New system to help U-M make admissions picks, maintain diversity

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Michigan
61

<p>Once again provide facts to back up your first point. I base things a lot of the time on anecdotal evidence. A lot of people speak on things on here without fully experiencing them and I give the outlook of someone who has lived it. Your sounding more and more ridiculous. I really want to see these quotes of me not backing up opinions in a serious topic......not that you have backed up anything you've said to my knowledge. </p>

<p>I went back and checked my posts and I have responded to you before. I noticed that did tell you a lot of times that your points were "stupid"....which isn't the best debating tool and immature in a way, but your examples just seemed and still do seem ridiculous in my opinion. For example when you said why don't we just go ahead and use homosexuals for quotas...to try to make a point. Pretty much if I'm debating with someone who I feel makes legititmate arguments I debate that way...if you make no sense then.....well you know. How about from here on we debate in a more humane manner.....there's really no point in internet rivalries.</p>

62

<p>let's get the points straight.
using homosexuality quotas is ridiculous, as is solely on race (of course I'm 100% for social-economic background and opportunities) it's a logical statement, an argument.</p>

<p>while u, only said "ridiculous" according to U.
besides, you clearly do not know that in debate, personal anecdotes is BS. it proves nothing and can not be applied to the broader picture. in debate, the only info that's considered reliable are research cited by authiorities or logical statements. </p>

<p>if you think personal anecdotes can, then there's no point for me to argue w/ you anymore b/c you clearly dont know.</p>

<p>I dont blame you for being subjective since you went through all the difficulties of a minority (as you said), but until you can look at things on a broader scale and more objectively with reasoning and logic rather than "i think this is wrong", there is no need for me to continue arguing with you.</p>

<p>maybe we should end here since you clearly can't come up w/ logical statements or proofs.</p>

<p>lastly, this thread is not arguing about races in admissions, so I do not want to start another argument on that since you dont seem to understand anyway.</p>

<p>human are driven by emotions, not logic so I can understand the emotional aspect that's ruling you. until you can stop your emotions and look at things w/ pure reasoning, there is no need for debate/discussion.</p>

<p>and yes you're right, if you cna't come up w/ any logical arguments other than "i think it's wrong", there's no point in internet rivalries.</p>

63

<p>For the record, quotas do not exist in terms of race or sexual preference.</p>

64

<p>for the record, i hope anyone else dont actually think I believe quotas exist or there should be sexual orientation quotas.</p>

65

<p><em>Sigh</em> I tried to back out of this thread cordially but once again you have to have the last word. You don't get the luxury this time. It's funny that someone like me who doesn't know how to debate like me was practically begged to join the debate team and would have if not for football. </p>

<p>I HAVE NEVER ONCE IN MY LIFE SAID ON HERE THAT USING RACE AS A SOLE QUOTA OR NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND IS THE RIGHT THING. Hopefully that large print will help you read it because I fear you suffer from dsylexia. Go look back at that thread.....your using homosexuality and comparing it to race is what I called foolish...never did I say using race quotas was a good thing. However it's comparing apples to oranges. The fact that you suggested that these two things are equivalent was why I made that response.</p>

<p>If you are debating and the entire basis of one's argument are anecdotes then one is clearly fighting an uphill battle. Notice how I said I use personal anecdotes when people use overgeneralizations and then I give examples to contradict that. Also, I point to numerous others from different parts of the country whom I know that also contradict these claims. I often use my retired uncle as an example because he is well versed in academia. He taught at and was an admissions officer at Syracuse University....he also was head of an entire district in Little Rock, Arkansas after he left Syracuse. I believe using him as a direct source of information is legitimate. As how Alexandre can be considered a legitimate source of information on here.</p>

<p>Also I find it comical that for all your claims on how I debate (which I rarely do on this messageboard) that you have failed to provide these numerous examples. I even gave you a bone and listed one myself. I have always abided by the parable. "Don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who". For all you claims of how I debate all you ever do is provide drastic examples or comparisons that can't be taken seriously. Notice how in that thread I was the only one who took the time to respond to you. Though I garner that you are a logical human your statements on here are not doing you justice....because if you would sit back and look you would realize we are not too different of opinion. </p>

