<p>
[quote]
The acceptance rate of underrepresented minorities has plunged since the University was forced to stop using affirmative action in January, according to data provided by the University. The numbers suggest that the affirmative action ban passed by state voters in November has had a dramatic effect on admissions decisions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's too bad for the University. Usually, when schools begin to have racial tension surrounding them, the number of minority applicants drop as well.</p>
<p>This is a good thing--more qualified applicants are getting in instead of people being admitted with suspect stats but URM status. It's good for the university as a whole.</p>
<p>Too bad they didn't mention until about halfway through that minority admission rate didn't drop that significantly below the general admission rate. We have rolling admissions, the later you apply, the less likely you are to be accepted.</p>
<p>Oh, god, the Daily.</p>
<p>That headline is a little misleading. All anyone can confidently say about this year is that admissions shifted. URM applicants tend to get their apps completed later, but in the last few years U-M has worked hard to turn that around. This year URM applicants had an added incentive to do that (as did everyone else, one could argue). Adding that to paperless reviews means that they admitted more people early. Not just URMs but non-URMS as well.</p>
<p>Everyone is going to put their own spin on this, because you can parcel out different stats to support the picture you want to believe. Jennifer Gratz was just quoted as saying that minority apps are up because minorities flock to a place where they will treated fairly. </p>
<p>It's too soon to tell, IMO. We'll know more when we've had a year of admissions with no AA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Usually, when schools begin to have racial tension surrounding them, the number of minority applicants drop as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean, for next year? URM applications are up this year.</p>
<p>hoedown - I take issue with a stance that seriously reflects a wait and see attitude towards the numbers. Sure, it will be a while until the numbers have a definitive precision - but there is no question that: 1) the University was taking full advantage of the flexibility it believed it had under the Gratz decision and was granting significant preferences based on race - to state otherwise in a sense contradicts the fierce passion in which the University was resisting Proposition 2; and 2) that after January 10, under-represented minority admission rate is decidedly lower and in fact is at some level a reflection of what the future will bring. I say this not to rail against the University's prior heavy reliance on preferences - what is done is done and like everything else there were benefits and costs to that practive - but rather what is important now is to realize that the University must come to grips with the new reality and really adjust in terms of attracting qualified minority students. And given the huge acheivement gaps that exist that task is really, really going to be challenging - the numbers are just so dismal. So better the University face this now - rather than take a wait and see attitude. If the University of California-Berkeley - the school most like Michigan in terms of prestige and even academic specializations, is any harbinger of things to come, the challenge will be immense.</p>
<p>I can't imagine the student population at UM will ever look like Berkeley. However, there will be fewer URMs... no doubt... and the difference will likely be noticeable. I really hope the administration puts on their marketing hats to increase the yield rate for URMs, although this will be even more difficult with no AA involved in aid. I believe the administration should turn their efforts toward figuring out a way to get the input and help of the vast student and alumni population to help achieve this. In my opinion, President Coleman started out on the wrong foot by blatantly ignoring the will of the voters... especially with all the pundits predicting the results. She needs better advisors or to learn how to listen to good advice. There are many people who voted for the ban who would be more than willing to be part of a team effort to bring in as many URMs as possible under the new law. She came off as the protypical stereotype of the academic elite that run the university. That approach turned a lot of people off.</p>
<p>This is a time for getting over past differences and working toward a cause that is good for the university. President Coleman was correct in saying that diversity is in the best interests of UM and its students. I wish a group of alumni with a few bucks could get together and form a private foundation to help the UM achieve this goal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She came off as the protypical stereotype of the academic elite that run the university. That approach turned a lot of people off.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who exactly did it turn off? It's not the prospective URMs, that's for sure. The voters aren't exactly applicants to the university. </p>
<p>There's something extremely hypocritical about supporters of prop 2 who are now returning to decry the fall of minority admissions, and, better yet, to blame it on Coleman of all people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but there is no question that: 1) the University was taking full advantage of the flexibility it believed it had under the Gratz decision and was granting significant preferences based on race - to state otherwise in a sense contradicts the fierce passion in which the University was resisting Proposition 2; and 2) that after January 10, under-represented minority admission rate is decidedly lower and in fact is at some level a reflection of what the future will bring.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't arguing otherwise. </p>
<p>But I don't think words like "plummet" are correct, certainly not when used to imply that Prop 2 alone brought about the change. </p>
