Reprint from The Daily Cardinal, February 2-4, 2001Members of the Board of Regents are finally entering into public debate about the appropriateness of using race preferences in admitting students to the University of Wisconsin. Regent Fred Mohs contends that minority students should not get preferential treatment in the admissions process, as they now do. He argues that this process neither treats all applicants fairly nor does it advance minority achievement.
Regent President Jay Smith has offered a public response. He contends that no “cut and dried formula” is used in admitting students, race is but one of many factors entering into admission decisions, the “individual consideration of their [the people of Wisconsin’s] sons and daughters who apply . . .is fairer than some formula approach,” and, finally, using race preference does “advance (the goal of) minority educational success.”
The admission process at UW-Madison works like this. To be considered, applicants must be minimally qualified. This means they must have graduated in the upper half of their high school class and successfully completed a battery of college preparatory courses. In addition, they must have taken the ACT test.
How does the admissions office handle student applications? More than 80 percent of all admitted applicants are admitted automatically. Their high school class rank and ACT score are taken as indicators that they have a “reasonable probability of success.” This same formula-based, color-blind approach also admits approximately two thirds of all minority applicants.
All remaining, minimally-qualified, non-minority applicants are screened on the array of factors mentioned by Regent Smith. Those applicants viewed as “among the best” of this group are admitted; the most promising of the next group of applicants, described as “among the better,”are admitted or put on the waiting list; and the rest are summarily rejected.
For all remaining, minimally-qualified, minority applicants, the process differs-they are all admitted based on race preference. This description makes it clear that race is decisive in admitting minority applicants who would otherwise not be admitted. Moreover, the admissions process does rely heavily on a “cut-and-dried formula.”
How “fair” is the admissions process? A comparison of admission rates for minority and non-minority applicants is instructive. For applicants in the top high school class ranks-from the 80-89th and 90-99th percentile ranges-admission rates for both minority and non-minority applicants are almost identical, exceeding 90 percent.
After that, differences in admission rates begin to show up. Admission rates for minorities in both the 70-79th and 60-69th percentile ranges still exceed 90 percent. By contrast, admission rates for non-minority applicants drop to 70 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Even in the borderline 50-59th percentile range, 80 percent of minority applicants are admitted as compared to only 15 percent of non-minority applicants.
What about applicants in the bottom half of their high school class who receive “particular consideration” in the admission process? This group includes veterans, older students, minority and disadvantaged students, and those having special talents. Here, minority applicants are more than four times as likely to be admitted as are non-minority applicants. These outcomes reveal that all applicants are not treated equally and fairly, as state law and a democratic society requires.
To what extent do race preferences “advance minority educational success”? Consider the most widely used measure of student academic success, the six-year graduation rate. Of the enrolled minorities admitted by the formula that is applied to all applicants, over 60 percent graduate within six years. Of those minorities admitted based on race preference, less than 30 percent graduate within six years. This difference is not new-it has persisted for years.
If non-minority applicants must demonstrate a “reasonable probability of success” to be admitted, why does the UW continue to admit these minority applicants whose graduation prospects are so weak? Is this an educationally sound practice? Regent Smith would seem to think so.
What about the larger implications of race preferences at UW-Madison? Admitting substantial numbers of minority students with such poor prospects of graduation produces unfortunate side effects. It discourages minority students from applying because they realize that being admitted says little about their likely chances of academic success. It undermines confidence about the ability to compete academically by those minority students admitted because of their race.
It stigmatizes minority students who earn their admission based on academic merit because most non-minority students know that many minority students are admitted only because of their race. Finally, it undermines the integrity of university officials as a source of truth about diversity policies and their effects on students.
What puzzles me is why university leaders are so reluctant to be open about how the admissions process operates for both minority and non-minority students? Why are they so guarded in admitting that race preferences play a decisive role in admissions? Why do they continue insisting, in the face of contradictory evidence, that using race preferences is “fair” to everyone and at the same time enhances “minority educational success”?
Yes, the university’s biennial budget request is a top priority. But so is openness and fairness in dealing with the university’s students and the general public. So also is respecting the ability of talented minority students to achieve and be recognized for their academic success.