<p>As for being ruled by emotion and being subjective...this is your most ridiculous claim. Now all of a sudden you are a psychologist diagnosing why I act as I do. In one my essays for the University of Michigan.....I sat down and said there shouldn't be a black history month. Despite where I have grown up....there has always been a diversity of people and opinions surrounding me. Which is why I am probably de-sensitized(sp?) to a lot of things other might be offended by. I don't come from the South Bronx where I only interact with one type of person. The only thing I can attribute to where I am from in my responses to you is when I or one of my friends say something the others feel is stupid we let them know it.....we still hear them out after........and we can all joke about it.</p>

<p>Now dead this and save further responses for PMs. Sorry for interrupting this thread everyone.</p>

66

<p>"I HAVE NEVER ONCE IN MY LIFE SAID ON HERE THAT USING RACE AS A SOLE QUOTA OR NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND IS THE RIGHT THING."</p>

<p>i never said u did, but when I checked the thread u were referring to, you're the one who started to argue w/ me.</p>

<p>maybe I shouldn't argue w/ u anymore, just wanted to know I was responding to other threads when u started the argument w/ me, then u accused me of saying u believe in something I was responding to. unfortunately you're the one who started, and my "first" responds are not to you.
maybe it's time to say good-bye then, if you believe some exceptions can completely cross out the whole trend, but I guess it doesn't matter anymore.</p>

67

<p>From the University of Michigan "Preliminary U-M admissions figures report record-setting number of applications for the incoming freshman class of fall 2007": </p>

<p>
[quote]
U-M remains committed to diversity, and diversity remains a lawful goal. Proposal 2 removed affirmative action as a means to achieve diversity in undergraduate admissions, but other methods to achieve a diverse undergraduate student body remain permissible under current law. The University is making full use of these methods.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=099dc1ff-2a57-458d-afd5-68549a202d81%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=099dc1ff-2a57-458d-afd5-68549a202d81&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

68

<p>Those numbers are so off, the 75% won't get in is so far from the truth it's unbelieveable.</p>

<p>The article mentions the following:
Applications Received: 24700+
Yield Rate: 46.4%
Enrollment Deposits Received: 6389
(Note - These are all numbers at the bottom of the article, from the University of Michigan)</p>

<p>Now, the normal idiot thinks "OMG! There's 6389 students enrolled, and 24700+ applications, lets see... 6389... divided by 24700... WOW! 25.8% acceptance rate!"</p>

<p>However, divide the yield rate by the number of deposits received and you get the number of accepted applications. 6389/.464 = 13769 accepted applicants. Divide the accepted applicant number (13769) by the total number of applications (24700) and you get a whopping 55.7%, meaning Michigan accepts more applicants than they reject. Much different than the 1/4 chance the article's title makes you believe.</p>

69

<p>A2Wolves6,</p>

<p>The estimate should be based on the target enrollment # (5600), not the deposit #(6400). It seems another over-enrollment year again!</p>

<p>The estimated accepted # is 5600/46.4% = 12069.
The acceptance rate should be 12069/27400 = 44%</p>

<p>If the application # and the yield continue to go up then it will be very soon to break the 40% acceptance rate and go to the 30ish%.</p>

70

<p>Oh geez, WXYZ really botched that; A2Wolves is right on that score. </p>

<p>Yes, the class is probably going to be over again this year. Yield was very strange this year--it lagged all spring, suggesting when all was said and done it would be a bit lower. Then, after the last round of admits were completed, the trendline changed.</p>

71

<p>There is my estimate for next year(2008),</p>

<p>Assumptions,
1) Target enrollment # : 5400 (go a bit lower after a over-enrollment year).
2) # of application: 28000(up from 27400+)
3) Yield rate: 47% </p>

<p>The estimated(2008) acceptance rate is 5400/47%/28000 = 41%
It's really close to 40%, any # is better than the assumptions may bring it down to 30ish%.</p>

