<p>
The 10% rule in Texas and 4% rule in California are supposed to be measures to level the playing field. I sincerely hope that we won’t follow that in Michigan.</p>
<p>looks like they have to do something</p>
<p>The Top 10% rule in Texas is a souvenir from Gubnr’ GW Bush’s day. “The Decider” decided that the best way to level the playing field was to guarantee admission to any Texas public college for students who rank in the top 10 % (calculated at the end of your Jr. year).</p>
<p>It has:</p>
<ol>
<li>Made admission to UT really difficult for even the smartest students in private and parochial schools that do not rank. </li>
<li>Made competition in big cities and affluent suburbs so bad that parents play the “magnet school game” and get their really smart kid transferred to a high school in a low income or high transient population neighborhood OR-rent an apartment in the 'hood and use it as the students residence address to increase the chance that their kid will have a higher rank. </li>
<li>Made the application process for Texas public schools a joke. As long as you are top 10, your SAT combined can be below 1000 and you can type La La over and over again to fill the essay section. They have to take you.</li>
</ol>
<p>Be careful what you wish for.</p>
<p>I highly doubt the state of Michigan will follow the percentage models in Texas and California because Michigan simply doesn’t have their population size (each state has over 20 million residents!). Several years ago, the state of Michigan established the Michigan Merit (also known as Michigan Promise) Exam scholarship program to address accountability issues (measuring student academic progress) and award funding for those who exceeded state standards. Of course, there was a lot of controversy with the program because most of the students who scored well on the exams were predominately white and/or middle-class background.</p>
<p>I’m not buying the argument that African American students in poorer neighborhoods of Detroit should be allowed in the university of Michigan because of their race.
Some of you may know there is a city in Detroit called Hamtramck. Most of the student here are not black, but of another race. They live in a poor neighborhood and go to schools are full of gangs and such, but what is known about these students is that they study, study, study. I’m not saying a majority of them do this, but students from here get the scores that allow them to make it highly selective east coast schools as well as UMich. When we talk “diversity”, why does is mostly help the African American? I guess if you look back in history, you find the answer. Honestly, I don’t think it’s about diversity anymore, but rather making up for the atrocities that occurred in this country 200 years ago.</p>
<p>Anybody who says Michigan schools are not segregated (which does not imply forced separation, merely that demographically certain groups end up lumped together without mobility) and stratified has done absolutely no research to back up their claim. Yes, kids can attend any public school in Michigan they want, but they also have to find a way to get to these schools daily and participate in their extra-curricular activities, which can be extraordinarily difficult if you, like many low-income students, don’t have a car and have to care for younger ones in the home or hold down a job. </p>
<p>Michigan is NOTORIOUS for having one of the most segregated school systems in this country. To say otherwise put’s you out of touch with the opinions of the other 49 states and your own reality.</p>
<p>
Segregation =/= Demographics. Silly Leftists and your doublespeak. 
</p>
<p>
Wait, so not only are segregation and demographics the same thing, but minorities and the poor are interchangeable as well? Even putting that point aside, the system accommodates for kids as much as it legally should, it’s a personal responsibility to meet them halfway. Does it suck having to make sacrifices to better yourself? Of course it does. But just because you’re disadvantaged doesn’t mean you should be spoon-fed, merely given a helping hand if you’re on your ass.</p>
<p>Looks like I won’t be moving to Michigan anytime soon</p>
<p>Crono Trigger let me get this straight: You got admitted to NU because you had connections there and you’re complaining about disadvantaged minorities being given preferential treatment in university admissions? You sound like a guy I would love to meet! Not.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you brought “leftist” into this discussion. Nobody hear was talking about political orientation and you have no way to infer the political orientation of anyone here. </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that nothing you said contributed to the legal argument. What political avenues can minorities pursue to address the problem of underrepresentation at universities?</p>
<p>Everyone interested in this thread should read this article: [Dumbo</a> University - HUMAN EVENTS](<a href=“http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34501]Dumbo”>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34501)</p>
<p>
What makes you think it’s a problem that requires political avenues? In fact, if you want to give a legal argument, what legal right do they have to pursue such avenues? I gave my legal, political, and socioeconomic qualifiers earlier in this thread. Where are yours? I’ve seen none.</p>
<p>Wow this is one of the most civil and logic based discussions of Affirmative-Action and race in education that I have ever encountered, on both sides of the issue too. Hats off to you U of M.</p>
<p>For the most part of course, you always have your wankers…</p>
<p>This is an interesting and complex discussion with no easy answers and very deeply rooted systemic dysfunction. I am from Canada and moved to Michigan 6 years ago. I do in actual experience find Michigan’s schools very SEGMENTED by a combination of socio-economics and race. The disparity of educational resources between URBAN, typically 80% hispanic and black, and SUBURBAN, typically 80% white-ish, is appalling to me. Then again, I believe every child deserves and adequate education – a notion which is embodied in the Michigan State Constitution but which today is clearly unaccounted for in the State’s Ways and Means committee. I am equally clear that depending on one’s socio-economic status, adequate education is not available.</p>
<p>So, while I generally believe in a meritocracy, I also believe there are numerous dimensions of intelligence and inherent bias in standardized testing. I do believe that U of M is entitled to holistically assess what a student has achieved in the context of what is available to them, so I can “live” with the notion that there are some students who gain access to U of M who are not statistically competitive.</p>
<p>But what I’d like to see is ADEQUATELY FUNDED PUBLIC EDUCATION in Michigan, and EQUALLY FUNDED education in Michigan. Neither are possible under the current revenue model which does not address the structural deficit, or Proposal A, which was contaminated by pork barrel politics 12 years ago at its inception, and has led to situations where communities such as Bloomfield Hills are allowed to spend $13,000+ per cap on education but cities such as Grand Rapids are capped at $7,200 with no means to raise local revenue – BY LAW!</p>
<p>If these problems were addressed and remedied, then we’d be dealing with a level playing field and could trust a pure meritocracy approach to admissions, in my opinion.
Presently, the disadvantage isn’t racial, per se, it is whether one was educated in an urban environment or suburban environment, it seems.</p>
<p>would be nice if we could see the whole article in the Chronicle. Is it available elsewhere?</p>