The Los Angeles Times and other papers ran an Associated Press article yesterday, “Fewer Minorities Apply At Michigan,” that qualifies for a hall of fame spot in any museum of alarmist misleading journalism.
It begins:
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Seven months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy, the number of applications from blacks, Latinos and American Indians is down 23% from last year.
The number of those admitted is down 30%.
Then we learn (at least those who kept reading) that these figures are preliminary, that all the applications have not been reviewed.
“We’ve only accepted a fraction of the class we’ll ultimately admit,” said Chris Lucier, associate director of admissions.
But wait, as they say, there’s more. (As it happens, much more). It turns out that the applications for the entire freshman class “were down 18%, according to the preliminary data….”
In short, if these data are correct the decline in minority applications seven months after the Supremes “struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy” was only 5% greater than the decline in all of the applications to next year’s freshman class. Indeed, a more accurate headline would have been, “Minority Applications to Michigan Down Only Slightly Over Last Year.”
But surely this decline, small though it was, can be attributed to minorities avoiding Michigan because it was forced to give up the 20 point preferential advantage it had extended to minorities in the past, right? This certainly seems plausible. Freshman applicants, after all, are sharp consumers. College applications are expensive and time-consuming. It would certainly make sense for many minority applicants with less than outstanding test scores and grades to by-pass Michigan once the Supremes put the kibosh on the extravagant preferences it formerly offered.
But not so fast; plausibility isn’t proof, or even evidence. Note how the article concludes:
Last June, the high court upheld an affirmative action policy at the university’s law school but struck down the university’s undergraduate formula as too rigid. It awarded admission points based on race.
The University of Michigan adopted a new application that still considers race, but does not award points, and includes new short-answer questions and an optional essay. Applications were made available to students a month later than usual because of the changes, stalling the admissions process.
So, on the basis of incomplete, preliminary figures, it appears that minority applications to Michigan for next year declined only slightly more than all applications, which were mailed out a month later than usual. And yet to the Associated Press, and to the editors at the Los Angeles Times who ran the story, the news here is the alarming 23% decline in minority applications, and 30% decline in minority admissions (to date, of course), all of which can be blamed on the Supreme Court’s invalidating Michigan’s policy of awarding 20 bonus points to minority applicants.
Don’t these people realize how ridiculous this makes them look?
No, John, they don’t realize how ridiculous this makes them look. They’ve been playing the selective-statistics, scare-tactics game so long that many of them have come to believe their own lies and distortions.
Lets not get all hyperactive here. The fact is, a misleading story was printed. Why was it printed? Because all journalists are PC thugs, liars and sum-na-bitches? Na, there was just no story without fudging the stats. Who’s going to read ‘minority enrollment expected to be slightly (but potentially insignificantly) lower after supreme court ruling’? They sold a few papers, kept their jobs, probly doesn’t feel ridiculous at all. Keep pointing out the facts, poeple who care will find them out.
I’m most curious about the effect on minority graduation rates. Will lower (albeit slightly) enrollment rates lead to higher grad rates by weeding out less qualified AA applicants? Would those students not accepted go to a different college and be more likly to grad?
Jeff,
Will lower (albeit slightly) enrollment rates lead to higher grad rates by weeding out less qualified AA applicants? Would those students not accepted go to a different college and be more likly to grad?
Evidence from the Univ. of California suggests this is exactly what happens. After preferences ceased (at least officially), the black-white graduation rate became almost identical.
I’ve heard that, and that’s a major reason why I’m skeptical of AA (though you might not be able to tell ^-^). Is that the grad rate % or are fewer black students applying over all? How much lower is the raw grad number from Berkley now that AA has ended there?
Damn, if only this issue wasn’t so mired in politics we could probably get some reliable research on the overall benefit/loss due to AA, at least for the minority students anyway…
Enrollment Woes
News reports suggest dire days for minority enrollment at the University of Michigan now that the dastardly Supreme Court rejected the school’s affirmative action program. Truth, or just smoke and mirrors to reach a desired result?
It’s your thinking that’s faulty, John. You can’t compare the decline in minority applications/admissions to overall statistics, because minority applications are part of overall statistics. In other words, an 23% decline in minority applications is obviously going to affect the number of overall freshman applicants.