W. Lee Hansen

Summary

This study traces the impact of preferential admissions for targeted minorities on their admission, retention, and graduation rates, examining the impact of eliminating such preferences, and explores the “perceived” effect of these preferences on non-targeted applicants.¹If preferential admission for targeted minorities was eliminated, here is what would likely happen:

• the enrollment of targeted minority freshmen would immediately decline by 30 percent;
• the gap in second-year retention rates for targeted minorities would decrease by half after the first year, and the gap in six-year graduation rates for targeted minorities would decrease by almost half in six years;
• if existing diversity resources were redirected to support the now smaller number of targeted minority students, minority retention and graduation rates would be further increased, and these gaps might even be eliminated before the year 2008;
• if this happy event were to occur, the number of targeted minorities graduating from UW-Madison would equal the current number who are graduating despite the one-third decrease in the number targeted minorities admitted and enrolling here.

These findings emerge from an analysis of admission, retention, and graduation data for targeted minority and non-targeted applicants, and also for targeted minority and non-targeted students. The analysis is unique in that it focuses on how these rates vary by high school class rank, ACT score, and both high school class rank and ACT scores. The analysis, based on data from the UW-Madison Office of Budget, Planning, and Analysis, is restricted to those applicants for whom information is available on both their high school class rank and ACT scores.

The logic of these results is compelling. When the admission standard applicable to non-targeted applicants is applied to targeted minorities, the number of targeted minority applicants most at risk of not graduating is substantially reduced. As a result, those who are admitted would have greater chances of succeeding academically and, consequently, their retention and graduation rates would rise. Because many targeted minorities with good high school academic records often perform less well than do non-targeted students with similar academic records, current levels of diversity funding could now focus on helping this smaller group of minority students succeed in college. Indeed, the resulting one-third increase in per-student support offers the prospect of improving both retention and graduation rates for targeted minorities. The only question is how best to utilize the available resources to help these students.

Preferential admission for targeted minorities is not without some impact on non-targeted applicants and students. The extent to which non-targeted applicants would be displaced by targeted minority students is generally viewed as minimal. For example, if 130 targeted minority applicants are admitted when there is an overall limit on total enrollment, this means that 130 fewer non-targeted applicants would be admitted. These 130 displaced non-targeted applicants constitute less than 1.5 percent of all non-targeted applicants.

The policy of preferential admission also means that approximately 1,500 equally qualified non-targeted applicants would qualify for admission by the standard applied to targeted minority applicants. But, because the enrollment limit prevents them from being admitted, they may “perceive” they are being discriminated against in admission decisions. The number of non-targeted applicants in this category is larger, representing approximately 15 percent of all non-targeted applicants. Cumulated over several years, the potential negative effects of UW-Madison’s preferential admissions policy may outweigh its positive effects, and, in turn, undermine public support for the campus and perhaps jeopardize its budgetary support.

Introduction

The impact of preferential admissions on targeted minority students is extended in this study beyond that contained in the author’s “Do Minority Groups Get Admission Preference at UW-Madison.”² Rather than examining differences in admission rates between targeted minority and non-targeted applicants by high school class rank alone as that study does, this analysis looks at differences in admission rates by both high school class rank and ACT scores. The first part of the paper describes these differences. The second part examines the impact on enrollment, retention, and graduation of eliminating admission preferences for targeted minorities, and then explores several implications of eliminating preferential admissions.Before turning to the data, it is helpful to think about the likely patterns of admission by high school class rank and ACT scores for both non-targeted applicants and targeted minority applicants. Based on faculty-established admission standards, high school class rank takes clear priority in determining who is admitted. Hence, we would expect admission rates, except at the top high school rank intervals (e.g., those in the top 20 percent), to drop fairly sharply at each successive high school class rank interval. Admission rates by ACT scores, which are also used to help estimate for each applicant an expected first-year college GPA, would display a similar pattern. Since admission rates vary inversely with both high school class rank and ACT scores, we would expect a sharp drop off in admission rates at successively lower combinations of high school class rank and ACT scores. The likely pattern is shown in the top panel of Figure 1.

Because targeted minority applicants are admitted by a different standard, i.e., all minimally qualified targeted minority applicants are “normally admitted,” we would expect them to have high admission rates without regard to their high school class rank. This means that the admission rates for targeted minority applicants in the top half of their high school class would not vary much by high school class rank interval. Nor would much variation be expected in admission rates for targeted minority applicants by ACT score intervals, particularly for those applicants who graduated in the upper half of their high school class. Thus, rather than the sharp drop off expected for non-targeted applicants, admission rates for targeted minority applicants would remain high over the range of those minimally qualified (those in the top half of their high school class) and then drop off sharply for those targeted minority applicants not in the top half of their high school class. This pattern in shown in the bottom panel of Figure 1.

In conclusion, based on faculty-determined admission policy, we would expect to find quite different patterns in the admission rates of targeted minorities and non-targeted applicants. Specifically, admission rates for targeted minorities would generally exceed admission rates for non-targeted applicants except at higher class rank and ACT intervals. To test these expectations, we turn to the data.

But, first, a description of the data. The analysis is restricted to those applicants whose records contain both class rank and ACT scores; excluded are applicants who submitted SAT scores (out of state applicants may opt to do this) and those for whom class rank or ACT scores were not available.³ The high school class rank intervals are by decile; the ACT score intervals of three points are standard in the literature. The data are analyzed for targeted minority applicants as a group, which includes Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and SE Asians; and for non-targeted applicants as a group, which includes Whites and Asian Americans.With data on Fall 1997 applicants, it becomes possible to construct comparable admission rates for targeted minorities and the non-targeted population. With data for entering freshmen from Fall 1988-91, it becomes possible to construct comparable retention and graduation rates for both populations. To help readers understand the information used here, the initial analysis of admission rates is presented in considerable detail through a succession of charts and tables.

Looking at the Evidence

Admission Rates. Evidence of preferences in admission decisions comes from UW-Madison data for Fall 1997. These data permit calculating admission rates for applicants and admitted applicants by their high school percentile rank (abbreviated as high school class rank or class rank), by their ACT scores, and by class rank and ACT scores together. As background, the 82 percent overall admission rate for targeted minority applicants exceeds the 79 percent admission rate for non-targeted applicants.The percentages of targeted minority and non-targeted applicants admitted by high school class rank in Fall 1997 are shown in Figure 2; the results are quite similar to those based on somewhat different data that were presented in the author’s “Do Minority Groups Receive Admission Preferences at UW-Madison?” What is most apparent are the quite different patterns of admission rates for targeted minorities and for non-targeted applicants.

To elaborate, whereas the admission rates for non-targeted applicants drop substantially at each class rank interval below the 80th percentile, the admission rates for targeted minorities remain relatively high and drop off sharply but only below the 50th percentile. As might be expected, the admission rates for applicants in the top two class rank intervals (80+) are very similar. Oddly, this pattern continues but only for targeted minority applicants. By the 60-69 class rank interval, less than 40 percent of non-targeted applicants are admitted as contrasted to 93 percent for targeted applicants. The disparities are even greater at the 50-59 and the under 50 class rank intervals; in both intervals, the admission rates for targeted minorities exceed those for non-targeted applicants by a margin of roughly 5 to 1. The likelihood that these results occurred by chance is remote.

These differences are not unexpected, as noted earlier. They arise because for non-targeted applicants, high school class rank is a key determinant of admission. By contrast, targeted applicants are admitted on a different basis. Considerable numbers are “normally admitted” even if they do not meet the “competitive” academic standard applied to non-targeted applicants, and other targeted minority applicants are admitted after being given “special consideration” on the basis of their race/ethnicity.⁴A different slant on how the admission process operates is provided by contrasting the percentages the of targeted minority and non-targeted applicants admitted by ACT score, as shown in Figure 3. Recall that ACT scores are used to help estimate a predicted first-year college GPA for each applicant, and this predicted value is used to rank applicants. The differences in admission rates shown by ACT scores are not quite as dramatic as those by high school class rank because the range of differences in scores is smaller for both groups. In another sense, these differences are even more dramatic, because at every ACT score interval targeted minorities are more likely to be admitted than are non-targeted applicants. Though these data are for only a single year, the likelihood is remote that the differences between these two population groups are the result of chance alone. Again, these patterns reflect the preferential admission status accorded targeted minorities.

