March 26, 2001Now that Wisconsin state legislators are asking for information on University practices, it is necessary to look at the plain facts of diversity admissions. The UW-Madison 2001-2002 application brochure provides a framework for understanding the University’s dilemma.
In its text, the brochure says (p. 5), “We give particular consideration to applicants who have been out of school two or more years, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background.” It adds (p. 6) ” …we also take into consideration personal characteristics that will contribute to the strength and diversity of the University community….” and (p. 9) that consideration is given to ” …other factors that may help predict success as well as contribute to the strength and diversity of our University community.” The photos in the brochure do advertise minority undergraduate participation. Yet, these three vague statements are as close as the text comes to revealing what the University’s racial admission practice actually is.
To guide potential applicants in thinking about their qualifications, the brochure includes a table of high school class rankings for year 2000 freshman applicants. Applications, admits, and enrollment are sharply skewed toward high class rankings. Only 5% of the enrolled freshmen ranked below the top 30% of their high school class.
But, when the data are broken down by diversity characteristics, we unfortunately see a disjointed situation: 34% of enrolled minority freshmen ranked below the top 30% of their high school class.
Here is the detail on high school class ranking of enrolled freshmen, minority and non-minority enrollees separately:
| High School Class Rank of Enrolled Freshmen |
| Rank in Class |
Percentile
Range |
Non-Minority |
Minority |
|
Total in Bottom 70% |
|
Total in Bottom 70% |
|
Top Ten Percent
|
90-99
|
49%
|
|
26%
|
|
|
Second Ten Percent
|
80-89
|
34%
|
21%
|
|
Third Ten Percent
|
70-79
|
12%
|
19%
|
|
All
|
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
*Refers to percentage of enrolled freshment from bottom 70% by rank in class.
|
Why are so many minority freshmen enrolled at a disadvantage, handicapped from the start of their university careers by noncompetitive preparation? The answer lies in the University’s admission practices. Whereas only 6% of non-minority bottom-half-of-the class applicants were admitted in 2000, the figure for minority applicants was 37%.
Here’s the detail on high school class ranking of admitted applicants, minority and non-minority admits separately:
| Proportion of Applicants Admitted to UW-Madison |
| Rank in Class |
Percentile
Range |
Non-Minority |
Minority |
|
Total in Bottom 70% |
|
Total in Bottom 70% |
|
Top Ten Percent
|
90-99
|
98%
|
|
93%
|
|
|
Second Ten Percent
|
80-89
|
93%
|
91%
|
|
Third Ten Percent
|
70-79
|
58%
|
83%
|
|
*Refers to percentage of admitted from bottom 70% by high school class rank.
|
Is it any wonder that retention rates and graduation rates lag for minority students? We are accepting and enrolling minority students who are academically noncompetitive. This isn’t fair to anyone — qualified minority admits, non-minority applicants, faculty, administrators, and most especially, the minority admits themselves who are under-qualified relative to non-minority admits.
Must diversity on campus continue to mean racial preference in admission and the resulting disproportionately low minority retention and graduation rates?
President Smith, the Board of Regents is presiding over a flawed system. Isn’t it time to face the facts and do better?
Cordially,
— W. Lee Hansen
Professor Emeritus, Economics
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Letter to the Board of Regents on UW-Madison Admission Brochure
March 26, 2001Now that Wisconsin state legislators are asking for information on University practices, it is necessary to look at the plain facts of diversity admissions. The UW-Madison 2001-2002 application brochure provides a framework for understanding the University’s dilemma.
In its text, the brochure says (p. 5), “We give particular consideration to applicants who have been out of school two or more years, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background.” It adds (p. 6) ” …we also take into consideration personal characteristics that will contribute to the strength and diversity of the University community….” and (p. 9) that consideration is given to ” …other factors that may help predict success as well as contribute to the strength and diversity of our University community.” The photos in the brochure do advertise minority undergraduate participation. Yet, these three vague statements are as close as the text comes to revealing what the University’s racial admission practice actually is.
To guide potential applicants in thinking about their qualifications, the brochure includes a table of high school class rankings for year 2000 freshman applicants. Applications, admits, and enrollment are sharply skewed toward high class rankings. Only 5% of the enrolled freshmen ranked below the top 30% of their high school class.
But, when the data are broken down by diversity characteristics, we unfortunately see a disjointed situation: 34% of enrolled minority freshmen ranked below the top 30% of their high school class.
Here is the detail on high school class ranking of enrolled freshmen, minority and non-minority enrollees separately:
Range
Why are so many minority freshmen enrolled at a disadvantage, handicapped from the start of their university careers by noncompetitive preparation? The answer lies in the University’s admission practices. Whereas only 6% of non-minority bottom-half-of-the class applicants were admitted in 2000, the figure for minority applicants was 37%.
Here’s the detail on high school class ranking of admitted applicants, minority and non-minority admits separately:
Range
Is it any wonder that retention rates and graduation rates lag for minority students? We are accepting and enrolling minority students who are academically noncompetitive. This isn’t fair to anyone — qualified minority admits, non-minority applicants, faculty, administrators, and most especially, the minority admits themselves who are under-qualified relative to non-minority admits.
Must diversity on campus continue to mean racial preference in admission and the resulting disproportionately low minority retention and graduation rates?
President Smith, the Board of Regents is presiding over a flawed system. Isn’t it time to face the facts and do better?
Cordially,
— W. Lee Hansen
Professor Emeritus, Economics
University of Wisconsin-Madison