<p>I agree with collegialmom. At this point in the evolving racial situation, one of the reasons I’m against affirmative action is that I think it hurts URMs more than it helps them. Admitting them to colleges where their academic credentials are generally less than their classmates’ is a good way to ensure that they will have trouble competing with their classmates. I heard this line on the radio this week from a lawyer who was involved in the California affirmative action proposal a few years back: “It’s better to have a DEGREE from UC-Riverside than a certificate of attendance from UC-Berkeley.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The Supreme Court said that a state may use affirmative action as part of a holistic admissions procedure if it CHOOSES to. On Tuesday, Michigan chose not to do so in the future. That’s perfectly kosher. There will inevitably be a big fight between the public universities and other branches of state government, but unless the Michigan Supreme Court strikes the new law down under the Michigan constitution, the universities will ultimately have to follow the law.</p>
<p>Instead of spending millions of taxpayer dollars fighting the ballot initiative, U-Michigan should instead work with communities to strengthen education. Their black graduation rate is generally about 65% so they should work on that first, instead of paying more lawyers. The voters of Michigan have spoken and it IS their state!</p>
<p>Does anyone know how many of the UCLA URM admits are scholarship athletes?
Many URM’s are reluctant to go to a school where their percentages are miniscule. If most of the URM’s at UCLA are scholarship athletes, I think it could make it even more difficult to recruity highly qualified non athlete URM’s. These students will probably have numerous options and may want to attend a school where there are more minority students and more of a sense of community among the minority students.</p>
<p>“These students will probably have numerous options and may want to attend a school where there are more minority students and more of a sense of community among the minority students.”</p>
<p>That may be true, but also that leads to self-segregation, which defeats one of the purposes of affirmative action, which is that besides increasing opportunities, to encourage a more diverse atmosphere for all ethnic groups.</p>
<p>One of the problems with this recurrent debate is the rampant oversimplification of the the concept of “more qualified.” We all know that colleges start their appraisal of applicants with grades and test scores. After than, EC’s, evidence of “character” as shown by overcoming obstacles, etc. But the first cut is basically grades and test scores. And we know both of those criteria are far from being perfectly objective, and far from being perfectly “fair”. My kids tend to skew towards test scores rather than grades, as we live in one of the most academically competitive public school districts in the state. There are classes my kids take where literally no student gets an A. This hurts them in terms if UC admissions, which are heavily weighted towards GPA. </p>
<p>So is my kid with a 3.9 GPA and a 2100+ SAT score more or less “qualified” than some kid from an inner city school where grade competition is less, who got a 3.9 GPA and an 1800 SAT? I honestly don’t know. And I think it’s foolish to strike a sanctimonious pose about “unfairness” if that kid gets admitted to UCLA and mine doesn’t (as he didn’t) People still whine pitiously about their dark suspicions that the UC’s are somehow using suspicious factors “under the table” to admit “unqualified” URM’s while excluding “deserving” whites and asians. </p>
<p>Personally, while it doesn’t favor my family, I think that a flexible approach to admissions, including a goal of having a racially and economically mixed student body at every state college, is an advantage for all of the students. I also think that many of the arguments of the anti-AA folks appeal to the worst instincts of people, howevr prettily they are packaged.</p>
<p>The only way to really judge is to look at the results, such as graduation rates and student happiness, transfer rates, etc. It is far easier to transfer up than down. </p>
<p>“People still whine pitiously about their dark suspicions that the UC’s are somehow using suspicious factors “under the table” to admit “unqualified” URM’s while excluding “deserving” whites and asians”</p>
<p>The original AA statistics used in the last U-M lawsuit did show very skewed admissions per URMs. It is bound to breed resentment. So schools that use variable admissions criteria have to expect the backlash. It’s not going to go away. That is what makes for ballot initiatives. And the voting results show that Michigan voters don’t agree with these kinds of admissions. I don’t know that they are whining, just expressing their opinions. They do pay taxes that support the schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you would find broad support of this very sensible opinion, even among those who support affirmative action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess people would quibble over when “skewed” becomes “very skewed” It probably depends on whether you’re looking at the analysis from Raudenbush or Chavez.</p>
<p>I don’t know if variable admissions criteria inevitably leads to backlash. The public seems very tolerant of the variable admissions criteria used for US vs. international students, for example, or for applicants to engineering versus those to art. In Michigan, many seem grateful that variable standards are applied to residents and nonresidents, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find widespread support for reducing the nonresident percentage, which would make it even more variable.</p>
<p>In short, people support some variable criteria. It all comes down to whether the reason seems sensible or compelling to them.</p>