These two perspectives can be combined by comparing admission rates by both high school class rank and ACT scores, as shown in Figure 4. This particular table shows admission rates for applicants with comparably high class rank and ACT scores, e.g., 90-100 for high school class rank and 30+ on the ACT, 80-89 for high school class rank and 27-29 on the ACT, etc. As might be expected, 100 percent of the top class rank-top ACT score groups (80+/27+) are admitted for both targeted minority and non-targeted applicants. At the next level (70-79 high school rank and 24-26 ACT), the admission rate for non-targeted applicants exceeds that for targeted applicants, i.e., 93 percent versus 72 percent. Below that level the gap in admission rates for non-targeted applicants becomes progressively wider except for applicants with the lowest class rank and ACT scores. The reason for the widening gap should be apparent: because all minimally qualified targeted minorities are “normally admitted” without regard to either their class rank or ACT scores, their admission rates exceed 85 percent in every interval except the lowest interval (<50/<18). Now that readers have a general understanding of these patterns, the data on admissions rates are presented in another more informative format. Table 1 shows admission rates for each cell in the 6 x 6 grid of high school class rank and ACT score intervals used in Figures 2-4. Admissions rates for targeted minority applicants appear in the top panel and those for non-targeted applicants appear in the bottom panel. The cells are shaded to highlight differences in the patterns of admission rates between the two groups.

As might be expected, admission rates for non-targeted applicants in the top panel are highest for applicants with excellent high school records and top ACT scores; these cells are identified by the darkest shading. Admission rates drop off sharply thereafter, with the rates exceeding 90 percent in only 1 of the 22 cells with entries below the 80th percentile class rank. The three cells with no entries, meaning there were no applicants with these combinations of class rank and ACT scores, are distinguished by their low ACT scores (under 18).The contrast with targeted minority applicants is dramatic. Admission rates for targeted minority applicants exceed 90 percent in 13 of the 23 cells with entries below the 80th percentile class rank. Expressed another way, admission rates exceed 80 percent in 26 of the 35 cells for targeted minority applicants as compared to only 14 of the 33 cells for non-targeted applicants.

The inescapable conclusion is this: these results confirm the speculations that prompted this analysis. One, targeted minority applicants are admitted on a different standard because of their race and ethnicity, as specified by faculty legislation. Two, the rules and procedures used by the Admissions Office to process freshmen applications for admission effectively implement the preferential admission policy established by faculty legislation.

Retention Rates. The analysis now shifts to describe second-year retention of freshmen from targeted minority and non-targeted groups. As noted, this analysis is based on data for freshmen who enrolled in the Fall semesters of 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. By averaging over several years, the analysis that follows is less affected by particular year-to-year variations. The format of this analysis follows that of the previous section but skips more quickly through Figures 5-7 which mirror Figures 2-4, and Tables 2 which mirrors Table 1.

Second-year retention rates by high school class rank for non-targeted students exceed those for targeted students across the entire spectrum of class rank intervals (Figure 5); the same is true for ACT intervals except at the top interval of 30+ (Figure 6). The pattern is somewhat mixed for students with comparable class rank and ACT scores (Figure 7). Here, retention rates for targeted minorities exceed those for non-targeted students in three of the six class rank/ACT intervals: 90-100/30+, 60-69/21-23, and <50/<18. What accounts for this pattern is not clear. Perhaps targeted minority students in these cells took fuller advantage of the opportunities open to them.

More illuminating is Table 2 which shows second-year retention rates by class rank-ACT cells. The retention pattern for non-targeted applicants is about what might be expected, with a high overall retention and with somewhat lower retention rates for students with lower class rank and lower ACT scores. By contrast, the pattern for targeted minorities is more variable. Some cells with high (90+) retention rates (shown by the dark shading) are next to cells with considerably lower retention rates (indicated by the lighter shading or in some cases by the absence of any shading). This pattern suggests that class rank and ACT scores are less accurate predictors of second-year retention for targeted minorities. Whether this pattern of retention reflects differences in academic performance, which these variables are designed to predict, or the effects of other personal and financial factors cannot be determined from these data. Graduation Rates. Similar data on six-year graduation of freshmen from targeted minority and non-targeted groups are available for these same freshmen who entered in the Fall semesters of 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. Again, the same pattern of presentation is followed.

Whether by high school class rank (Figure 8), ACT score (Figure 9), or a combination of the two measures (Figure 10), six-year graduation rates for non-targeted students exceed those for targeted students across the entire spectrum of intervals except for targeted minority students with the lowest combination of class rank and ACT scores; the graduation rate for this group exceeds by a wide margin that for the next higher class rank and ACT group. Close inspection of Table 3 shows that the difference arises in part because the graduation rate for this group of non-targeted students is so low.

Otherwise, the pattern of six-year graduation rates for non-targeted students is about what might be expected, with lower graduation rates at successively lower combinations of class rank and ACT scores. In 13 of the 36 cells, graduation rates exceed 70 percent, and in another 16 cells they exceed 51 percent. In only one cell, that for the lowest combination of class rank and test scores, is the graduation rate less than 35 percent.

The results for targeted minority students are more varied. The number of cells with graduation rates exceeding 70 percent is smaller (6 as compared to 13 for non-targeted students); the number of cells with rates exceeding 51 percent is also smaller (16 as contrasted to 29 for non-targeted students). Even more disturbing are the zero graduation rates in the high ACT cells where targeted minorities might be expected to do well, especially those with strong high school records. These results are also puzzling because some students in these same cells had high second-year retention rates. Again, these data by themselves cannot throw light on why graduation rates differ as they do, both between the two groups and within the targeted minority group.

Elaborating on the Implications

Implications for Enrollment Rates. On average, considerable numbers of targeted minorities admitted to UW-Madison, though minimally qualified, are not academically competitive with the student body as a whole. On this basis alone, they face greater academic challenges than do their fellow targeted minority students who are admitted on the basis of their academic records.

• If the same admission standard were applied to all applicants, without regard to their race and ethnic status, the number of targeted minority applicants admitted to UW-Madison, would decline by an estimated 30 percent,⁵ from about 430 to about 300 based the Fall 1997 data used here. The remaining 70 percent of targeted minorities would be admitted by the same standard of academic merit used to admit non-targeted applicants. While some of these targeted minority students might still face problems associated with their race and ethnicity, they as a group would be more likely to succeed academically and eventually graduate.
• Applying the admission rate for non-targeted applicants to targeted minority applicants would reduce the admission rate for targeted minorities and reverse the gap in admission rates between the two groups. The admission rate for targeted minorities would fall from its current level of 82 percent to about 57 percent. And whereas the targeted minority admission rate currently exceeds the 79 percent rate for non-targeted applicants, it would now be substantially lower.
• If, by contrast, the admission rates for targeted minority applicants were applied to non-targeted applicants, approximately 20 percent more non-targeted applicants would qualify for admission.⁶ Based on applicants who supplied information on both class rank and ACT scores, almost 1,600 additional non-targeted applicants would have been admissible. Of course, with the limit on enrollment imposed by the UW System’s Enrollment Management Policy, these additional non-targeted applicants could not be admitted. Thus, though the actual displacement effect of preferential admissions for targeted minorities is the 130 additional targeted minorities admitted (430-300), the “perceived” displacement effect as seen by non-targeted applicants is 1600. This figure, which represents more than 15 percent of all non-targeted applicants, can be viewed as the number of non-targeted applicants who might legitimately claim to be discriminated against in admission solely on the basis of their race/ethnicity.⁷ When cumulated over the years during which targeted minorities have received preference in admission, the number of people who may be disillusioned about UW-Madison’s admission policy could be substantial; what the effects of this ever growing group might be university budget requests and contributions to UW-Madison is not known.

To summarize, the data indicate that targeted minority applicants to UW-Madison benefit from race and ethnic-based preferences in admissions decisions. As a consequence, a substantial proportion of admitted applicants from targeted minority groups, though minimally qualified, are not academically competitive with admitted applicants from non-targeted groups. As a further consequence, substantial numbers of non-targeted applicants are denied admission even though they rank higher on two key determinants of admission, namely their high school class rank and their ACT Score. The evidence shows clearly that the University’s quest for a more diverse student body does entail some costs even though these costs cannot be defined or quantified with any precision.

This analysis also demonstrates that targeted minority applicants are evaluated on the basis of their group characteristics, i.e., race and ethnicity. The extent to which they may have been admitted because they as individuals “have been disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background” is not apparent. Even there were a desire to take these factors into account, how this would be done is not obvious. For example, family income cannot be an important consideration in admissions decisions because no information on family income is sought in the application form or available to the Admissions Office. Substandard education may be deduced by admissions personnel because of information available to them about the quality of an applicant’s high school. But, how substandard school quality may have affected any individual applicant’s academic performance at such a school is difficult to ascertain; invariably, in poor quality schools, some targeted minority students perform well and others perform less well.

