<p>What if there was no race box to check? There was only instate and OOS, essays, grades, tests, recs. Specific to Michigan, please; I am posting the same thread in the general admissions section.</p>
<p>per the administration:</p>
<p>Black/Latino student population would fall more than 75%.</p>
<p>Average SAT/GPA scores would rise.</p>
<p>(precident in California confirms this)</p>
<p>so does that confirm the need for a race question or does it speak to underquilified URMs?</p>
<p>Both.</p>
<p>It says that there would be massive underepresentation if the system is removed. That's not a good thing.</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>It says that the minority students there right now are often underqualified (if 85% of them wouldn't be there without race preference). This indicates that AA is just a band aid fix.</p>
<p>Mostly, it's an implication of black/urban schools (which are utterly inadequite) and culture (which doesn't value education and stigmatizes those that do). </p>
<p>These kids need to be educated before they're sitting in an economics classroom in which they need calculus, but don't know 8th grade algebra.</p>
<p>and admitting them to colleges they aren't qualified for doesn't bring them up to speed -- they fail out at rates several times their white/asian peers. Even if they do struggle through to a diploma, they are still behind -- because of lower grades/test scores, affirmative action remains necessary to have favorable "representation" in graduate schools, professional schools, medical fellowships, job hiring/promotions, and public contracts. </p>
<p>~~~A true cycle of underperformance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It says that the minority students there right now are often underqualified
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong. </p>
<p>It doesn't say that the minority students there are "often" underqualified. Obviously, it indicates that some minority students get launched above other applicants because of the consideration given for SES and race. It means they wouldn't make it in if they no longer got such consideration. But it doesn't mean they are UNDERqualified. You can argue that they are LESS qualified than some of the people who were passed over. I don't know how one can possibly conclude they are UNDERqualified. I've explained this in other threads. </p>
<p>
[quote]
they fail out at rates several times their white/asian peers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this true? I'd like to know more about this. I know that their graduation rates are lower, but how do you know they FAILED out? How many left for financial reasons? For social reasons? How many transferred? The numbers I've seen suggest that a pretty small proportion of U-M students who leave do so under academic difficulty (regardless of race).</p>
<p>Also, how can you credit them with being "underqualified" and never having belonged here in the first place when URM dropout and transfer rates at school with NO affirmative action are also high? That is, even when you don't give these students consideration, they are at risk for not finishing (or not finishing in a timely fashion). It's not a matter of them being unable to hack it at a place that is too rigorous. There are other issues at work here. I think U-M doesn't do as well in this area, but some AA schools are rightfully proud that they are able to beat national averages for URM graduation rates by a wide margin. Their URM students may still graduate at lower rates than whites and asians, but they're much more successful than would be predicted among their ethnic peers. This certainly does suggest that URMs admitted to selective colleges under AA are too dumb for the campus and are doomed to failure.</p>
<p>You're right about the California precedent--the numbers from California are depressing and worrisome.</p>
<p>As for the OP--are you also saying there would be no SES info, no number of dependents, no single parent info, no education level of parents? That would make a difference in how people should speculate.</p>
<p>Using those factors (as Michigan already does) may end up netting some of the minorities anyway, just as it nets some poor whites.</p>
<p>Also, no gender? That wouldn't effect URM numbers but would change admissions in engin and (to a lesser extent) in nursing.</p>
<p>I hadn't thought about that, but it certainly would be interesting to see what would happen if none of that info was presented, if it were just merit based. I think the class would be stronger, the cream would indeed rise to the top.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the class would be stronger, the cream would indeed rise to the top.p
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's only true if you believe URMs are displacing large numbers of outstanding students. I don't think they are. </p>
<p>The best students, the true cream of the crop, are already being admitted. I can promise you that.</p>
<p>URMs, poor students, students from the UP, athletes, wealthy legacies, men in nursing, and others who benefit from the boost? They're displacing applicants who were on the margins of being admitted anyway. Not that those displaced students were lousy (they're not!) but they're not of the same calibre as Michigan's top-tier applicants.</p>
<p>point taken</p>
<p>Thanks--it helps to have your nose sort of close to the data; it can lead to different perspectives.</p>
<p>Your point does have some merit, though. If the perception is that Michigan is letting in too many "not up to snuff" students, that can drive down yield among its brightest admits. In another thread, there have been several students who seem to resent being on campus with people--especially minorities--whose academic stats aren't as stellar as their own. If that feeling was widespread, and extended into the applicant pool, then it's conceivable Michigan would end up with fewer top-calibre students because of its AA policies. </p>