<p>Will there be decline seen next year? I'm pretty certain of it. But we won't know, until next year, how much, and given the unusual circumstances of this year, it would be foolish (IMO) to use the post-Dec 22 numbers to predict. So I'm sticking to my original philosophy, which is that we'll know more next year.</p>
<p>tetrahedon, I don't understand why it's hypocritical to support Prop. 2 and, yet, support diversity. You can, with complete logical consistency, be against AA, but for diversity. AA is not the only way to accomplish diversity... it's probably the easiest, but not the most fair. Also, some URMs don't want special treatment in admissions... particularly highly qualified applicants. On the other side, there are many non-URMs who are from a disadvantaged backgrounds and URMs from affluent families who attended quality high schools.</p>
<p>"Who exactly did it turn off?" For a start, 58% percent of the Michigan voters who voted for the ban. And, then, some people who voted against the ban who felt that UM should move on to the next step. (Subtext - Don't speculate how I voted. I will tell you that I believe both sides made compelling arguments if one were to be completely objective about it.)</p>
<p>I am not decrying the fall of minority admissions. In fact, my prior post (and posts before the election) clearly indicate I support minority admissions. You are being intellectually dishonest in your retort.</p>
<p>I'm also sure it turned off some prospective URMs, but not most of them. It also made some non-URMs very happy.</p>
<p>"The voters aren't exactly applicants to the university." You are, indeed, correct. They are just the people who pay a significant portion of the cost of operating the state universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are just the people who pay a significant portion of the cost of operating the state universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>U-M is very proud to serve the people of this state. Being a public institution is a responsibility and an honor, and I know is U-M is grateful for the support it gets from appropriations.</p>
<p>However, I feel that too often people romantacize the role of the taxpayer in the care and feeding of universities. </p>
<p>First of all, "significant" that portion may be, but it's nowhere close to half. Most of the University's operating revenue does not come from the public at large. </p>
<p>Second of all, tax dollars do not (and should not, in my opinion) grant the public the right to dictate how publicly-funded organizations are run. Should I, the taxpayer, get to determine what medicine a Medicare patient gets? Should I vote on whether the K-12 system should offer algebra in 7th or 8th grade? Should I vote on how much of its heating gas the prison system should buy on the open market vs from utility companies? No. Sure, I fund those things. But it's not my job to determine what the right answer to those questions are. </p>
<p>Public referendums are not the way, in my view, to determine how institutions are run. I don't think "the people" should have a right to say "I, not any university professor, administrator, admissions committee, lawyer, or judge, get to judge whether an admissions criteria may or may not be used." Determining who to admit to make the optimal academic environment for learning is a tough call. I think it ought to be left to universities, especially if they have already had it decided in a court of law that their methods are lawful. Similarly, I leave it to prisons to determine who gets put into solitary confinement, I leave it to the school system to decide the hiring of teachers, I leave it to the roads department to decide what grade steel to use for the highway overpass, and so on.</p>
<p>I do understand that Michigan taxpayers feel they have an interest in their universities, and I agree they have a compelling interest in making sure that they are run lawfully, efficiently, and honestly. That is important! But, in my view, that's why we have courts, and audits, and the legislature--so these things can be monitored and, if needed, be discussed in a formal setting among parties who are knowledgable, informed, and charged with official duties of administration, legal interpretatation, legislation, and/or oversight. </p>
<p>Whew, that's a mouthful.</p>
<p>The final word is, of course, this: the people have spoken, and U-M has complied. I understand that some found Coleman's tone on November 8th off-putting. Whatever her tone that day, the University is in compliance and will continue to operate in compliance. So 98% of my yammering is entirely moot.</p>
<p>Being a URM, UM's president's comments gave me a lot of confidence in the school. Yet, I'm still somewhat happy with the outcome of Proposal 2. I wanted to get into UMich, but I didn't want to get in just because I'm a minority and I didn't. My application decision was based on my stats and essay, not my race. I'm happy about that. This year, a lot of other unqualified students were accepted into good publics. I take pride in knowing that I'm not one of them(for the most part, lol).</p>
<p>Hoedown: By your logic, schools in the South shouldn't have been forced to integrate if they felt that having only white students would create a better environment. In general, it's best to have institutions govern themselves because they know best, but occasionally they overstep their bounds. Sometimes their position within the institution skews their view of what is right. Since U of M is by and large liberal, they want to try and close the racial/gender divide through social engineering in the form of affirmative action. People who aren't as caught up in promoting diversity at all costs recognize that the practice of affirmative action is inherently racist/sexist. You can't go off doing whatever you want because you think you're doing a little bit of good in the world, that's what we have laws and referendums for. Taxpayers aren't trying to control how the university is run, they're only protecting the civil liberties of the non-URMs who are discriminated against by affirmative action.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By your logic, schools in the South shouldn't have been forced to integrate if they felt that having only white students would create a better environment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. My logic doesn't get us there.</p>
<p>Note the following, which I have taken directly from my own post:</p>