Implications for Retention Rates. Differences in retention rates by the quantitative measures of academic merit used in making admissions decision are smaller than differences in admission rates based on these same measures. What seems surprising is how high the retention rates remain for students at the lower range of class rank and ACT scores. Moreover, second-year retention rates for targeted minority students are lower by class rank, ACT scores, and by various combinations of these measures, and thus they are at odds with the more favorable admission rates for targeted minority applicants.

• If the same admission standard used to admit non-targeted applicants were applied to targeted minorities, and if targeted minority retention by class rank and ACT scores continued at current levels, the gap in retention rates would drop by 55 percent. Put another way, the retention rate for targeted minorities would rise from 81 to 87 percent, in contrast to the 92 percent figure for non-targeted students.
• If targeted minorities admitted had to be academically competitive with non-targeted admitted applicants, and if the resources currently devoted to academic support programs for targeted minorities were focused on the academically competitive targeted minority students, it seems plausible to believe that the minority retention rate could be further improved and thereby help to close the remaining five percentage point gap between the two groups. Were this to happen, much might be learned about the effectiveness of different approaches to improving the academic performance of targeted minority students. And, such information might be helpful in sorting out the relative importance of prior academic achievement, campus climate, and other personal factors affecting minority retention.

Implications for Graduation Rates. The gap in six-year graduation rates is substantial. The overall graduation rate for targeted minorities is 49 percent, which is 24 percentage points below the 73 percent for non-targeted students.

• If no preference in admissions were given to targeted minorities, the gap in six-year graduation rates would drop by more than two-fifths (actually, 42 percent). This means that the current six-year graduation rate of 49 percent would increase to 59 percent, still well below the 73 percent rate for non-targeted students.⁸
• If this big an improvement can result from eliminating preferential admissions, should UW-Madison continue this policy? How can preferences be defended when the graduation rate data indicate that on average the chance that a targeted minority student will graduate within six years is less than the toss of a coin? Is this an acceptable basis for a university to admit what would clearly seem to be at-risk students? In fact, in 14 of the 29 class rank-ACT score cells for targeted minorities, as compared to only 7 out of the 36 cells for non-targeted students, the graduation rate is below 50 percent. Whether admitting applicants with such rates reflects for them a “reasonable probability of academic success” is open to questions. So also are the role of preferences in “implementing the University’s goals of maximizing the success [likelihood of graduation] of students who are admitted to UW-Madison and of achieving a heterogeneous and ethnically diverse student body.”
• If concentrating academic support resources on academically competitive targeted minority students could increase their retention and graduation rates, the remaining gap in graduation rates might be narrowed or even eliminated. Any improvement would be beneficial, of course. In the process, something could be learned about the effectiveness of different approaches to this challenge.
• If the gap in graduation rates could be eliminated, by bringing the graduation rate for targeted minorities up to that for non-targeted students, the number of targeted minority students graduating within six years would still equal the number now graduating under preferential admissions, despite a one-third reduction in the number of entering minority freshman.

This last finding is quite startling. While for many reasons it might be impossible to bring the targeted minority graduation rate up to that for non-targeted students, bringing these two rates much closer together would represent an impressive accomplishment. By focusing academic support resources on academically able targeted minority students and by removing the stigma minority students suffer as a result of preferential admissions, the possibility exists of bringing about a substantial narrowing in the graduation rate gap.What we don’t know is how effective this greater concentration of resources might be in making it possible for more targeted minority students to persist and graduate. Presumably, there are documented reports of successful support programs. These programs need to be examined to determine their relevance to UW-Madison and their potential success. It is not enough to assert that new and continuing support programs discussed in Madison Plan 2008 will work. We don’t really know whether they will work. What we do know is that such programs have not succeeded in the past. For these reasons, careful thought must be given to devising a strategy that will help minority students, who by virtue of their color and environment in which they grew up, have the ability to succeed, indeed, even to excel, in their undergraduate study at UW-Madison.

Conclusions

Wide gaps remain in new freshmen enrollment rates, second-year retention rates, and six-year graduation rates. These gaps persist despite a substantial and aggressive series of diversity programs implemented over the past several decades and a long history of preferences in admissions for targeted minority applicants.⁹Available data on applicants and those admitted by high school class rank and ACT scores reveals that targeted minority applicants are systematically treated more favorably than non-targeted applicants in admissions decisions. Except for the most academically able applicants, targeted minorities are admitted at appreciably higher rates than similarly qualified non-targeted applications. Such a result is not surprising because the UW-Madison faculty authorizes these preferences, which are then faithfully implemented by the Admissions Office.¹⁰ The impact of these preferences can be assessed in still another way; if targeted minority applicants were admitted at the same rate as non-targeted applicants, the number admitted would fall by 30 percent. This policy means that as many as 15 percent of all non-targeted applicants may have reason to “perceive” they are being displaced by because of race and ethnic based preferences.

The gaps in retention and graduation rates could be reduced by approximately 50 percent by admitting only those targeted minority applicants who are academically competitive with non-targeted applicants. If the resources currently devoted to diversity programs were then concentrated on the somewhat smaller number of more academically capable targeted minority students, the prospect of further narrowing, if not eliminating, the gaps in retention and graduation rates looks promising.

Finally, the UW-Madison community must consider the consequences its preferential admissions policy. How appropriate is it, from an educational and ethical standpoint, to admit to this campus substantial numbers of targeted minority applicants whose academic records indicate they have less than a 50-50 chance of graduating?

Footnotes

Targeted minorities include Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Southeast Asians, whereas the nontargeted population includes Whites and Asian Americans.

See the author’s webpage.

As a result, this analysis focuses on just over 11,000 of the almost 14,600 who applied for Fall 1997 admission to UW-Madison.

Other nontargeted applicants who do not meet the minimal requirements may also receive “special consideration” as members of special outreach groups, such as veterans, older students, disabled students, etc.

This estimate is obtained by multiplying the number of non-targeted applicants in each class rank-ACT cell by the admission rate for non-targeted applicants in that cell.

This estimate is derived by multiplying the number of non-targeted applicants in each cell by the admission rates for targeted minorities in each cell.

What if some other admission standard were applied in an effort to ensure that all admitted applicants might be reasonably competitive from an academic standpoint? Suppose that all admitted applicants had to be in the upper half of their high school class and have ACT scores of 21 or better. In that case, the number of targeted minority applicants admitted would also drop by 30 percent, producing an absolute drop of 126. Applying this same standard to non-targeted would reduce the number admitted by about 2 percent, producing an absolute drop of 183. Suppose that a higher standard were imposed, namely, that all admitted applicants had to be in the upper 30 percent of their class and have ACT scores of 21 or better. In that case the respective percentage drops would be 46 percent, or 234, for targeted minorities, as contrasted to somewhat less than 8 percent, or 639, for nontargeted applicants.

If targeted minorities — who because of their class rank and ACT scores have less than a 50 percent chance of graduating — were not admitted, the number of targeted minorities admitted would decline by an estimated 34 percent, only slightly higher than the 30 percent drop discussed earlier. The effects on retention and graduation rates would be of the magnitudes already discussed. If, however, targeted minorities — who because of their class rank and ACT scores have less than a 60 percent chance of graduating — were not admitted, the number of targeted minorities admitted would decline by 51 percent. The effects on retention and graduation rates would be greater as a result.

See the author’s “Have Diversity Programs Narrowed Gaps in Minority Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation Rates?”

See the author’s “Do Minority Groups Get Admission Preferences at UW-Madison?”

Summary

Does the UW-Madison discriminate in admissions on the basis of race/ethnicity? Do applicants from targeted minority groups receive preferential consideration in admission decisions? Many people believe that targeted minority groups do receive preferential consideration. Yet, campus officials typically avoid discussing the issue. Moreover, a succession of campus diversity plans have remained silent on whether and how their success hinges on preferences for minority applicants.This paper seeks to resolve these questions by documenting how targeted minority applicants are given preferential consideration in the admission process. It does so from four perspectives. One is through faculty legislation and policy that deal with admissions requirements and particularly how these requirements are applied to targeted minority applicants. Another is how the UW-Madison Office of Admissions implements faculty legislation and policy. Still another is through the application materials provided to prospective applicants. Last, and perhaps most important, is evidence on disparities in admission rates between targeted minority and non-targeted applicants.