<p>hoedown: But yet admissions people don’t adhere to this, in their quest to be politically correct. The 65% black graduation rate at U-Michigan is inexcusable.</p>
<p>And by the way, I am a huge U-Michigan supporter. It is a great school, but the admissions office just can’t seem to get into sync with the taxpayers and try to get the students more prepared prior to college. And now I believe they have committed themselves to another giant lawsuit. Time for them to give it up and try another approach to the problem of URMs in Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have identified a graduation rate gap between white and black students that is very troubling. However, can we attribute that gap to affirmative action?</p>
<p>The black graduation rate nationwide, even at (or, perhaps, particularly at) schools which do not practice AA is very problematic.</p>
<p>Here in Michigan, the young woman who spearheaded the ban on AA (Jennifer Gratz) applied for admission to UMich in 1995. Graduating from a suburban Detroit high school, she had a 3.8 GPA and an ACT score of 25. The average ACT score for incoming UMich freshmen is closer to 30. Despite having a below average ACT score, she was sent a form asking if she wanted to be added to a wait-list for admission. According to court records, she never sent that form back to the university. All wait-listed students in 1995 were later admitted to UMich. Gratz ended up attending the UMich-Dearborn campus. She never tried to transfer to the main campus in Ann Arbor.</p>
<p>The ironies in all of this: Had she bothered to send back the wait-list form sent to her by the university, she would have been admitted along with all the other wait-listed students (some 100+) that year. And with the passage of the ban on AA in Michigan, her low ACT score would most likely guarantee that she would not be admitted. In 1995, with AA in play, Gratz was given the benefit of a doubt (an in-state woman student with a decent GPA and a below average ACT score). In 2006 and beyond, shes an also-ran. </p>
<p>Life is funny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only to the extent that somebody in the executive branch of the Michigan state goverment is interested in enforcing the law.</p>
<p>Knowing absolutely nothing about Michigan politics, I have no idea how that will play out.</p>
<p>BTW, the statute passed Tuesday is going to cause far bigger problems for the State of Michigan than just the University. The language is so broad that it provides a vehicle to challenge just about anything. For example, if someone wanted to challenge remedial education programs in black neighborhoods, the statute gives you a weapon.</p>
<p>The Mich case was never about Jennifer Gratz. She was a hand-selected applicant identified through advertizing for the “perfect” plaintiff. She was selected for specific legal reasons intended to perfectly tailor the challenge. They needed a white applicant with the same “stats” as African-American students who had been admitted and who also had faced socio-economic obstacles.</p>
<p>I would assume that she was well compensated by the Washington legal interest lobby that selected her as the plaintiff and funded the Supreme Court challenge.</p>
<p>This is the same legal strategy pioneered by Thurgood Marshall. Identify the next incremental challenge in the courts and then go find a plaintiff that fits.</p>
<p>The UMich ruling has subsequently been used by Linda Chavez’ Center for Equal Opportunity to pursue legal threats against scholarships and enrichment programs for minority students. For example, her organization threatened legal action against Swarthmore/Haverford/Bryn Mawr to change the summer academic orientation program for incoming minority students that has been in place for 25 years. Virtually every college scholarship fund earmarked for African American students has been rewritten, even scholarships offered by the College Board.</p>
<p>So let’s not kid ourselves about CEO’s motivations. They talk about equity, but the real result of their actions is reducing dollars and opportunities for minorities in higher education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve often marvelled at this aspect to the story, but I know the CEO probably had a number of potential plaintiffs–if not her, than another. We would have been in court.</p>
<p>It is a bit odd to me that they decided she was the best case among their options. I don’t know whether they didn’t know the details of her story, or whether they thought the media wouldn’t learn about or report the details of her college search and admissions process. (They largely didn’t). Given the whole story, I don’t find the emotional side of Gratz’ saga very credible, but I think many of her suporters did.</p>
<p>This was the system at the time at U-M:</p>
<p>"For example, members of “underrepresented” racial and ethnic minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans – receive 20 points. Admissions staff can also award 20 points to scholarship athletes and socio-economically disadvantaged applicants. The provost can award another 20 points at his discretion.</p>
<p>Applicants can receive a range of points based on grades, test scores, essay, the state or country the applicant resides in, the quality of the high school and the difficulty of the curriculum. Children of alumni can earn four points and those who demonstrate significant personal achievement or leadership can earn up to five points.</p>
<p>In a system that awards up to 150 points, a student’s academic record is the most important factor. An applicant can receive up to 110 points for grades, test scores and other academic matters.</p>
<p>Admissions staff say there is no target number that determines whether an applicant will be admitted, but that the points system serves as a guide for the university’s rolling admissions policy.</p>
<p>Gratz’s lawyers say they have proved she would have been admitted had she been a minority, a fact the university does not dispute. In fact, in February 2001, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan ruled for Gratz, finding that the university was not justified “in using race as a factor in admissions to remedy the present effects of past discrimination.”</p>