<p>I don't know how widespread that feeling is, however. And I am not sure I'd be proud to be affiliated with a school who said "Let's stop AA so our most prejudiced white honors applicants will be more comfortable enrolling." LOL</p>
<p>Hey now hoedown...don't lump me in with the "I resent the stupid minorities on campus" crowd. I am a Black male, and my issue is with the lack of preparation in the student body across all races.</p>
<p>No worries--you've been clear about that. I can tell the difference in your posts and the quality of your debate (and your interest in posting here)--you're raising larger questions.</p>
<p>There are plenty of people with valid concerns about student quality and preparation, and I think some of the questions raised about affirmative action are both troubling and important. But there are also folks who seem to have a much harsher agenda, and they are the ones who give me pause. It's obvious from some comments made in the press (and here) that some people believe that fewer blacks = higher quality = better admissions process. Without even knowing anything about the calibre of students admitted, they conclude that the better class is the one with fewer black and hispanic faces.</p>
<p>ohmigod I should be studying for my polisci 160 final. hahahah</p>
<p>Yeah, UM needs to do a better job of attracting highly qualified Blacks and Hispanics, but its gonna have a tough time doing it if it remains this tight about scholarship money. Most kids like me are choosing between full rides at HBCU's and Ivies...I was unusual in that I had a full ride at Howard, a semi-full ride at UM, and then Ivy choices. But often, UM will lose out to the other two options.</p>
<p>You're 100% right about that. </p>
<p>NOW GO STUDY! LOL</p>
<p>hoedown i understand that you might be angered by what some of the posts in this thread but let's be realistic..</p>
<p>if the race box was removed and the average SAT score did drop, then it's impossible to say (at least as far as standardized testing is concerned) that the crowd which benifits from checking the box isn't less qualified. The same is true at almost all other schools. </p>
<p>Personally I resent it, because as a white male from a middle class family, it is students like me who are punished. As far as "lack of opportunity" is concerned, I don't see why there is anyone who can't pick up an SAT prep book and write a decent essay. At this point in the game we know that's what makes you or breaks you.</p>
<p>Punished?????....son...get for real. I have no sympathy for the trials of the poor oppressed white male in America. You have no clue how riduculous that sounds.</p>
<p>I have some objections to race preferences on more idealistic reasons, probably as a result of taking carl cohen's race and admissions course. But anyone who thinks even for a minute that the playin field between disadvantaged minorites and whites needs a serious wake up call.</p>
<p>Folks need to stop assuming that people are here just because they're Black, Latino etc. Did I benefit from checking the box...yes...but I can say with relative certainty that my qualifications would walk all over the average UM student's anyways. Do refrain from assuming otherwise.</p>
<p>I also ask that unless you grew up Black or Latino, please refrain from suggesting how to "fix" our culture. I don't need disgruntled white guys that I'm smarter than anyways to tell me how to be a leader of Black people.</p>
<p>KB</p>
<p>
[quote]
if the race box was removed and the average SAT score did drop, then it's impossible to say (at least as far as standardized testing is concerned) that the crowd which benifits from checking the box isn't less qualified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>??</p>
<p>I afraid I can't make sense of this. The claim is that SATs would go UP is the race box was removed. I agree--but i disagree that the change would be substantial. Furthermore, there would be no effect of "cream rising to the top" because the cream has been admitted all along, no matter what the AA scheme (or no AA at all).</p>
<p>Who has claimed that the students who benefit aren't less qualified when it comes to test scores and grades? I certainly haven't.</p>
<p>Did you address your comments to the correct poster? Am I interpreting your comments correctly?</p>
<p>mistype, meant to say it would go up. sorry, i was in a hurry.</p>
<p>how about this..</p>
<p>give a certain allotment of points for SAT score range, points for GPA range, and points for related to the quality of an individuals EC's. Take the average for whites and then the average for minorities. try and tell me that they will be the same, because i'll laugh to death.</p>
<p>Who would try to tell you they are the same? I wouldn't.</p>
<p>Not so long ago, this is exactly what admissions did (assign points, that is). And students with a lower SES or who were URMs got an extra 20 points, a pretty huge boost. It stands to reason that some who got admitted had a lower point total (on academics alone) than their white peers did, especially at the lower margins. Let's say they admitted everyone who scored 100 points or more. Among that bottom pool, people who had exactly 100 points? The white students earned the 100 points straight up, and the minority students had 80 points (with a 20 point boost). Of course, above the lower margins, some of those minority students would have been admitted anyway and/or may "beat out" some of the white students who were admitted when it comes to unboosted points. But among that lower pool, clearly they have lower GPAs or Lower SATs or both.</p>
<p>You seem be presenting this huge "AHA!" in this thread, but it's not really challenging what has been said already. It seems to me that you might have misunderstood what has been posted previously.</p>
<p>On the plus side, we don't have to ask an ambulance to stand by. I haven't yet met the person who will make the statement that will make you laugh to death.</p>