The evidence reveals that faculty legislation explicitly authorizes preferences in admission for targeted minority applicants, the Office of Admissions appears to effectively implement these preferences, but the information provided to prospective applicants is vague on the matter of preferences. The evidence also shows that except for applicants in the top 20 percent of their high school graduation class, the percentages of targeted minority applicants admitted each year exceed by considerable margins the percentages of equally qualified nontargeted applicants.

These results reveal a fundamental clash between the UW-Madison faculty and administrators and the Wisconsin Statutes governing the University of Wisconsin System. Whereas the UW-Madison faculty regularly gives strong vocal support to diversity which is based on discrimination in admissions, Wisconsin Statutes explicitly prohibit discrimination in admissions and programs based on race and ethnicity. How this clash will be resolved remains to be seen. The most obvious solution would be for the UW-Madison faculty to bring its policies into conformance with state law.

Introduction

Whether targeted minority applicants do or should receive preferential treatment in admission has been the subject of heated debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the past two years. The question is almost certain to come up again when the campus must develop, approve, and submit to the Board of Regents a new diversity plan. The purpose of that plan is to implement the University of Wisconsin System’s “umbrella” policy approved by the Board of Regents last spring, namely, “Plan 2008: Educational Quality Through Racial and Ethnic Diversity.”This paper attempts to describe UW-Madison’s admissions policies and practices, and how they affect the admission of targeted minorities. Its purpose is to determine whether members of these groups receive preference in admission based solely on their race/ethnicity.

How race/ethnic minorities are treated in the admissions process at the UW-Madison can be viewed from the perspective of the applications materials given to prospective students, campus admission requirements and policy established through faculty legislation, implementation of this legislation by the Admissions Office, and any differences in the pattern of admission rates between targeted racial/ethnic minorities and non-targeted applicants.

Faculty Perspective

The admission criteria for UW-Madison are determined by the faculty through legislation adopted by the Faculty Senate. The most recent full statement of admissions policy appears in Faculty Senate Document 843, dated 5 March 1990. Faculty legislation lists three minimum requirements for admission:

1. “graduation in the upper half of their high school class from a recognized high school or equivalent;”
2. “a minimum of 16 high school credits [later increased to 17 credits] distributed” among specific academic subjects (see the earlier text table on course requirements); and
3. “a test score (ACT for in-state applicants or ACT or SAT for out-of-state applicants),” with the proviso that “no applicant will be denied admission based on this score alone.”

The minimum required courses and the typical academic preparation is shown below.

Faculty legislation also discusses the case of applicants who do not meet the minimum requirements, stating:”Applicants lacking minimum qualifications may be considered if, on the basis of other factors, they appear to have a reasonable probability of success. Particular consideration in admission will be given to applicants who have been out of school for two or more years, service veterans with at least 180 days of activity duty and to applicants who have been disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background.” [emphasis added] (According to the Admissions Office, “reasonable probability of success” also takes into account the rigor of the high school curriculum and the curriculum the student intends to pursue.)

When the UW System began restricting the size of the new freshman class in the late 1980s and found it necessary to select whom to admit from among its many qualified applicants, the UW-Madison faculty in 1987 established two additional criteria for admission (Document 655a, 4 May 1987). As described in current faculty legislation (Document 843, 5 March 1990), these criteria were included “to implement the University’s goal of maximizing the success of students who are admitted to UW-Madison and of achieving a more heterogenous and ethnically diverse student body.” [Emphasis added] Faculty legislation elaborates by stating that the “primary criteria for admission shall be:”

“Membership in a minority, disadvantaged, or other group for which the University has authorized special outreach efforts. Qualified applicants in these special outreach groups shall normally be admitted.” [emphasis added]

“Likelihood of graduation” as determined by high school rank (the primary criterion), test scores at the 90th percentile or above, and a combination of high school rank and test scores for those all other applicants that will “produce a freshman class as close as possible to the targeted enrollment, consistent with the goals stated above” (i.e., “maximizing the success of students who are admitted to UW-Madison and of achieving a heterogeneous and ethnically diverse student body”).

Faculty legislation describes in more revealing ways than do the admissions materials the priority for admitting applicants when “it is not possible to admit all qualified applicants.” That legislation makes it clear that minimally qualified applicants who come from a “minority, disadvantaged,” or other group for which special outreach efforts are being made, are “normally admitted,” i.e., without explicit regard for their “likelihood of graduation,” according to the Office of Admissions. For all other applicants, “likelihood of graduation” is a key determinant of admission.

That legislation also says that targeted minority applicants not meeting the minimum requirements for admission can receive “particular consideration” because they are designated members of special outreach efforts. It adds: “Personal characteristics that will contribute to the strength and diversity of the university community may also be considered.” (p. 4)

From time to time the faculty reconsiders the definition of “special outreach” groups, more recently called “Targeted Application Groups” by the Office of Admissions. Currently, four such groups are identified. The first, “Under-Represented Minority Students,” includes “African-American/Black; Hispanic/Latino; American Indian/Alaskan Native; Hawaiian, and Asian Americans from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam”. Another, “Students with Self-Disclosed Disability,” includes both physically and learning disabled students. A third group, “Recruited Athletes,” includes those applicants being recruited by the Athletic Department for an intercollegiate sport. The final group, “Returning Adults,” includes applicants who have been out of school for two or more years or are at least 25 years old.

Each group is subject to a somewhat different set of rules that have been worked out with the Faculty Senate’s Admissions Policy Committee, The rules with respect to rank in class are most pertinent to this discussion. Under-Represented Minority Students are “normally admitted” provided they are in the upper half of their high school class; if not, they are referred to the AAP and TRIO programs for “special consideration.” Applicants with disabilities are also “normally admitted” provided they are in the upper half of their high school class; if not, and if their disability is confirmed, they are admitted automatically. Recruited athletes are admitted if they rank in the upper half of their high school class; presumably, personal characteristics or exceptional talent could result is admitting some athletes who are not in the upper half of their high school class. It should also be noted that an appeals process exists to deal with conflicts between the decisions of the Office of Admission and the Athletic Department’s desire to recruit particular athletes. Applicants who are returning students may be admitted even if they are not in the upper half of their high school class.

No explicit mention is made of veterans of the U.S. armed forces, perhaps because most would qualify by being out of school for at least two years. Nonresident children of UW-Madison alumni, called “legacies,” as well as students from Minnesota under the reciprocal tuition Compact agreement, are considered using the same criteria applied to Wisconsin residents, Foreign students are treated the same as out-of-state applicants.

Whether the faculty has authorized special outreach efforts for groups described as “disadvantaged by substandard education [or] family income” is less clear. Though some applicants may identify themselves as disadvantaged or claim to be disadvantaged in some way, their status is difficult to verify. Even if these applicants could be identified, other applicants not offering such information could not benefit from this special outreach status.

In summary, there are two major exceptions to the UW-Madison’s admissions standards that affect targeted minority applicants, namely, those who are “normally admitted” and those less-than-minimally qualified targeted minority applications who may receive “special consideration” in admission decisions.

Admissions Office

As applications arrive in the admissions office, they are checked for completeness, color-coded to reflect the status of the applicant, i.e., by special outreach category, residence status, etc. Applications are then reviewed to make sure applicants have completed the minimum number and distribution of college preparatory courses.The next step involves assessing the probability that each applicant will perform successfully in college and graduate. Past research indicates that future academic success, i.e., likelihood of graduation, is best measured by freshman-year grade-point average. Because freshmen grade-point averages are not yet available, a predicted value of freshman-year GPA is estimated for each applicant. Past research also shows that the best predictor of freshman-year GPA is high school percentile rank (HSPR), commonly known as “class rank;” ACT scores add to the predictive power of HSPR.

The predicted GPA is generated through a statistical procedure, called regression analysis, and draws on information about the experience of freshman enrolled over the previous couple of years . (Office of Admissions, “Using a ‘Predicted Grade-Point Average’ in Making Freshman Admissions Decisions,” October 1993). The variables used in producing these estimates include a range of measures representing academic achievement in high school, including: high school percentile rank (HSPR), high school GPA for the freshman through junior years of high school, the ACT test scores for English, Mathematics, and Reading, and the SAT Verbal and Mathematics test scores for those applicants who do not supply ACT test scores. The resulting coefficients from the regression analysis are then used to estimate a predicted GPA for each applicant. These predicted values are then used to sort applicants and thereby facilitate processing the thousands of applications received, in this case, for Fall 1997.

