For some reason supporters of racial preferences, such as the author of this article in the Michigan Daily, seem to be shocked (make that Shocked! Shocked!) that preferences provide for the admission of large numbers of students to selective universities who would not have been admitted but for their race.
Similarly, like Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman (who believes that women must be hired to do some medical research in order to ensure that women receive adequate health care), these preferentialists curiously believe that pointing out the extent of current preferences will persuade voters to support them.
While officials at the University have expressed concerns that minority enrollment will drop dramatically if MCRI is passed, University President Mary Sue Coleman said she does not plan on creating a contingency plan that could be implemented to recruit underrepresented minorities if MCRI passes.
Coleman said she remains optimistic that by educating the public on the potential effects of MCRI the proposal can be defeated.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that the more the public knows about how many students are admitted because of racial preference, the less likely voters will be to tolerate it.
ADDENDUM
For the record, it may be worth noting (as indeed even the above article notes) that minority enrollment has actually increased at UC campuses except for Berkeley and UCLA since Prop. 209 was passed.
At the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, the percentage of underrepresented minority students accepted to these schools declined from 26.1 percent and 26.7 percent, respectively, in 1995, to 11.2 percent and 12.7 percent respectively in 1999. But the numbers increased slightly in 2004, rising to 13.1 percent and 17.6 percent respectively.
An increase in minority acceptances from 12.7 percent to 17.6 percent is “slight”?
>>>At the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, the percentage of underrepresented minority students accepted to these schools declined from 26.1 percent and 26.7 percent, respectively, in 1995, to 11.2 percent and 12.7 percent respectively in 1999. But the numbers increased slightly in 2004, rising to 13.1 percent and 17.6 percent respectively.”
Maybe I’m not reading this correctly, but this sentence states that underrepresented minority enrollment last year was 13% and 9% LESS than what it was before Prop. 209 was implemented.
Should this be considered an “increase?”
–Cobra
Cobra,
Underrepresented-minority enrollment has increased in the UC system as a whole since Prop. 209 passed. It is down substantially at UCB and UCLA from pre-209 levels, but has risen (IIRC) every year since the proposition went into effect.
(There is the complication that large numbers of students are now declining to state race/ethnicity on their applications post-209.)
Bottom line: more underrepresented-minority kids are getting a UC education than were before 209. I believe that’s true proportionally as well as in absolute numbers, but I’d have to verify that.
An interesting question that needs to be asked and answered is, “What are the graduation rates among underrepresented minorities before passage of 209 and after?”
Michelle writes:
>>>Bottom line: more underrepresented-minority kids are getting a UC education than were before 209. I believe that’s true proportionally as well as in absolute numbers, but I’d have to verify that.”
Could it be, that according to some reports there are more underrepresented minority high school graduates than there was pre-Prop 209? Over 42% of high school graduates in California fit that description.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Could it be, that according to some reports there are more underrepresented minority high school graduates than there was pre-Prop 209? Over 42% of high school graduates in California fit that description.
I think there is an increase — in the percentage of Latino students, not of Blacks or Native Americans. I don’t think it is terribly large, and I think it very unlikely that it accounts for the post-209 increase all by itself, especially as the prediction was that 209 would shut underrepresented minorities out of the UC system. If memory serves, the UC system overal had a large increase in underrepresented-minority enrollment the very first year 209 went into effect. UCB and UCLA suffered large drops, but (e.g.) UCI and UCSC had large increases.
The increase from 11.2% & 12.7 at UCB & UCB to 13.1% & 17.6% for “underrepresented minorities” is very easily explained by:
1. The large increase in the % of the Hispanic high-school age population from 1996 to 2005
2. The 5% plan – giving UC admissions to the top 5% of each high school, and
3. UCs giving points for “overcoming adversity” essays, which are graded with a bias towards blacks and Hispanics.
Also, when did Asian-Americans no longer count as minorites??? All the headlines (and much of the text of the articles) bemoan the underrepresentation of “minorites”, then give us stats for NON-ASIAN minorites. Crap, use the RIGHT wording – e.g., “non-Asian” or “underrepresented” minorities, or use the CORRECT stats (INCLUDING Asians) or FIRE the idiots who write this misleading nonsense.
Michigan Daily is shocked that some students would not have been admitted to selective universities if not for their race
Michigan Daily is shocked that some students would not have been admitted to selective universities if not for their race
UCI may be getting that increase because its reputation is on the rise, I believe.
Quote from article:
At the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, the percentage of underrepresented minority students accepted to these schools declined from 26.1 percent and 26.7 percent, respectively, in 1995, to 11.2 percent and 12.7 percent respectively in 1999. But the numbers increased slightly in 2004, rising to 13.1 percent and 17.6 percent respectively.”
Quote from cobra:
Maybe I’m not reading this correctly, but this sentence states that underrepresented minority enrollment last year was 13% and 9% LESS than what it was before Prop. 209 was implemented.
Yes, you are reading it incorrectly. In referring to the increase from 12.7% minority acceptances to UCLA in 1999 to 17.6% in 2004, the article stated that “the numbers increased slightly.” Neither the article, nor I, were comparing those 2004 numbers with the numbers before the ban on preferences went into effect.
But what’s your point: you act as though those of us who oppose preferences deny that eliminating them reduces the number of minority acceptances to highly selective institutions. We of course don’t. Why would we? If preferences didn’t result in many people being admitted who wouldn’t have been without them, they wouldn’t amount to much, would they?
TS, graduation rates at the University of Michigan for minorities are in the bottom 20% of all universities nationwide. Graduation rates for California schools are all in the top 20% nationwide. The list I saw was about a month ago, from an AP report, and included alot of unknown liberal arts schools, so none of the big universities were at the very top or bottom.
John; what I found most interesting about the Mich. Daily quote was this:
While officials at the University have expressed concerns that minority enrollment will drop dramatically if MCRI is passed, University President Mary Sue Coleman said she does not plan on creating a contingency plan that could be implemented to recruit underrepresented minorities if MCRI passes.
When I was interviewed for this article, Mary Sue’s exact quote indicated that U-M refused to plan socio-economic alternatives. I responded in the interview by pointing out that Mary Sue was admitting U-M’s willful non-compliance with O’Connor’s ruling in Grutter, that requires Universities work on “race-neutral” alternatives and have continuous and “periodic review.” Coleman is admitting willful disregard for a currently-binding Supreme Court order. Of course, as a result, the editor chose not to quote me in this article, which I thought was the most newsworthy exchange I’ve ever had the privelege of giving in an interview. I suppose that has to do with the editorial position of the paper though.