<p>Another factor that may tend to skew Michigan’s undergrad student body more affluent, and by extension whiter, is its FA policy, in particular its inability to meet full need for OOS students who in recent years have represented upwards of 40% of the entering class. This likely means that a higher percentage of OOS enrolled students are full-pays, since admitted students with unmet financial need are more likely to go elsewhere for a better financial deal. And full-pays are more likely to come from affluent, and predominantly white, suburban areas of New York, Chicago, DC, etc. </p>
<p>Now it’s certainly true that not all white students are affluent, and it’s equally true that not all URMs are low-income. But we’re playing the percentages here; the more affluent the student body, the whiter it is likely to be. According to the Census Bureau, in 2010 13.5% of white households earned over $100,000/year, compared to 7.5% of Hispanic households and 6.5% of black households. At the other end of the scale, 32.4% of white households had incomes under $35,000/year, compared to 46% of Hispanic households and 53.2% of black households.</p>
<p>Inability to meet full need for OOS students would tend to screen out well qualified admitted students from low- and moderate-income backgrounds regardless of race, but this facially race-neutral policy is likely to have a racially disparate impact because of the way income distribution skews.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see racial and SES breakdowns for OOS v. in-state students, but I’d be very surprised if the OOS students weren’t whiter and more affluent, on average.</p>
<p>The university is planning to address this, in a race-neutral way: apparently raising sufficient endowment funds to meet full need for all students is going to be a major goal of its upcoming capital campaign.</p>