Based on faculty legislation that established these admissions criteria, several decision rules have been formulated to determine the order in which applicants are admitted. These rules are applied by the Office of Admissions, as described below, for the Fall 1997 entering freshman class (Office of Admissions, “Criteria for Freshman Admission, 1997,” 11/96). The information presented here applies only to applications from Wisconsin and Minnesota Compact residents. Comparable information available for out-of-state applicants is not shown.

The admissions office’s target for fall 1997 called for admitting sufficient numbers of Wisconsin-Minnesota Compact resident applicants, plus out-of-state applicants, to enroll 5,500 to 6,000 new freshmen. Reaching this goal called for admitting about 6,800 Wisconsin and Minnesota Compact applicants.

Two groups of applicants are admitted based on quantitative indicators of their academic achievement. The first group, those with a HSPR of 80 or above or with a high school GPA of 3.4 or above, is admitted automatically, and their total number was projected at more than 5,400. The second group includes applicants with high ACT or SAT scores — a composite ACT score of 32 or more, or an SAT total score of 1360 or more, without particular regard to high school grades. The admission office reports that the size of this group is typically small, comprising perhaps no more than 50 applicants.

The next stage involve a review of applicant files. Those applicants with a predicted GPA of 2.8 or above and who demonstrate, based on a review of their application file by admissions counselors, a reasonable likelihood of academic success, and characterized by the Admissions Office as “among the best”, are admitted. The approximately 900 applicants who meet these criteria bring the total number of admitted applicants to almost 6,400. The next group of applicants, those with predicted GPAs of 2.55 or more, who are characterized by the Admissions Office as “among [the] better”, are reviewed in the same way. This step adds approximately 1,700 more applicants to the list of potential admits. However, decisions to admit most if not all of this group are postponed until later in the spring when the admissions office has a clearer indication of the acceptance rate for applicants who have already been admitted. The final group of applicants, those with predicted GPAs of less than 2.55, are reviewed but denied admission. As space becomes available, applicants on whom decisions were postponed and whose chances of success appear to be the highest are admitted. The process of admitting additional applicants and denying admission to other less well qualified applicants continues through the late spring and summer in an effort to reached the enrollment target for the fall semester.

Applications are processed on what is described as a “rolling basis.” Beginning September 15, applications are accepted for the following academic year, and they are considered in the order of their arrival. Admissions decisions are typically made within a few days. As soon as possible, applicants are notified by mail that their applications have been accepted, denied, or postponed for a later decision. By the end of the application period, the Office of Admissions estimated that for the Fall 1997 entering class it would have received over 15,000 applications, with more than 10,000 of them from Wisconsin and Minnesota Compact residents.

In dealing with applications that are reviewed individually, decisions made by one admissions counselor to deny admission based on review of an applicant’s file requires that the file be reviewed by another counselor to affirm the decision, and if disagreement exists, a third reader is used. Similarly, if the predicted GPA indicates that an applicant should be denied admission, affirmative decisions by two admissions counselors can override the denial. However, in evaluating the files of applicants, extra “credit” is given to applicants who took exceptional course loads in high school, AP/Honors courses, the nature and competitiveness of their high school, and the strength of the trend in their high school grades.

Another view of the admission process is provided by a flow chart devised by the Admissions Office, carrying the title “Admission of Freshmen Decisioning Processes” 5/95 (Office of Admissions, University of Wisconsin-Madison). Because that flow chart attempts to capture many details, it obscures two important matters. One is the decision-making process as it applies to the vast majority of applicants. The other is its failure to indicate how special outreach applications, including targeted minority applicants, are processed.

A simplified flow chart developed by the author, and shown as Figure 1, deals with the first problem. The upper left-hand side of the chart portrays the process that admits the vast majority of applicants. However, it still fails to reflect the admission process for special outreach applicants, including targeted racial/ethnic minorities.

A modified version of this simplified flow chart, Figure 2, fills the latter gap by showing how special outreach groups are handled in light of the two exceptions to the standard admission process. The first is the practice of “normally admitting” all targeted minority applicants who are minimally qualified, meaning those who are at least in the upper half of their high school class, offer the minimum number of courses required in high school, and supply an ACT score. The second is the practice of giving “particular consideration” to targeted minority applicants who do not meet the UW-Madison’s requirements for admission (because their high schools do not provide information on high school class rank, they themselves for some reason do not provide ACT or SAT scores, or they do not meet the minimum requirement or distribution of college preparatory courses).

The impact of the first exception is shown in by the shaded areas midway down the left half of the chart. Those shaded areas indicate that minimally qualified targeted minority applicants on whom decisions would be postponed or whose applications would be rejected, are identified and “normally admitted,” i.e., admitted automatically. By contrast, comparably qualified nontargeted applications from people who are not members of special outreach groups would be postponed or denied admission.The impact of the second exception is shown by the shaded area in the right half of the Figure 2. That shaded area indicates that “particular consideration” leads to some less-than-qualified, special outreach applicants being admitted. Those admitted could include students with disabilities, recruited athletes, returning adults, as well as targeted minorities. Whatever the case, this exception means that the applications of some apparently less-than-minimally-qualified minority applicants receive the “particular consideration” that is not available to similar less-than-minimally-qualified nonminority applicants.

Applicant Perspective

The student perspective is reflected in the contents of the booklet made available to potential applicants; the most recent issue is the Wisconsin Undergraduate Admissions Materials: Celebrating 150 Years (1999), published by the UW-Madison Office of Admissions. This booklet, accompanied by an application form, describes the process of applying for admission to UW-Madison in Fall 1999. The booklet begins by listing the three requirements for admission:

1. high school graduation or its equivalent (e.g., GED),
2. completion of 17 units of required college preparatory courses, and
3. submission of test scores (ACT for Wisconsin residents, and either ACT or SAT for out-of-state students).

Much additional information relevant to applying is provided. For example, applicants are warned that admission is competitive because not all applicants can be accommodated. Applicants are informed that out-of-state students must meet a higher admission standard than either Wisconsin students or Minnesota Compact students, and that nonresident children of Wisconsin alumni are considered under the Wisconsin resident admission criteria. Applicants are also told that the admissions criteria are the same for all majors, except the School of Music where auditions are required for admission, and the College of Engineering which holds nonresident applicants to a higher admission standard.

Applicants are informed that those with the “strongest academic records of grades, represented by a grade-point average or class rank, courses taken (including senior year courses), and test scores will have the greatest chance of admission.” (p. 4) To assist applicants, the booklet presents two tables. The first table shows the minimum course requirements and the “typical” level of freshman preparation that is presented in the section on faculty legislation. The University of Wisconsin System in a comparable booklet for all UW System applicants, called The University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1997-98, is more directive, saying that “applicants are strongly encouraged to select courses beyond the minimum.” (p. 31)

The other table shows the distribution of Fall 1997 applicants by percentile rank in their high school graduation class, the percentage of applicants admitted by percentile rank, and the distribution of enrolled students by percentile rank. This information, reproduced below, is provided so that “students may estimate their chances for admission by comparing their class rank with those in the table.” (p. 4)

The publication, The University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1997-98, repeats much of this same information for all UW System campuses, including the UW-Madison. In describing the data shown immediately above, the entry for the UW-Madison advises applicants that “By comparing their class ranks with applicants from last year’s class, students may roughly estimate their chances of admission. Students whose schools do not rank [i.e., either they do not calculate class rank or as a matter of policy do not supply this information] will receive full consideration based on grades and other indicators of achievement.” (p. 31)The treatment of race/ethnic minority applicants in these publications is limited. Four statements are illuminating. The first from Undergraduate Admissions Materials (1999) (p. 4) says: “Particular consideration will be given 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.” [emphasis added] Another statement from the same source (p. 4) says: “Personal characteristics that will contribute to the strength and diversity of the university community may also be considered.” [emphasis added] The third from the University of Wisconsin System: Introduction (p. 28) says: “You may also seek consideration on the basis of racial/ethnic group status, U.S. Armed Forces veteran status, age group, incarceration, or economic or educational disadvantage.” These three statements provide the only explicit information to applicants about the existence of race/ethnic preferences in admissions.

A fourth statement from the University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1997-98 (pp. 27-28) says: “If your class rank is not available or you do not meet standard admission requirements, you may be considered for admission on the basis of other measurable criteria, such as standardized or institutional achievement tests, alternate high school credits, specified course or graduate point average, or if you demonstrate exceptional talent in a particular area.” [emphasis added] While this statement says nothing about racial/ethnic minorities, it could be interpreted as a vehicle for accepting applicants with diversity-related talents, similar to the rationale for considering “personal characteristics” above.

