CURRENT | ARCHIVES

Print   Share    Email Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?

Oct. 16, 2006

U-M response to CEO study

The following statement was issued by University of Michigan spokesperson Julie Peterson in response to a report by the Center for Equal Opportunity about U-M admissions data:

In response to a Freedom of Information request from the Center for Equal Opportunity, the University of Michigan supplied data files with information about undergraduate, medical school and law school admissions. These files included grade-point averages and standardized test scores, along with partial information about race, gender, alumni legacy status and residency. We were not able to give complete information for privacy reasons because in some cases that information would have allowed the recipient to identify an individual student and his or her grades.

Using those data, CEO has conducted a flawed and shallow analysis that is missing crucial pieces of information considered in our admissions process. This is the same type of flawed analysis put forth during the Supreme Court cases, and statistical experts have repeatedly rejected it as unsound and misleading.

CEO’s analysis does not take into account many important factors considered in admissions, including the rigor of the student’s high school or undergraduate curriculum, extracurricular activities, essays, teacher and counselor recommendations, and socioeconomic status. CEO attempts to reduce human beings to a couple of simplistic numbers. No top university admits students solely on the basis of grades and test scores. We consider many factors in order to admit a group of students who have diverse talents, who are highly motivated and who have the potential to succeed at Michigan and make a contribution to the learning environment.

In expert witness testimony in the lawsuits, Stephen Raudenbush, a U-M education professor and statistical expert, wrote that the type of analysis conducted by CEO failed to account for many important factors in the admissions process, and therefore was “unsound” and “misleading” and led to “nonsensical results.”

Following the Supreme Court rulings in 2003, we revised our admissions application and we now have a great deal more information about students than we did in the past. Admissions decisions are made on an individualized basis. Both the applicant pool and minority enrollment vary widely from year to year. It is just plain wrong to imply that race somehow carries a greater amount of weight than it has in the past, or than the Supreme Court allowed.

Every student admitted to the University of Michigan is academically qualified. U-M’s graduation rates are higher than all other universities in the state and among the highest in the country. Graduation rates have been rising steadily over the past few years and even more rapidly for minority students—an indication that our admissions process is effective.

It is no coincidence that CEO has released this report in the weeks leading up to a ballot proposal that would outlaw public affirmative action in the state of Michigan. This is a politicized attempt by CEO to narrow the focus of the debate to college admissions at a single institution, rather than acknowledging the broader potential impact on state employment and contracting, K-12 schools and public universities and community colleges, potentially affecting financial aid, outreach, pre-college and other programs that consider race, gender and national origin.

Related Categories: Institutional