<p>tomslawsky, if you’re talking about that study done by CEO, U-M had to redact tons of data in the dataset they gave them (for privacy reasons), so their conclusions are really problematic. CEO was not working with data anywhere near as complete or representative as they may imply they are. </p>
<p>I’d hardly call a 3.4 equivalent to a “free ride into Michigan.”</p>
<p>Also, those comparisons before and after January 07 are also not comparable. U-M pushed very hard to make as many admits as possible before the system changed. So they really front-loaded a lot of admits-and from ALL groups, not just URMs (although URMs were a great group for the U to focus efforts on, because they typically didn’t apply as early as their peers). They really pushed for people to apply early, get their various application pieced in early, and be admitted before the New Year. It was an atypical year in terms of admit over time patterns. It’s true that URM admissions will likely drop under prop 2, but using last year is not a good way to measure that.</p>