The four statements taken together indicate that race/ethnic diversity, membership in other designated groups, as well as “personal characteristics” and “exceptional talent in a particular area,” singly and perhaps in combination, all provide a basis for admitting applicants who fail to meet UW-Madison’s minimum admission requirements. Nothing is said about minority applicants who meet the minimum requirements but would not otherwise be admitted.

Several differences exist between faculty legislation and the information provided to UW-Madison applicants. First, the description of requirements provided to potential applicants in Wisconsin Undergraduate Admissions Materials (1999) fails to mention that applicants to UW-Madison must graduate in the upper half of their high school class. Second, this booklet is not as forthcoming as it might be about the use of preferences in admitting targeted minority applicants. Third, this booklet, perhaps quite understandably, omits mention of the faculty-legislated “particular consideration” that is given to applicants not meeting the minimum qualifications who fall into the specified categories.

Race/Ethnic Preferences and Admissions Rates

What is known about how targeted minorities are treated in the admissions process? This question has been difficult to answer for lack of properly structured data tabulations. However, recently completed tabulations provided to the author make it possible to compare admission rates for targeted minorities and non-targeted applicants by their residency. The evidence is revealing.The percentages of applicants by high school percentile rank who were admitted for Fall 1997 are shown in Table 1 for targeted minority and nonminority Wisconsin residents, and similarly for nonresidents and Minnesota compact residents. The first column shows that the admission rates of approximately 90 percent for Wisconsin targeted minorities are uniformly high above in the four highest class rank categories. At the 50-59 HSPR the rate drops to 76 percent. Below the 50th HSPR, 37 percent of applicants in the third quarter of their high school class are admitted, and in the bottom quarter, 15 percent are admitted.

Compare the admission rates for nonminorities. While the rates are very high for the top 20 HSPR, the admission rates drops off rapidly below that point. At the 70-79 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 63 percent as contrasted to 86 percent for targeted minorities. At the 60-69 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 23 percent is less than a quarter as large as the 96 per cent for targeted minorities. At the 60-69 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 23 percent is less than a quarter as large as that for targeted minorities. At the 50-59 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 9 percent is less than an eighth as large as the 76 percent for targeted minorities. Below that, no nontargeted applicants are admitted.

These results also reveal the impact of the two exceptions that give preferential treatment to targeted minority applicants. First, among minimally qualified minority applicants, i.e., those graduating in the top half of their high school class, the gap in admission rates between minority and nonminority applicants is widest at the 50-59 HSPR, declines somewhat at the 60-69 HSPR, and even at the 70-79 is still sizable. Second, among unqualified applicants, i.e., those graduating in the lower half of their high school class, the gaps in admissions rates is even larger in the third quartile and still larger in the bottom quartile. These results suggest that “unqualified” targeted minority applicants receive more favorable consideration than do “unqualified” nontargeted applicants.

These results lead to the inescapable conclusion that UW-Madison’s policy of giving preferences to racial/ethnic minorities in the interest of promoting increased minority enrollment does indeed work. Much the same conclusion emerges from comparable data for nonresidents and for Minnesotaa Compact residents. The gaps are somewhat narrower for nonresidents but they continue to be substantial for Minnesota resident applicants.The evidence presented here also demonstrates that the two exceptions in admissions procedures lead to preferential treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity. The language of these exceptions indicates that they are designed to discriminate to achieve race/ethnic “diversity” even though discrimination in admission based on race/ethnicity is strictly prohibited by Wisconsin Statutes. The effect of these exceptions is to produce a “disparate impact” on enrollment patterns. The consistently higher percentages of minority applicants admitted indicates that the UW-Madison practices discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity in freshmen admissions.

Readers need to be reminded that Wisconsin Statutes, Ch. 36.12, which govern the University of Wisconsin System, including the UW-Madison, expressly prohibit discrimination in admission on the basis of race and ethnic background. The language reads:

“No student may be denied admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers because of the student’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status.”

This language would seem to prohibit the preferences accorded race/ethnic minorities in UW-Madison admissions. The argument that many factors are taken into consideration is certainly true for all applicants. However, the fact that minority group applicants not admitted on the basis of academic merit are “normally admitted” indicates that race/ethnicity is the sole factor at work in determining who will be admitted from among those applicants with less than outstanding academic records.The way the UW-Madison, and also the UW System, describe their interests in preventing discrimination is curious. For example, UW-Madison Timetable contains a section dealing with discrimination, in what is labeled “Publisher’s Notes” on page 2 of the Spring 1998-99 Timetable. The first paragraph, after several disclaimers pertaining to the information provided, goes on to emphasize “tolerance,” the importance of learning “tolerance,” and the need to “maintain an environment conducive to teaching and learning that is free from intimidation for all.”

The next two paragraphs are quoted in their entirety:

In its resolve to create this positive environment, the UW-Madison will ensure compliance with federal and state laws protecting against discrimination. In addition, the UW-Madison has adopted policies that both emphasize these existing protections and supplement them with protections against discrimination that are not available under either federal or state law.Federal and state laws provide separate prohibitions against discrimination that is based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or disability. State law additional prohibits discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, arrest or conviction record, marital status, pregnancy, parental status, military status, or veteran status. The application of specific state prohibitions on discrimination may be influenced by an individual’s status as an employee or student.

What is puzzling about these two paragraphs is their failure to mention what kinds of discrimination are prohibited by state law. Why is there no mention of prohibitions against discrimination in “. . . admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers . . .”? Why is the focus entirely on the categories of people who cannot be discriminated against?In the interest of providing full and accurate information to students and the university community, the UW-Madison should revise these paragraphs that appear in the Timetable, in the admissions material, and in other official documents. Quoting the legislation would bring to public attention, in a way it prefers not to do, the prohibition against discrimination in admission that UW-Madison so obviously practices.

Concluding Comments

This description of how the admission process favors targeted minority applicants would be enhanced if detailed information were available on the number and race/ethnic composition of each of the special outreach groups. Ideally, such information could be incorporated into Figure 2, along with the size of the other flows of talent. Indeed, regular publication of such information would help illuminate the admissions process and assist in evaluating its effectiveness. Despite this caveat, the conclusion remains, namely, that racial/ethnic preferences in admissions, that are firmly rooted in faculty legislation but not much talked about, do operate to boost targeted minority enrollments. Moroever, this policy of discriminating in admission through preferences for minorities appears to be contrary to state laws governing this institution.This study also raises several new questions. First, how many fewer entering freshmen would be enrolled at UW-Madison in the absence of preferential admissions for targeted minority applicants? Second, by how much would second-year retention rates and six-year graduation rates for targeted minorities rise if admission were restricted to minority applicants who were academically competitive with non-targeted applicants? These questions are answered in a related study, “How Admission Preferences Affect Minority Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation Rates.”

Summary

The greatest barrier to increasing the UW-Madison minority enrollment rate is their lagging academic achievement in K-12 grades. This reduces the number of high achieving high school graduates whom this campus would like to enroll. Until larger numbers of minorities perform at higher academic levels, the “pipeline” of students who can compete academically with nontargeted students will prevent achieving even modest gains in minority enrollment.Recent data from the Wisconsin Student Assessment System document the lagging academic achievement of Blacks who constitute the largest targeted minority group in Wisconsin; they approximately equal the combined numbers of Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. The number of Blacks who perform well enough at the 10th grade to be considered successful applicants to UW-Madison (those who could compete academically with other nonminority students) is far fewer than diversity proponents would like this campus to have enrolled right now. The situation is even gloomier because the numbers of Blacks performing at high levels in the 8th and 4th grades are equally small. Consequently, the likelihood of reaching within the foreseeable future even modest increases in Black freshmen enrollment is dim indeed.

Introduction

Affirmative action/diversity programs at UW-Madison have failed to reach their enrollment, retention, and graduation goals for Black students. There is one hard-rock reason: the small number of Black students from Wisconsin high schools who are well-qualified for admission to UW-Madison. This deplorable fact is inescapable in the 1997-98 results of the Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS) tests given to all 10th graders, 8th graders, and 4th graders.The WSAS is a comprehensive statewide program designed to provide information on what students know in the core academic areas and how well they can apply that knowledge. These tests cover knowledge and concepts in reading, math, science, and social studies. Four categories of “proficiency” are used to categorize the performance of students: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Minimal Performance. The focus here in on performance at the Advanced level. That level provides an indicator of achievement that would seemingly predict academic success at an institution such as UW-Madison.

