The Michigan Daily has noticed something that has been glaringly evident for a long time: “something happens between acceptance and graduation,” so that, to borrow the language of “diversity,” preferentially admitted minorities are highly “overrepresented” among the students who fail to graduate.
A recent University study shows that although the graduation rate for minority students has risen 10 percent over the last 10 years, the gap between minority and white student graduation rates persists. Currently, 89 percent of white students graduate within six years, compared with only 79 percent of Hispanic students and 72 percent of black students.
Put another way, 11% of white students fail to graduate within six years, compared to 28% of black students. The black failure rate is over 250% higher than the white failure rate.
This failure rate corresponds roughly with the difference in median SAT scores between black and white freshmen: 1160 for blacks vs. 1350 for whites (last discussed here). Another extensive study, quoted here, found that
the median SAT scores for black students who were admitted to the school were 230 points lower than for whites. What’s more, their high school grades lagged nearly a half point (on a four-point scale) behind those of whites. From the data we obtained under a Freedom of Information request, we calculated that the odds of being admitted if you were a black student with the same qualifications as a white applicant were 174-to-1.
If you were new to this issue you might think that the close correlation between admission credentials and graduation rates would lead naturally to the conclusion that selective, competitive institutions do no favors for members of preferred groups by lowering standards for them, especially when the rationale for lowering the standards is so that members of the preferred group, because they are “different,” can by their very presence (even if temporary) provide “diversity” to members of the other, non-preferred groups.
If you did think that, of course, you’d brand yourself as a newcomer to the “diversity” debate. With depressing predictability, the editors of the Michigan Daily in fact conclude nothing of the sort. Instead, they propose, almost automatically, more money for financial aid for minorities, although no evidence is presented that a higher proportion of the failure rate for blacks than whites is the result of financial considerations. Are loans not available, or is there a racial difference in the willingness to go into debt to get a college education? (By “racial difference” here, I obviously don’t mean that some races are born with a “go into debt” gene and others aren’t.)
But money is only the beginning.
The administration’s responsibility, however, extends beyond relieving the financial burden facing minority students. The University must cater to students who, once enrolled, find themselves overwhelmed by the rigor of classes or alienated from the predominantly white, upper-class student body. These nuanced programs are just as important as providing financial aid, if not more so.
No doubt “the rigor of classes” will be felt disproportionately by members of groups for whom the admissions standards were significantly lowered. But there is something almost pathetic about admitting students because their “difference” provides “diversity” to others only to be told by student journalists that admissions preferences aren’t suffient, that you “must cater” to them because they are, well, different, i.e., “alienated from the predominantly white, upper-class student body.”
If it is thought that the demand for “diversity” is so compelling as to justify lowering the admissions standards for students from some selected racial and ethnic groups, why not simply grade them according to similar, lower standards once they are enrolled? That should go a long way toward closing the “graduation gap.”
Between the Michigan Daily editorial today and the Ann Arbor News editorial yesterday there may be a trend emerging — We feel your pain.
In an effort to persuade good faith voters who genuinely have a problem with aff action, the new editorial trend seems to be this — We know there are problems with aff action. See, we even write about them. Trust us, we’ll look into these problems. Someday. Before the next 25 years is up. Really. We will. Just vote “No” on Proposal 2 in the meantime.
You Suckers.
This is an easy problem to solve. “Diversity” students should graduate by passing “special” exams tailored for them, or alternatively take the same exams as “white-devils” students but be graded with a special “fast-track” points system to insure that “inequalities” are ironed out.
Ideally, “diversity” candidates would have only to present proof of “minority” qualifications and would be awarded their diploma without having to attend any courses. It would allow them to start work immediately into an American workforce ready for them as it is already well primed with quotas requirements.
Of course, anti-progressive forces will oppose this so it might take another 5 or even 7 years before we get there.
As Tony says, and the author hinted, if minorities have different rules for admission why can’t they have different rules for graduation?
We might then endorse the logical next step. Let them graduate in one year. Then they will have several years head start in their professional lives.
I cannot endorse the one year idea. It would drain the campus of minorities and destroy diversity.
Then to maintain the desired ratios it would, in theory, be necessary for almost all of the freshman class to be minorities.
But that, in turn, would diminish the number of students attending in the second and subsequent years. Advanced classes would be empty.
Never mind, we solve that later!
One factor missed (intentionally or not) in the editorial is that affirmative action admits are more likely to be required to take remedial courses. These courses typically do not count towards graduation but they do take time and money.
Thus, even when affirmative action admit students do graduate they are more likely to fall outside of the six-year window.