<p>What if the # of applications is going close to 30000? It will be like around 38%.</p>

72

<p>Journalists (especially TV ones) never should try to do math analysis. They have not a clue which is one reason they majored in journalism--no math required (or very little)</p>

73

<p>Seriously, you guys have this whole thing mixed up:
A. The acceptance rate DOES NOT matter, it is something completely out of your hands, so why bother with it? (you should focus on your personal stats instead). It really does not tell you much about your chances/ w.e. you are trying to get out of it. For example, Harvard accepts say 1/10 applicants, but that is mainly because SO many people apply qualified or not..(you get the idea?)There are a lot of variables in acceptance rate so it is quite pointless.</p>

<p>B. With the new system, I think its a small step in the right direction but we should focus on what UM defines as a "neighborhood": this is what is key. If you live in a middle class neighborhood and you are relatively poor, it really doesnt matter, you are still poor...</p>

74

<p>Personally, I think diversity is overrated. No, I am not against minority groups at all, but why should a 'hard-working, middle class caucasion student" be denied admission while someone of minority status is accepted simply because of their ethnicity? Just like the minority student can't help the situation he is born into, neither can the caucasion. This is simply reverse discrimination, whereas now a diverse class is often times getting admitted for no other reason other than bc it is politically correct. This is not unique to UM either, it is a large majority of schools at this point. I don't think race or ethnicity should be part of the admissions process at all. It shouldn't matter if you are white, black, Asian, or Arab. Everyone should be evaluated on a fair and equal basis. Sorry about my rant, that's just what I believe, but again, it is not only UM that has this issue.</p>

75

<p>At the end of the day, it all comes down to identifying those students who fully utilized the resources that were available to them.</p>

<p>The university doesn’t just accept under-represented minority students for sake of having this whole “diversity percentage” drama.</p>

<p>There are inner city students who lacked the kind of resources that were readily available to students who come from wealthier families.</p>

<p>You cannot blame lower SAT/ACT scores and less rigorous high school curriculum to the students. If the university feels that particular students fully utilized the resources given to them or even beyond..surely, those students deserve spots at Michigan. Their lower stats don’t mean anything. There are plenty of Caucasian students at Michigan who come from relatively poor backgrounds. Their stats might be lower, but they perform as equal well as you would at Michigan. I have many friends who are like that.</p>

<p>Stop this non-sense. Michigan is doing a great job in recruiting underestimated students who have their full potential to perform superb jobs here.</p>

<p>Your idea of “fairness” is in fact NOT fair. I will give you a silly analogy but it summarizes the situation well.</p>

<p>There are 2 students: Student A and Student B. They are equally talented, as in equally intelligent. Both students are taking a math exam…let’s say Algebra I. Student A is given a calculator whereas Student B isn’t. We generally would imagine that Student A will perform better…or at least have easier time.</p>

<p>Do you think choosing Student A as a better student is fair? I don’t think so, and, fortunately, my university doesn’t think so either. How about you? Do you still think that Student A is inheritably smarter than Student B?</p>

<p>If you are an admitted student at Michigan…then I would surely expect more from you than ranting about how the university admissions policy is not fair in regards to recruiting under-represented minority students. Moreover, the university doesn’t just go after “colored” students. As I mentioned before, there are plenty of “white” students who probably had lower stats than you; and they perform as equally well as others here at Michigan.</p>

76

<p>“Recruiting minority/socioeconomically underprivileged students” is a completely different than lowering admissions standards for them. My argument was never against recruiting qualified students of certain minorities or backgrounds (diversity was one of the primary reasons I considered Michigan). The topic I, and many others, was responding to was whether admissions standards should be lowered to accommodate people just to promote diversity.</p>

<p>Take for example, UC Berkeley. As most people will remember, a few years ago a huge issue occurred after the UC system banned affirmative action in admissions processes. As a result, there was a significant decrease in the amount of African American students that were admitted. I believe the percentage drop was from somewhere around 13%-3% in the period of only a few years. Today, Berkeley (and a majority of the UCs for that matter), hold their percentage of black students at somewhere around 4%.</p>