Academic Performance of 10th Graders

In 1997-98 there were 69,660 10th graders of all races in Wisconsin public high schools. The proportions of kids who scored “Advanced” compares favorably with those for the United States as a whole.

The absolute numbers of Wisconsin 10th graders behind those percentages represents a substantial pool of prospects for UW-Madison. However, not many of the 5,011 10th graders score at the “Advanced” level. This means that the pool of Black Wisconsin prospects for UW-Madison is painfully small.

What can one conclude from these results? The analysis of the academic preparation of Black high school graduates, in the author’s “Barriers to Diversity: Inadequate Academic Preparation of Minority High School Graduates,” showed that once eligibility was taken into consideration, Black high school graduates from Wisconsin were either proportionately represented or overrepresented. The results developed here indicate that the problem of lagging Black achievement goes back to the high schools. It means that diversity programs at the UW-Madison, no matter how ambitious, strongly supported, and well-financed they may be, will continue to fail in meeting their enrollment, retention, and graduation goals. These goals cannot be met until there is a great increase in the number of Black Wisconsin high school students who are scholastically well qualified for admission to UW-Madison.

Academic Performance of 8th and 4th Graders

The situation is no better for Blacks tested in the 8th and 4th grades. Even though the number of 8th graders exceeds the number of 10th graders, and the number of 4th graders exceeds the number of 8th graders, the absolute numbers of Black students performing at the advanced level do not differ greatly from that for 10th graders. These results give no indication that the problem of lagging Black achievement is transitory. Ideally, it would diminish as younger generations performed at higher academic levels than older generations of students. But, that is not the case.

Conclusions

The barriers to diversity created by the lagging academic achievement of Black high school graduates and of Black students at the 10th, 8th, and 4th grades are depressingly large. How to overcome these barriers is perhaps one of society’s major challenges in the decades ahead. Solutions are difficult to come by until the public becomes alert to the problem and can seize upon some plan of action. At the moment, too few people appreciate the full dimensions of the lagging academic achievement of Blacks throughout the educational system.

Faculty, staff, and administrators must become aware of the threat to diversity posed by this analysis. Until they become concerned, it will be difficult to make the case to the public that drastic action must be taken to improve the academic performance of young Blacks. Perhaps charter schools, reforms in teacher certification, parental support programs, and the like will work. At the moment, nobody knows. But, in the meantime, the UW-Madison should attempt to do something more constructive than issuing still another “more of the same” diversity program. Faculty and administrators do no credit to themselves or this institution if they continue to hide from the underlying problem of lagging academic achievement.

Summary

A major barrier to increasing the enrollment of targeted minority high school graduates is their weak academic preparation. It is true that Wisconsin minority high school graduates are widely viewed as underrepresented among entering freshmen from the state. But this underrepresentation fails to consider the number of minority high school graduates who are not only minimally qualified for admission to UW-Madison but also those who would be admitted competitively in the absence of admission preferences for minorities.This analysis demonstrates the importance of defining the pool of those eligible for admissions. It draws on Wisconsin data from the American College Testing program which shows how the pool of eligibles declines because higher proportions of minority high school graduates do not take the ACT, do not graduate in the upper half of their class, have not completed the core academic subjects in high school, and do not place high enough in class rank and ACT scores to be competitive admits to UW-Madison.

The results show that for Fall 1997 entering freshmen from Wisconsin high schools that minorities as a group are overrepresented rather than underrepresented. Depending on how the pool of eligibles is defined, Blacks are either proportionately represented or considerably overrepresented among entering freshmen. The results are accounted for principally by the weak academic preparation of Black high school graduates. However, the fact that preferences in admission are given to Blacks is another contributing factor.

Introduction

Without a dramatic increase in minority high school graduates who are academically qualified to attend the UW-Madison, the campus Madison Plan 2008 now being discussed will fail to achieve its goals of expanding educational opportunities for targeted minority students. Why this obvious fact has not been recognized and publicized is curious. One reason may be that the rationale for diversity programs would be undermined.The analysis focuses on the academic achievement of Wisconsin’s minority high school graduates. The first part examines the meaning of “underrepresentation” which underpins diversity policies and programs. The second demonstrates sharp differences in academic achievement by race/ethnicity among Wisconsin high school graduates. The third part notes the implications of these differences for the available pool of academically competitive minority applicants to the UW-Madison. The fourth part reexamines the extent of minority underrepresentation based on the pool of competitively admissible applicants.

Underrepresentation of Minorities

The lexicon of diversity makes generous use of the term underrepresentation. As applied to undergraduate enrollments, underrepresentation occurs at UW-Madison when the percentages of enrolled freshmen from Wisconsin minority groups fall short of their percentages among the state’s high school graduates.Race/ethnic composition of Wisconsin public high school graduates. Information on the number and percentage distribution of public high school graduates by race/ethnicity, collected each year by the State of Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction, is shown in Table 1 for Wisconsin’s 1996-97 public high school graduates. Of the 55,189 high school graduates that year, minorities represented 9.1 percent of total graduates, Blacks 4.1 percent, Hispanics 2.1 percent, Asians 1.9 percent, and Native Americans 0.9 percent.

• Table 1: Number and Percent of Wisconsin Public High School Graduates, By Race/Ethnic Group, 1996-97

Race/ethnic composition of Entering Freshmen at UW-Madison. Information on the number and percentage distribution of entering freshman by race/ethnic group and residency status, collected by UW-Madison, is shown in Table 2 for Fall 1997-98 entering freshman who are Wisconsin residents. Of the 3,848 entering freshmen from Wisconsin, 7.9 percent were are minorities, divided as follows: Blacks 1.9 percent, Native Americans 0.4 percent, Hispanics 2.0 percent, and Asians 3.6 percent.

• Table 2: Number and Percent of Wisconsin Resident Entering Freshmen at UW-Madison By Race/Ethnic Group, Fall 1997-98

Underrepresentation in Wisconsin Student Minority Enrollment. Are Wisconsin’s minority high school graduates underrepresented among entering freshmen from Wisconsin? Table 3, which combines Tables 1 and 2, answers that question.

• Table 3: Underrepresentation of Wisconsin Resident Entering Freshman at UW-Madison By Race/Ethnic Group, 1997-98

Overall, the minority population is slightly “underrepresented,” by -1.2 percentage points, as shown by the heavily-shaded line. They account for 7.9 percent of new entering freshmen as compared to 9.1 percent of the previous year’s high school graduates. Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics are also underrepresented, as shown by the lightly-shaded first-three lines. The most serious underrepresentation occurs for Blacks who constitute 4.1 percent of Wisconsin high school graduates but only 1.9 percent of entering resident freshmen, thereby producing an enrollment gap of -2.2 percentage points. Asians, by contrast, are substantially overrepresented, with a +1.7 percentage point gap (3.6-1.9).Colleges and universities, including UW-Madison, have responded to historic underrepresentation of minorities by creating programs designed to attract more minority applicants (affirmative action) and to help ensure that those who do enroll receive the academic support they need to graduate (diversity). To increase minority enrollment, minority applicants are given special preference to admission decisions. This is also the case at UW-Madison.

What most colleges and universities, including UW-Madison, have not done is to examine why even with preferential admission the serious underrepresentation of Blacks and Native Americans continues. The next section tries to do this.

Gaps in Academic Preparation of Wisconsin High School Graduates

Why do minorities continue to be underrepresented among entering freshmen? Many reasons contribute to their underrepresentation but one has not received appropriate attention in discussions of UW-Madison diversity policies and programs. The answer is clear; it is the lack of adequate academic preparation in high school and, indeed, throughout the K-12 school system.The statistical comparisons just used to document underrepresentation fail to recognize the concept of the available “pool” of potentially admissible applicants. To be admissible, applicants must meet UW-Madison admissions standards which demands more than a high school diploma. This minimal standard requires that applicants must be in the upper half of their high school graduation class, complete the appropriate college preparatory courses, and supply their ACT scores. Many high school graduates, minority and majority alike, do not or cannot qualify for admission on any or all of these standards. Even then, not all minimally qualified applicants can be admitted because of limitations imposed on the size of the entering class by Enrollment Management Policy first implemented in the middle 1980s. As a consequence, to meet the new targets for entering freshmen, the Admissions Office must further narrow the number of applicants admitted. That it does so is clearly indicated by a statement contained in UW-Madison application materials: “Applicants with the strongest academic records of grades, represented by a grade-point average or class rank, courses taken (including senior year courses), and test scores will have the greatest chance of admission.” (Wisconsin 1998 Undergraduate Admissions Materials, p. 4) In other words, the UW-Madison defines the “pool” of admissible applicants more narrowly than that of all high school graduates and more narrowly than do most other UW System campuses.

