<p>This is real absurd.
For this to happen, this means means increase White enrollment from 57% to 90%, Black enrollment from 4% to 10%.
Asian enrollment DOWN from 12% to 2%.</p>
<p>Looks like nobody wants to attack the problem of culture without being labeled a racist. </p>
<p>That’s 102%?</p>
<p>Typo. Accidentally said 90% instead of 80%.</p>
<p>Plus I added rounded a few of the figures for simplicity, plus I left out Hispanics, Native Americans, Mixed Race, Pacific Islanders</p>
<p>Just accept the most qualified students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.</p>
<p>That recent story, where the black girls was complaining because she didn’t get in. She only had a 3.5 GPA and a 23 ACT… you kidding me? I don’t care if you’re in state that’s still not good enough.</p>
<p>Well luckily that’ll never happen. We’d go private before messing with the enrollment percentages that much.</p>
<p>“Just accept the most qualified students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.”</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know the University wants to use blatant affirmative action, right? It’s just those pesky Michigan taxpaying voters keeping them honest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one’s taking her seriously, she’s just media fodder. </p>
<p>So they want the Campus as broke as the state?</p>
<p>One on hand, the most qualified students should get in. On the other, I appreciate a university’s efforts to make each class an interesting mix of backgrounds - cultural, geographically, etc. But I think the silliest thing would be to intentionally force the enrollment mix to match the state’s mix.</p>
<p>"When I asked Brooke why it’s wrong for U-M to set a similar bar (she was denied admission with below the U-M averages of a 3.6 GPA and a 23 on the ACT) she said U-M needed to ‘represent the state. Blacks are about 14% of the population, so it should be 14% roughly.’</p>
<p>I pointed out that whites were 79% of Michigan’s population, but officially 57% of U-M’s, so should we adjust that up? ‘That’s ludicrous,’ she said, claiming it should only apply to minorities. I then noted U-M was 11% Asian American, but our state was only 2%. Should we adjust down?</p>
<p>‘I don’t understand what you’re asking,’ she said."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.freep.com/article/20140419/COL01/304190066/mitch-albom-university-of-michigan-brooke-kimbrough?fb_action_ids=768065676551151&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=artrectop”>http://www.freep.com/article/20140419/COL01/304190066/mitch-albom-university-of-michigan-brooke-kimbrough?fb_action_ids=768065676551151&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=artrectop</a></p>
<p>When comparing State demographics to University demographics, it’s important you compare the right group. You shouldn’t look at Michigan’s entire population, which includes people who are way too old to be considering college. Throughout America, younger people (<23), are becoming more and more diverse. Far from being 80% White, Whites are becoming an overall minority (even though together, they are still larger than each separate ethnic group), and interracial children are on the rise. What the Universities demographics closely match are the demographics for wealthy Americans, who are overwhelmingly White.</p>
<p>The state of Michigan **isn’t<a href=“surprising%20to%20me,%20as%20a%20Floridian%20with%20little%20knowledge%20of%20Michigan”>/b</a> very diverse. </p>
<p><a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html</a></p>
<p>For example, using census data from 2012:</p>
<p>The % white (not Hispanic) is 76.2% in Michigan, while the nation is 63.0%. I would think at least 60 to 65% of 18 year olds in Michigan are white. If you compare Detroit (only 7.8% white) to the rest of the state, you’ll only find a small increase in the % of 18 or younger (26.7% to 23.7%).</p>
<p>Some numbers that do impact Michigan’s ability to recruit black students:</p>
<p>Only 58% of undergraduate students are in-state. Michigan heavy recruits OOS students for the OOS tuition. These tend to be high socioeconomic status(SES) students. Only 16% of students receive Pell grants (incoming freshmen), which can be used as a measure for low SES students. </p>
<p><a href=“College Navigator - University of Michigan-Ann Arbor”>College Navigator - University of Michigan-Ann Arbor;
<p>Compared to MSU, where 7% is Black or AA, 73% of students are in-state and 24% of students receive Pell grants. Recruiting more in-state students make it easier to recruit lower SES students and Blacks/AA. </p>
<p>And at the far end of the spectrum, Wayne State, which is 23% Black or AA, 96% in-state and 53% receive Pell grants. </p>
<p>UVA, a peer institution, is even worse, at 12% Pell Grants. It also heavily recruits OOS students as part of it’s business model. </p>
<p>Recruiting low SES students (which would increase Black/AA attendance) seems to have taken a back seat to OOS recruitment. </p>
<p>^^ There is a hard cost to locating and recruiting low SES students at a national level and remember those SES students need to be at least minimally capable of doing the work and not failing out. I have no doubt state publics KNOW who those low SES/superior academic IN-state students are and my guess is there is high yield for unis with those students. Looking nationally or even regionally for high SES/high academic student might be a wish or a vision but from a business perspective may not be an imperative. It is far easier to strive for cultural diversity than economic diversity for universities with high academic success as the threshold to acceptance…and success of the individual student at the university. If you are receiving 40-50,000 applications for 5-6000 seats administration needs to ask itself if there is an imperative to be looking for 1,000 kids that are high academic/low SES. You will automatically find that high academic/low SES in the 40-50,000 applications…or your coaches will. In Michigan you’ve got that other Big 10 school an hour away looking for those same kids. Detroit is an island and not reflective at all of the entire state and Detroit has a declining population which further compounds the difficulty of the “search” for high academic/low SES students.</p>