<p>Last year, Cal did a study on whether or not admitting such a large amount of Asians was justified; after all, the study questioned, you could hardly call a university wherein 42% of the student population is Asian “diverse.” They questioned whether it was right to admit such a huge percentage of one ethnic/economic, etc. group when other minority groups were struggling so much just to get a break. After interviewing the chancellor and hundreds of students, they found that a majority of the university approved of the current racial makeup. Asians, generally speaking, had higher scores, better grades, and had achieved a greater level of academic excellence. As such, the best students were being admitted. If that meant that the demographics would be lopsided toward one group, than fellow students would just have to live with it, the chancellor pointed out. Some students did claim that they wished there was greater ethnic diversity (though socioeconomic diversity is certainly prevalent on the campus), but also expressed great pride in knowing that the university sought to admit the best candidates, regardless of skin color or gender.</p>

<p>Now that’s just one example. Personally, I think it is very noble of Michigan to make an effort to recruit minority groups (be it ethnic, socioeconomic, religious, etc), because, as someone who has witnessed firsthand severe ethnic polarization in my own hometown growing up, I realize how important it is to interact with other cultures and backgrounds. The point many of us were making was simply that other qualified candidates should not be punished because of it. In your example, should student A not be admitted, simply because they made use of the resources they were given? Likewise, should student B be punished because they don’t have the same resources? The key is to find a balance between those two. </p>

<p>Hopefully, with the new efforts to identify low income/underrepresented areas, and recruit quality, high achieving students from them, Michigan can serve as an example to other peer institutions of a university committed to furthering diversity while also advancing academic excellence. For surely that truly is “The Michigan Difference.”</p>

77

<p>Potential and intellectual capability can only count for so much, though. Just because you get to take classes at Michigan doesn’t magically make up for 12 years of poor teaching. These students are still going to be many academic years behind “equally capable” privileged students, and are not likely to have good study habits or be used to a very competitive academic environment. In terms of your analogy, it’s as if student A used a calculator throughout high school and student B didn’t. Then you put both students in a college level calculus class with a calculator, and expect them to both be equally proficient. Like with anything, there are some exceptions, but I’d guess by and large these students stay well behind their “equally capable” but more privileged peers.</p>

<p>Personally, I think we’d be better off just accepting the most qualified applicants, rather than creating a sub-class of people who start off behind and after a year or so at college might be at the level that your typical student is at coming out of high school. The University could put resources toward much more important things if they didn’t have to maintain a mini-community college of remedial courses because they feel it’s somehow their job to try and make up for the failings of public education.</p>

78

<p>hoedown - i do have a bit of a quibble. As a former editor of a law review at a school of Stanford’s ranking, mentioning that its law journal is not peer reviewed is tautological and meaningless, since virtually none of the major law reviews enjoy that status. You can bet that the incredibly intelligent best of breed law student editors (with their faculty adviser) greatly scrutinized his work before publishing it, especially given the uproar that it would create among the mostly liberal faculty at Stanford and law schools of its type. I know - I have been there. Whatever one thinks of Sander’s conclusions, he presents many facts over which there is not much disagreement and also many persuasive arguments which unfortunately reflect the experiences of those that have attended institutions that put far more than a thumb on the scale when it comes to minority admissions. Sander’s work is serious, has depth, is still debatable, but not easy to disprove - it is for this reason that the California Bar Association is denying him access to data - they will not like what he will uncover. Affirmative action, if it ever is going to work, should not continue to be done in secret (which has been Michigan’s problem, too), and any work that reveals the data at issue should be applauded, even if some do not like the results. </p>

