end up performing well.
The more compelling case they made was that requiring standardized tests actually helps more lower-income, first-generation, and students of color than it seems like might be disadvantaged by the policy.
“At the same time, standardized tests also help us identify academically prepared, socioeconomically disadvantaged students who could not otherwise demonstrate readiness because they do not attend schools that offer advanced coursework, cannot afford expensive enrichment opportunities, cannot expect lengthy letters of recommendation from their overburdened teachers, or are otherwise hampered by educational inequalities”
- Stu Schmill, Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Not being able to spend thousands of dollars on SAT and ACT prep that the higher-income competition can is a very acute form of class inequity that’s easy to identify and understand, but the more insidious gaps exist on all the other parts of the application. They may not have a sticker price that’s as clear and visible, but they certainly come at a cost to students who don’t have the privilege of going to a great high school or having a life conducive to extracurricular activities.
Compared to most public high schools, mine was amazing, but if it wasn’t, I would’ve appreciated that MIT would reward me for excelling in my math classes and on the math sections of the SAT and ACT. I may not be able to manifest an entire school and home environment to be on par with an elite, college-prep private school education, but if I’m strong in math, I can still access all of those enrichment experiences that I never had in high school at a place like MIT.
Contrary to my first instincts, more disclosure might help people who are already grappling with other disadvantages, and it’s not just in higher education.
How “Banning the Box” can backfire
Jennifer Doleac is an economist that applies causal inference methods to study the criminal justice system, and she’s made a name for herself by using data to debunk myths about what policies and programs can best help people re-integrate back into society.
A popular policy that aims to help people who were formerly incarcerated is “Ban the Box” (BTB) where employers are forbidden from asking job applicants if they have been convicted of a crime.
To further incentivize employers to hire people who have been involved with the criminal justice system, the federal government has the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) to help fund wages for the first year of employment.
Clean Slate policies also seal criminal records from view by employers after a certain amount of time (as well as money and paperwork).
Similar to test optional, BTB, WOTC, and Clean Slate are the types of policies I would get behind.
Do BTB, WOTC, and Clean Slate actually work? According to Doleac, no.
In her book, The Science of Second Chances: A Revolution in Criminal Justice, she writes how BTB doesn’t stop employers from eventually running a background check and rescinding a job offer even if the applicant passed every other stage.
Because BTB laws prevent employers from knowing the status of their applicants, the WOTC ends up going to large enterprises that randomly end up hiring people with records due to their scale (and are not likely in need of more tax breaks), not as a result of WOTC funds being used in a concerted effort to target recruitment of people on the margins of the labor market.
That’s not the worst part.
When employers can’t discriminate by criminal records, they use their bias instead.
A young Black man with no record (and likely no college degree) is now judged under the presumption that he has a record with no way to separate himself from his peers. BTB made it harder for people who look like the groups of people who are overrepresented, by data or by stereotype, in the criminal justice system.
The same is true for drug tests, credit checks, and Clean Slate policies. When employers can’t know, they guess, and that leads to more discrimination for everyone, not less.
If these popular programs don’t actually work, what does?
Rehabilitation certificates (also called certificates of qualification for employment, certificates of recovery, and certificates of relief) are court-issued documents that offer a positive credential to counter the negative credential of a criminal record…
In an audit study to test whether rehabilitation certificates were effective at giving people with criminal records a second chance…the certificate wiped out the effect of the criminal record almost entirely and enabled job applicants to get their foot in the door.
- Doleac in The Science of Second Chances: A Revolution in Criminal Justice
In 2020, Checkr launched Candidate Stories, a platform by which applicants can share their own story in their own words, right alongside the information that appears in a traditional background check. By being able to speak for themselves and own their story, they can directly acknowledge their past missteps while discussing everything they’ve done since then.
More transparency, even in the absence of perfect performance or history, is often better for equity and access, not worse. Adding to information asymmetry, even with noble intentions, seems to do more harm than good.
As I continuing building on my Open Work thesis, I’ve been grappling with who might be hurt by this new system, and how we might mitigate those impacts. I don’t want to knowingly put people in the position I felt I was in during high school with standardized tests.
As I pursue the research required to address those concerns, MIT and Doleac have reinforced the importance of rooting our strategy in data and evidence, not just rhetoric that feeds the ego. More efficient markets can do as much, if not more, than well-intended policy in pursuit of meritocracy, equity, and fairness.
Imagine if, alongside a rehabilitation certificate and Candidate Story on Checkr, people also had data on their punctuality, consistency, and output from previous jobs, even ones they had while incarcerated?
With Open Work, we could live in a world where an employer would trust a stranger with a criminal history and a strong work record more than another stranger with no known criminal history trying to signal for reliability with a resume, cover letter, and interview.
How much human capital could transparent systems like Open Work help unlock? More importantly, how much human capital went, is, and will remain untapped if we don’t change the systems we currently have?
Please reach out if you’re interested in tackling these challenges with me.