<p>I can't less this go unchallenged: Admissions standards are not separated by race. Students of all ethnicities are evaluated in the same pool, with the same readers. Race is a consideration, but they don't have different standards. When you read what the absolute requirements for admissions are, know that every student has to meet them, whether that student is an athlete or a minority or as rich as the Sultan of Brunei.</p>
<p>hoedown come on now...have you read the grutter and gratz decisions. The history of the University is quite clear in this matter. Evidence was admitted during the trials that under the two previous systems virtually every Black, Hispanic or Native American student that was "qualified" was admitted. By qualified, the University meant that they believe that the student would be able to graduate. This was not the case for white students. The past actions of the University indicates that the system used today does not vary in spirit from those previously thrown out. If you have a set of standards for White students, and a different set of standards for URMs, how does that not effectivley constitue seperate systems of admission?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The past actions of the University indicates that the system used today does not vary in spirit from those previously thrown out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you clarify that? I don't understand what you mean here.</p>
<p>I know how the University admits undergrads, and I know that it works very hard to stay in compliance with the Gratz decision. Maybe it's semantics we are arguing about, but I do not feel it is accurate to state that standards are separated by race, nor that minorities undergo a separate system of admission.</p>
<p>The University says it wants a critical mass of students, and it uses race in an overriding fashion to secure it. Regardless of whether the system is a grid, or a points system, or whatever they use now, the motive is the same. I think that motive is a little suspect in the eyes of the law, since the University can't use an outright quota, but it also has to have a policy that is sufficiently narrowly tailored. I personally think that "critical mass" is euphemism for quota...I believe that the University is looking for numbers. I won't go into whether quotas are good or bad, but I do wish that the University would be straight-forward about what the goals are.</p>
<p>I think the University generally feels more is better, sure. Furthermore, there are sociological and educational justifications for desiring a critical mass. But as you've observed, you can't really guarantee a critical mass unless you're willing to use quotas or ignore your standards. The University won't do that. </p>
<p>Look at this year's numbers. That doesn't suggest a University that is using a quota system (or a pseudo-quota system).</p>
<p>Hoedown, I agree with you that I need to reevaluate how I think about myself. I have a chip on my shoulder and I am overly prideful. These are not good qualities and I need to deal with that.</p>
<p>After re-reading my posts, I can see how you may think I view myself as under-qualified. However, I don't. I'm quite confident that I can compete with men.</p>
<p>All I know is it just doesn't feel right... and I haven't quite figured out why. Is it me or the system? Right now, I think it's some of both.</p>
<p>While kb has had his whole life to evaluate his minority status, it's all new to me. I am, quite honestly, naive... and I'm only a "part-time" minority. However, I plan on pursuing an MBA at a top school. I know the stats on MBA admissions are even more male dominated and that females are probably even more likely to get a boost in the admissions process. And then comes the business world.</p>
<p>Kb, I will note that I was surprised at the division among not only races, but also divison based on religion and sexual orientation. I thought they desegregated schools before my parents were born... I guess it just hasn't reached the most progressive universities. However, UM people seem pretty willing to cross the lines and ignore the artificial boundaries. The group I hang with consists of people of different races, sexual orientation and an evangelical conservative. UM could stand a few improvements, but, all in all, I wouldn't want to be at any other university in the world.</p>
<p>Overall, I am really heartened that no one seems to see things with rose-colored glasses. None of us should. With affirmative action or without it, there are problems in our society and problems at U-M regarding equal opportunity, equal treatment, mutual respect, and integration. We fall far short of the ideal. We need to figure out ways to solve this. </p>
<p>In this forum (and elsewhere) we may differ in the methods we champion, but I think that at the heart of things we are on the same page. I'm not a very creative person and not much of a problem solver, but I have loads of faith in what students at U-M can do. You guys are the hope of this campus and I think you can do a lot to fix what's wrong here and in the nation. Keep it up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't like the idea of anyone considering me as a token.
[/quote]
How can you be a token when 42% of the BBA class of 2007 are female? With that kinda percentage, I doubt if they have to resort to bending the rules to attract female applicants.</p>
<p>You don't know if they only have that number because of bent rules or not. But still, 42% doesn't make someone a token.</p>
<p>GoBlue, take a look at the percentage of women at other business schools. Wharton is one example of a top school that touts its high percentage of women... at 39%. Most B-schools I looked at run in the mid 30's and the schools that you can actually find statistics on claim to be affirmatively pursuing women. Also, take a look at Hoedown's earlier post that addresses the treatment of women in the Ross admissions process. 42% is the highest female percentage I was able to find at the top B-schools.</p>
<p>I really don't want to debate the use of the word "token," as I believe it was poor word choice in my earlier post. It means different things to different people. My point was I didn't like to the idea of receiving a spot I would not have received if I were male. I'm not saying it happened to me... I am, however, saying it happens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
42% is the highest female percentage I was able to find at the top B-schools.
[/quote]
Not sure where you look but Ross is not unique in having a high female %. For example:
McIntire - 45%
Wisconsin - 40%
McCombs - 49% (2124 women; 2193 men)</p>
<p>By your logic all those titans of industry, doctors, lawyers and professors who graduated from institutions of higher education before c. 1975 should have given back their degrees and disgorged their net worth, which were gained at the expense of all the highly qualified women who were denied admissions into virtually every school/program in this country. If you look around the world, you'll see that once they stopped keeping women down and out, they have excelled in virtually every field they entered. That is not affirmative action that is equality. So you feel bad that maybe you got into Ross because you are a woman? Feel bad that your mother and your grandmother didn't have the chance to even think about going, that my mother was lucky to graduate from high school. That Sandra Day O'Connor couldn't get a job as a lawyer -- they wanted her to be a secretary -- more befitting her gender. Geez, read some early feminist literature, get a grip.</p>
<p>hrm...those comments weren't particularly coherent...could you clarify?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wharton is one example of a top school that touts its high percentage of women... at 39%.
[/quote]
I reread your post and I think you are making too much of the few % difference (42% vs. 39%). The % can change quite a bit from year to year. You can see that from the Ross student profiles for the past few years:</p>
<p>Year ... % Women
2007 ..... 42%
2006 ..... 40%
2005 ..... 34%
2004 ..... 39%
2003 ..... 42%</p>