<p>"they have a compelling interest in making sure that they are run lawfully, efficiently, and honestly. . . But, in my view, that's why we have courts, and audits, and the legislature--so these things can be monitored and, if needed, be discussed in a formal setting among parties who are knowledgable, informed, and charged with official duties of administration, legal interpretatation, legislation, and/or oversight."</p>
<p>See, we agree to the extent that you said that's what we have the law for.</p>
<p>The public schools in the south did not integrate because of voter referendum. To be brutally honest, I wouldn't have trusted the voters in those states, at that time, to make the appopriate decision if you had put it to referendum. Perhaps I'm wrong.</p>
<p>It was handled, IMHO, how it should have been handled--via the courts, where people sought redress for policies they believed were in violation of the consistitution. The courts determined that the school's judgment was in conflict with what was legal. I did not say that public institutions gets to run themselves however they want, carte blanche. They have oversight to be sure they are making the proper decisions, and I think that's appropriate.</p>
<p>The people sought redress against affirmative action in a number of cases, too, and those decisions helped define what was lawful and what was not. </p>
<p>FWIW, I don't think affirmative action is just a "liberal" policy, adopted by
"liberal" institutions with "liberal" biases. I don't think the military is liberal, nor do I think corporate american is liberal. They strongly supported U-M.</p>
<p>First, I agree with Dilksky's comments. </p>
<p>Second, the voting public is, by and large, unsophisticated on many issues and candidates... and a lot of them probably shouldn't be "trusted" to vote. My grandmother once voted for a presidential candidate because he was better looking than the other one. In short, democracy (actually, a replubic) is not a perfect system, but, in my opinion, it is the best form of government in the world.</p>
<p>Hoedown, you say you wouldn't trust the voters with certain decisions. I agree. However, our governmental system isn't set up so voters can micro-manage most decisions... thus, it's difficult to get a particular item on the ballot as a constitutional amendment proposal and it should be. In this case, the voters obviously felt very strongly about this issue. They wanted a say in how their tax dollars were being spent and it doesn't matter much that the amount of taxpayer funding is not the majority of UM's funding. Strings are attached to federal and state money... and this is one of them. Frankly, I believe there are too many strings attached.</p>
<p>We have a system of checks and balances that worked the way they were intended in Michigan. If the courts felt the voters' decision violated the federal constitution, the ban would have been struck down. In a U.S. Supreme Court case in the last few years upholding AA, I believe it was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, who said that AA was still viable but probably would not be in the next 20 years. (I expect the political science folks can correct and elucidate on this statement.) The voters, oddly in the "blue states," like California and Michigan, seem to be ready to start ending the process of ending AA in certain arenas sooner.</p>
<p>I am from Michigan and I have seen the good and bad side of prop 2. I have lived in both rich and poor school districts, where I, a white female, have been both the minority and the majority. I go to a relatively rich and about 80% white high school. I know many seniors who applied to Michigan. One of my friends who was denied had a 4.0 GPA perfect SAT score and was on the varsity football team for 4 years. One of his team mates was a URM and he had a 3.5 GPA and I don't know his SAT score but it wasn't perfect. He was accepted. However, I know a similar case at a poor, mainly black school where a white student was turned with stellar stats while a URM (the one mentioned above) was admitted. This was before prop 2 passed. </p>
<p>Like I said, I have seen both the good and bad side but I think if we have to use AA in admissions then it should be based on economic status more then race. A URM in a rich school with many resources shouldn't have a better shot then a white student at a poor high school with many less resources.
That's my two cents.</p>
<p>I agree, this is very good for University Of Michigan. Only those with the grades and test scores should be allowed in period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Only those with the grades and test scores should be allowed in period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I can't discern what exactly comprise "the grades and test scores" but I'm pretty sure U-M is a long way from the ideal you are hoping for. Michigan still has holistic review, Michigan still has athletes, Michigan still accepts residents over nonresidents. It's not a "grades plus test scores" thing. Another thing, Michigan is pretty concerned with curriculum and the strength of program. Admissions isn't as simple as grades + scores, which is bad news to some purists I guess.</p>
<p>The big problem I have with Prop 2 is that there is so much misinformation about college admissions and how any school, especially U-M with it's holistic process, reviews apps. You take voters, 99% who are completely in the dark on how U-M reviews apps, and let them make a decision that only a small few really understand? Should all admissions folks from U-M go off and tell Mr. Ford how to run his company? Should President Coleman suddenly have the power to tell Briarwood Mall which stores it should allow in it's complex? </p>
<p>Hoedown, I agree with you. Michigan still doesn't accept students on grades and test scores alone. Michigan NEVER accepted students solely on their URM status. UM still accepts "development" students with lower GPA's and test scores than nearly all other admits. </p>
<p>Prop 2 still won't solve the problem that most 17yr-olds find in that they or their friends were deferred with their 4.0 (Not UM recalc'd GPA) and 27 ACT. Those students still won't get in, even with prop 2.</p>
<p>Well I'm a minority and I'm probably still going YES!!!!!!</p>