<p>^^ I agree, there is a significant cost to recruiting high performing/low SES students. It usually takes a combination of outreach programs and need based scholarships. You can find the high academic/low SES students, but if the school is too expensive (OOS tuition is $40K a year…ouch), they will not go to Michigan. I bet the schools Yield % is fairly poor for low SES students (something much less than Michigan’s normal 40% yield). Even if the school meets “need” for in-state students, that still may not be enough for low SES students. These high performing students are likely getting merit and need based scholarships at other universities/colleges. </p>
<p>Of course, if the school could use affirmative action, they could avoid a lot of the cost as they could then target lower performing students. However, this can only take you so far (as you would be targeting lower performing URMs that are high SES students; this was UT-Austin’s reason for using AA, btw), at some point you have to provide need based aid to get these students to enroll. </p>
<p>I don’t think you can achieve cultural diversity targeting high SES students. In general, within the USA, high SES students tend to share a similar culture. Either way, “diversity” advocates are only concerned with race or SES status, no one is taking “physical action!” to get more students from foreign countries. </p>
<p>Frankly if the Black Student Union wants to do something beneficial they should march themselves into admissions and ask how they can help with national recruiting efforts for high academic/low SES students AND start fund raising efforts for scholarships earmarked for lower income black families…the concept of admitting based on color of skin went out the door when an applicant started needing a 3.8 and a 28 ACT to get in the door and affirmative action brownie points on the application went out the door. All the belly aching and media posturing and expecting other people to do the recruiting and the scholarship fundraising is simply blowing smoke and fall on deaf ears of Michiganders. I have no doubt the university would love to have more black students…what major selective university doesn’t? The one thing that differentiates UofM from Western, Eastern, Central in Michigan or really any other less selective publics in many of the states of the union IS the caliber of students. </p>
<p>Make no mistake, a college education is absolutely the best thing a young SES person of any color can achieve to break a poverty cycle, but there are options all over any state in the union to achieve that objective and Michigan is especially populated with numerous options… if the BSU wants them at Michigan- help and do something instead of complain and make demands. </p>
<p>More on what BAMN is demanding…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/news/through-protest-bamn-wins-meeting-administration-0”>http://www.michigandaily.com/news/through-protest-bamn-wins-meeting-administration-0</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think BAMN understand how the top 10% (current it’s set at 7%) plan works. Even with this plan, UT-Austin has only 4% black/AA, while the state population is 12.3% black/AA. </p>
<p>I don’t think Michigan is failing to admit qualified African American applicants. I think Michigan admits many such students annually. Unfortunately, those admitted have strong credentials (more in line with Michigan standards), and those students typically have acceptances to other elite universities. As such, the yield for admitted African American applicants with strong credentials to Michigan is probably very low. In order to attract a larger percentage of African American students, Michigan has to lower its standards and admit a large number of students who have lower academic credentials. What do you think is easier for the university to justify and defend (ethically and legally)? admitting hundreds of students who are clearly much weaker academically than the rest of Michigan admits (and of tens of thousands of highly qualified applicants who are rejected) based on race, or admitting all students based on their academic credentials? You probably do not recall this, but when Michigan used its now-notorious formula back in the 1990s and early 2000s, and admitted far more URM (most of which were not qualified), their graduation rate was so far below the University’s average that the University was accused of not providing the necessary resources for them to graduate. Honestly, Michigan is damned if it does…and damned if it doesn’t. But at least with the current approach, the University can avoid legal and ethical problems.</p>
<p>“Just accept the most qualified students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.”</p>
<p>Thank you " - Well said, I agree wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>Not to mention a top 7% rule would fill the freshman class and then some with in-state kids to the exclusion of the diversity gained from out of state kids and internationals…there is probably at least 90,000 or more kids graduating from Michigan high schools, public and private, each year and is primarily white.</p>
<p>And that’s why UT-Austin has cut it to 7%. The other half of that is the University is allowed to cap it at 75%. Admitting those students doesn’t mean they can afford it. Those who can afford it may choose other elite schools/out of state schools and yet others may decide to attend schools giving them full ride scholarships. It also doesn’t mean they’d succeed once they get there. </p>