<p>Jennifer Gratz came from a blue-collar area of Detroit called Southgate. It is very working class. I think her father was a police officer. She received no points for “1st generation college” which now is a criteria in vogue. Would she have succeeded at U-M? Chances seem very high, as she was 12th in her class at Southgate High, and active in ECs. </p>
<p>I don’t know why evening the playing field in admissions is so distasteful to so many people. Let students go where they will succeed and be academicaly challenged and then they will have a better chance in life. </p>
<p>Again, admitting underqualified students to U-M only to have them drop out is not to anyone’s advantage, most of all the students.</p>
<p>I actually don’t think that remedial education in elementary school will be challenged because there are other laws governing assistance for kids with special needs and these really aren’t challenged as much, except in rare circumstances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it’s not clear that students are dropping out on account of their being admitted via affirmative action. At UCB we see the same general graduation rate–and for classes admitted after Prop 209 passed.</p>
<p>Lest you think that Jennifer Gratz was from a wealthy suburb of Detroit, here are facts about Southgate, Michigan. Sounds like she was from an area of Michigan that is underrepresented in Michigan colleges:</p>
<p>"For population 25 years and over in Southgate</p>
<pre><code>* High school or higher: 80.5%
- Bachelor’s degree or higher: 12.7%
- Graduate or professional degree: 3.6%
- Unemployed: 4.9%
</code></pre>
<p>The median income for a household in the city was $46,927, and the median income for a family was $56,710. Males had a median income of $45,829 versus $28,549 for females. The per capita income for the city was $23,219. About 2.6% of families and 4.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.4% of those under age 18 and 8.5% of those age 65 or over."</p>
<p>So who does speak for this working class population?</p>
<p>There is generally at least a 20 point discrepancy between white and black graduation rates at U-Michigan. Although I understand that some URM students drop out to go support their families, they are the same ones eligible for need-based scholarship assistance. The only way to explain the difference is that it is not a good fit academically. If they were breezing through academically, they would be far more likely to stay and graduate.</p>
<p>I have known people involved with the tutoring of struggling URMs at various schools, including U-M. They report that the gap in basic skills such as reading and writing between those from less challenging HS and those with good preparation is reportedly appalling; to the point of near illiteracy. This is not all URMs by any means, but those that probably weren’t properly screened for admission with criteria that predicts success.</p>
<p>I have nothing personally against giving a leg up to those who need it, but only if they will thrive at the school.</p>
<p>Black students drop out, stop out, and transfer for a variety of reasons and do so at a higher rate than their white peers. They do so on many campuses. They do so on campuses that practice no affimative action. It’s a complex problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not agree that this is the only way to explain the difference. First of all (race aside) even with financial aid, cost is often a factor in student retention and graduation. Recall that while U-M does meet full need of residents, it gaps nonresidents–and even with MPact (which in any event is too new to influence grad rates) needy students of any residency have load burdens. </p>
<p>Students my also transfer for a variety of non-financial reasons–to be closer to home, to find a better culture/climate fit, etc. Even those who leave for academic reasons may have little to do with inability to succeed. For example, students may desire a different major than that available at their current college. This is true for both races, not just for whites.</p>
<p>Admittedly, this does not explain the difference between black and white graduation rates–I suppose one could speculate on why some reasons may impact some races more than others. But I do not believe that affirmative action explains the difference either. Is it a factor? It likely is. Does it explain it fully? I don’t see how it could. It is a national phenomenon, and it persists even on campuses which do not use affirmative action. The gap between black and white graduation rates at UCB is only slightly smaller. At MSU the gap is virtually the same as UM–although I don’t in fact know if MSU uses AA or not. Can anyone enlighten me on that?</p>
<p>I am not that well versed in the statistics, so forgive me if I’m off-base. However, I believe that there is a HUGE gap in graduation rates (both high school and college) between African American males and females. The number cited by Swarthmore’s Admissions dean recently was that only 50% of African American males finish high school.</p>
<p>As for Gratz, I think they picked her, in part, because she was low income. They wanted to blunt the argument that blacks get affirmative action to offset socio-economic hurdles.</p>
<p>Also, if I recall…Gratz was a reasonably attractive white blond student who was trotted out several times on 60 Minutes and the like. I would not for one minute put it past Chavez and CEO to play the race card in their PR effort – poor white girl victimized by undeserving black males. Although unstated, those are the underlying sentiments they poke and prod to get these referenda passed in a popular vote.</p>
<p>The irony is that, with 5% to 6% African American enrollment even at aggressive affirmative action schools, “they” aren’t really taking many slots from “us” no matter what.</p>