<p>As far as Michigan’s use the of the Descriptor database in admission - the challenge is obvious - they cannot use it to provide preferences based on race. What really burdens admissions officers is that socio-economic profiles won’t generally help reach African American and Hispanic levels of participation to anywhere near their proportion of the population - socio-economic profiling ends up helping poor white and Asian students the most - and they really know it, otherwise the competitive public institutions would have quickly turned to it long ago to avoid litigation. Michigan is in a tough spot - I don’t agree with those that say if they use this program to do indirectly what they cannot do directly they will get away with it - the data will reflect a pattern of race preference if that is what is happening there are way too many plaintiffs around to call them on the carpet. Note that while BAMN will likely get ultimately drop kicked in its 6th Circuit challenge to MCRI it may not happen soon enough - plaintiffs denied admission to Michigan have intervened in the case and the NAACP and the ACLU desperately want them dismissed - because their presence will mean that Michigan will really have to explain once again in detail what they have done the last 10 years in admissions and that will not only be painful, it will make the school very risk adverse in its application of the Descriptor data (so you and I agree about the destructiveness of BAMN), hamstringing them further. (Michigan’s posture in the case is curious, claiming they are not the the State and only a university therein, taking no position one way or another). </p>

<p>The best thing Michigan and all of us could do is make an enormous push to improve K-12 education in urban areas - not an easy thing to accomplish.</p>

79

<p>Wow, this feels like reviving an argument from the grave.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>On this we’ll have to disagree. </p>

<p>My focus should not have been on whether it was peer-reviewed but on the kind of review. </p>

<p>Let’s look at this another way. If someone published an article about legal precedence in one of the most rigorous, top journals in my field, it would be valid for a law scholar to say it hadn’t been held up to the same scrutiny it would have had it been placed in a law journal or law review. It’s not a slam on my field, on the journal, or the intelligence or dedication of the people who review or publish the journal. It’s recognition that this is not their area of expertise.</p>

<p>Some of the critiques of Sanders work come from people in a position to question to econometric and/or statistical aspects of Sander’s work. This is kind of thing that gets battled over in social science journals dedicated to this kind of study. I don’t think this is the usual work of the gifted young legal scholars who publish law reviews.</p>

<p>FWIW, I completely agree with your last sentence. This is where the real work lies. A number of the school and colleges within the University Michigan do some very inspiring outreach, but I think there needs to be more of it, with more coordination, and it needs to be more aggressive.</p>

80

<p>I did want to follow up on the vitality of Sander’s work - as unpopular as it may be. </p>

<p>But his work had a significant impact in causing Judge Lawson to summarily dismiss the case brought by BAMN (with friends like BAMN, affirmative action supporters don’t need enemies) with the NAACP and ACLU intervening (and desperately trying to get plaintiff Russell out of the suit). </p>

<p>So agree with Sander or not - or dismiss his work as less than credible - he had (and likely will continue to have) a powerful impact as the costs and benefits of preference programs continue to be weighed, both in the courts and outside of them. And if those supporting preferences can’t win at the ballot box, and can’t even get to trial because of plausible evidence that preference programs don’t ultimately help the groups they are designed to help, then the probity of Sander’s work begins to stand on its own. </p>

<p>Particularly disturbing was Sander’s conclusion (and my guess is that it is fair to represent this as only preliminary), that students with a preference fail the bar (first time presumably) at 8 times the rate of those without preferences. The average Michigan law graduate (an incredibly bright and capable person) can pass any bar in the United States with a mere month of study - some even less - it is a low priority worry for the average grad. And if matriculants come to a school with a low probability of passing the bar, even the most ardent supporter of affirmative action must take a look at the prevailing practices. </p>

<p>I know it sounds like a big picture solution, but we must address the problems in K-12 education above all else. The racial identity play and preferences have historically been useful in forcing people to give opportunity, especially in the 60’s and 70’s, but their time likely - just in terms of its efficacy - has come and gone. </p>

<p>See the following link. </p>

<p>[American</a> Renaissance News: By No Means: Michigan Judge Turns Tables on Advocacy Groups Determined to Derail Civil Rights Initiative](<a href=“http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/04/by_no_means_mic.php]American”>By No Means: Michigan Judge Turns Tables on Advocacy Groups Determined to Derail Civil Rights Initiative - American Renaissance)</p>