Logic Behind Race-Based Admission Unfounded
Reprint from The Daily Cardinal, February 2-4, 2001Members of the Board of Regents are finally entering into public debate about the appropriateness of using race preferences in admitting students to the University of Wisconsin. Regent Fred Mohs contends that minority students should not get preferential treatment in the admissions process, as they now do. He argues that this process neither treats all applicants fairly nor does it advance minority achievement.
Regent President Jay Smith has offered a public response. He contends that no “cut and dried formula” is used in admitting students, race is but one of many factors entering into admission decisions, the “individual consideration of their [the people of Wisconsin’s] sons and daughters who apply . . .is fairer than some formula approach,” and, finally, using race preference does “advance (the goal of) minority educational success.”
The admission process at UW-Madison works like this. To be considered, applicants must be minimally qualified. This means they must have graduated in the upper half of their high school class and successfully completed a battery of college preparatory courses. In addition, they must have taken the ACT test.
How does the admissions office handle student applications? More than 80 percent of all admitted applicants are admitted automatically. Their high school class rank and ACT score are taken as indicators that they have a “reasonable probability of success.” This same formula-based, color-blind approach also admits approximately two thirds of all minority applicants.
All remaining, minimally-qualified, non-minority applicants are screened on the array of factors mentioned by Regent Smith. Those applicants viewed as “among the best” of this group are admitted; the most promising of the next group of applicants, described as “among the better,”are admitted or put on the waiting list; and the rest are summarily rejected.
For all remaining, minimally-qualified, minority applicants, the process differs-they are all admitted based on race preference. This description makes it clear that race is decisive in admitting minority applicants who would otherwise not be admitted. Moreover, the admissions process does rely heavily on a “cut-and-dried formula.”
How “fair” is the admissions process? A comparison of admission rates for minority and non-minority applicants is instructive. For applicants in the top high school class ranks-from the 80-89th and 90-99th percentile ranges-admission rates for both minority and non-minority applicants are almost identical, exceeding 90 percent.
After that, differences in admission rates begin to show up. Admission rates for minorities in both the 70-79th and 60-69th percentile ranges still exceed 90 percent. By contrast, admission rates for non-minority applicants drop to 70 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Even in the borderline 50-59th percentile range, 80 percent of minority applicants are admitted as compared to only 15 percent of non-minority applicants.
What about applicants in the bottom half of their high school class who receive “particular consideration” in the admission process? This group includes veterans, older students, minority and disadvantaged students, and those having special talents. Here, minority applicants are more than four times as likely to be admitted as are non-minority applicants. These outcomes reveal that all applicants are not treated equally and fairly, as state law and a democratic society requires.
To what extent do race preferences “advance minority educational success”? Consider the most widely used measure of student academic success, the six-year graduation rate. Of the enrolled minorities admitted by the formula that is applied to all applicants, over 60 percent graduate within six years. Of those minorities admitted based on race preference, less than 30 percent graduate within six years. This difference is not new-it has persisted for years.
If non-minority applicants must demonstrate a “reasonable probability of success” to be admitted, why does the UW continue to admit these minority applicants whose graduation prospects are so weak? Is this an educationally sound practice? Regent Smith would seem to think so.
What about the larger implications of race preferences at UW-Madison? Admitting substantial numbers of minority students with such poor prospects of graduation produces unfortunate side effects. It discourages minority students from applying because they realize that being admitted says little about their likely chances of academic success. It undermines confidence about the ability to compete academically by those minority students admitted because of their race.
It stigmatizes minority students who earn their admission based on academic merit because most non-minority students know that many minority students are admitted only because of their race. Finally, it undermines the integrity of university officials as a source of truth about diversity policies and their effects on students.
What puzzles me is why university leaders are so reluctant to be open about how the admissions process operates for both minority and non-minority students? Why are they so guarded in admitting that race preferences play a decisive role in admissions? Why do they continue insisting, in the face of contradictory evidence, that using race preferences is “fair” to everyone and at the same time enhances “minority educational success”?
Yes, the university’s biennial budget request is a top priority. But so is openness and fairness in dealing with the university’s students and the general public. So also is respecting the ability of talented minority students to achieve and be recognized for their academic success.