Many people at UW-Madison are aware that the academic qualifications of targeted minority high school graduates are weaker than those of nontargeted students. For example, Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics are less likely to take the ACT exam. They are less likely to rank academically in the top half of their high school graduation class. They are less like to have taken the core college preparatory courses required for admission to UW System institutions. They are less likely to place in the top quarter of their high school class. Finally, they are to rank well up in the top quarter of their high school class and to have obtained high ACT scores. Since High School Percentile Rank, ACT scores,, and completion of the core curriculum are all key determinants of admissions, the underrepresentation of minorities, particularly Blacks and Native Americans, is not surprising.

Is there some way to narrow the pool of Wisconsin’s public high school graduates to more closely approximate the criteria used to admit applicants to UW-Madison? A previously unexploited source of data makes it possible to produce several estimates of the relevant pool of eligibles. These data are generated by the American College Testing program which administers the ACT test to high school seniors applying for admission to college.

Six pools of eligibles can be defined:

1. High school graduates. This is the weakest standard and in included for purposes of comparison.
2. ACT test takers who are high school graduates. Taking the test indicates some motivation for college and familiarity with college admission requirements.
3. ACT test takers who rank in the top half of their graduating classes. This is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for meeting the minimum admission requirement.
4. ACT test takers who complete the core academic courses and presumably rank in the top half of their graduating class. Completion of the core curriculum is another necessary condition for meeting the minimum admission requirement.
5. ACT test takers who rank in the top quarter of their graduating class and presumably have completed the core curriculum. Applicants meeting these standards can be regarded as moderately competitive with White applicants, based on actual admissions decisions at UW-Madison.
6. ACT test takers who rank in the top quarter of their graduating class (and presumably have completed the core curriculum) and are estimated to have ACT scores of 21+. Applicants meeting this higher standard can be regarded as fully competitive with White applicants at UW-Madison.

The analysis here focuses on the admission standards defined above to determine how they affect the number of Wisconsin high school graduates who might be considered eligible for admission to UW-Madison. Because of widespread concerns about the underrepresentation of Blacks, their situation is highlighted.

Figure 1 shows how the relative size of the pools of Black and White high school graduates is reduced as successively more stringent admissions standards are constructed with the available data. The contrast between Blacks and Whites is most dramatic. It begins with differences in the percentages of high school graduates who take the ACT exam, place in the top half of their high school class, and complete the core curriculum. If the standard applied to nontargeted applicants is equivalent to admitting graduates in the top quarter of their high school class, then the pool of admissible Black high school graduates drops to 14 percent of the total, while for whites it holds at 32 percent. Limiting admission to those in the top quarter of the class who also have ACT scores of 21 or above, cuts the pool of Black eligibles to 5-8 percent of the 2,264 high school graduates, as contrasted to 25 percent for Whites. As noted earlier, this stringent standard most closely approximates nontargeted applicants admitted to and enrolling at UW-Madison. Though no data are available to directly verify this statement, UW-Madison’s 1998-99 entering freshmen have been described as follows: almost half the class ranks in the top tenth of their high school class, their average ACT score is 26.8 as contrasted to a national average of 21.0, and their average high school grade point average is 3.62.5 Both this year’s and last year’s entering freshmen are clearly talented young people.

Figure 2 shows how the absolute size of the various pools of eligibles change as more stringent criteria are brought to bear in defining these pools. Of the 2,264 Black high school graduates from 1996-97, it appears that no more than 321 would be admitted on a competitive basis if the standard required graduating in the top quarter of their high school class. But, if the standard were more stringent, requiring them to have ACT scores of 21 and above, as well as being in the top quarter of their class, the number of Wisconsin’s Black high school graduates who would be admitted competitively about 160. This is a very small number. It means that the competition for these talented minority graduates is especially intense. Is it any wonder UW-Madison has difficulty getting these talents Blacks to apply and enroll when many other institutions, especially private colleges and universities, are eager to recruit these students and can provide them with generous financial aid offers?

• Figure 1: Percentage of 1996-97 Wisconsin High School Graduates in Pools of Eligible Applicants, Blacks and Whites
  (* = Based on author estimates)
  Data Source: ACT High School Profile Report: High School Graduating Class of 1997, State Composite for Wisconsin
• Figure 2: Number of 1996-97 Black High School Graduates in Pools of Eligible Applicants
  (* = Based on author estimates)
  Data Source: ACT High School Profile Report: High School Graduating Class of 1997, State Composite for Wisconsin

Comparable information for each of the targeted and nontargeted groups is shown in Table 4. The situation for Native Americans and Hispanics is less desperate than that for Blacks. But, again, the small numbers of them who remain eligible means that they will continue to be underrepresented for some time to come.

• Table 4: Estimated Numbers and Percentages of 1996-97 Wisconsin High School Graduates by Race/Ethnic Group Who Are in Variously Defined Pools of Those Eligible for Admission to UW-Madison, Based on ACT Data

Another Look at Underrepresentation

Table 5 assists in determining the extent of underrepresentation using the standards that most closely approximate the UW-Madison admission standard applied to nontargeted applicants. Again, the benchmark is the percentage distribution of entering freshmen by race/ethnicity from Wisconsin. This means that underrepresentation occurs when the percentage figures in each of the first three columns exceed the figures in the fourth column. The lightly shaded boxes indicate underrepresentation and the more heavily shaded boxes indicate overrepresentation.

• Table 5: Changes in the Race/Ethnic Composition of Potential Applicants Using Alternative Definitions of the Pool of Potentially Admissible Applicants

When the eligible pool is defined to include all high school graduates, as shown in the first column, Blacks, Native Americans, and Minorities as a group are underrepresented, whereas Asians are heavily overrepresented and Hispanics are slightly overrepresented. Whites, of course, are overrepresented.If the eligible pool is restricting to those in the top quarter of their graduation class (the second column), the underrepresentation of Blacks and Native Americans disappears, the overrepresentation of Hispanics, Asians, and Minorities increases, and Whites become underrepresented. When the most stringent standard is used, i.e., top quarter of the class and an ACT score of 21 or above (the third column), Blacks become substantially overrepresented. Hispanics, Asians, and Minorities as a group increase their overrepresentation. And, Whites continue to be underrepresented.

To sum up, the rather substantial underrepresentation of Blacks and Native Americans that shows up in the traditional measures of underrepresentation is grossly misleading. These measures assume implicitly that all high school graduates are potentially admissible. Yet, any familiarity with admissions requirements at UW System institutions, including UW-Madison, makes it clear that high school class rank and ACT scores are key factors in admissions decisions.

Additional support for this view comes from ACT data which are available for several of the eligible pools defined earlier. The average ACT scores for those taking the ACT are shown in the first column of Table 6 while scores for those ranking in the top quarter are shown in the second column. The average ACT scores of those Blacks who took the test are by far the lowest for any race/ethnic group. Even when the pool is restricted to the top quarter of the class, the average ACT score of 19.5 is well below the score of 21 which is viewed at some UW System institutions as indicative of college academic performance. The third column reports the average ACT scores of entering UW-Madison freshmen in Fall 1997. The average of 22.3 for Blacks is again the lowest, meaning that Blacks are likely to be disadvantaged in competing academically with students from the all other race/ethnic groups.

• Table 6: Average ACT Scores by Race/Ethnicity in Alternative Pools of Potentially Admissible Applicants

The lower ACT scores for Blacks reported here are consistent with the rapid falloff in the numbers of Blacks in the pools of eligibles. What is not apparent is the extent to which preferential admission for Blacks, and also of course for Native Americans, and Hispanics, holds down the average ACT score of entering freshmen. Were the same standard applied to Blacks as to Whites, the average score would undoubtedly be higher; of course, the number of entering freshmen would also be lower.

Conclusion

The remedy for this deplorable situation lies not in giving preferences in admissions to underrepresented minority groups. Instead, minorities should be admitted on the same basis as other students to ensure that they can compete academically with their fellow students. As already noted, this would no doubt reduce the number of entering freshmen from minority groups. The question that arises is this: what are the costs and benefits of fewer but better academically prepared minorities as against more but more poorly prepared minorities?At the same time, every effort must be made to find out what accounts for the lagging academic achievement of Blacks and Native Americans and to devise remedies that will overcome these deficiencies.