Beyond Percentage Plans: The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
(Staff Report)
Chapter 6
The Road to Diversity: Percentage Plans Plus
In April 2000, the Commission reported it was “deeply concerned” about the effect of percentage plans on minority enrollment.[1] Following this examination, concerns remain. Percentage plans have supplanted affirmative action admissions policies in Texas and Florida. In California, preexisting percentage plans have been modified as a result of a ban on race considerations in admissions. This study demonstrates that percentage plans as they are currently administered will not alone foster diversity in higher education or transcend the inequalities that exist in public education. Although a component of Florida’s education initiative addresses the need to improve public education, this movement has not gained adequate momentum. In fact, across all three states, percentage plans have failed to increase the proportions of minority students in higher education at the earliest stage of admissions (high school eligibility) and the latest (college enrollment).
Percentage plans have emerged against a backdrop of resistance to affirmative action. Across the country affirmative action in higher education has been and continues to be legally challenged on many fronts. For example:
States affected by the Fifth Circuit court decision in Hopwood v. Texas (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) are prohibited from considering race in admissions, financial assistance, and retention programs.
The states of California, Florida, Washington, and Georgia have eliminated the consideration of race in admissions policies, and in other jurisdictions scholarships targeting minority groups have been abolished.
So-called soft affirmative action programs such as outreach, recruitment efforts, financial aid, and academic support, which play a significant role in making education accessible to minorities, are also coming under legal scrutiny. Thus, colleges are being forced to replace the methods by which they identify and offer admission to minority and women students so that they do not use race, gender, or ethnicity as criteria.
Traditional affirmative action admissions policies have furthered the goal of equal access to education nationwide, but disparities in enrollment remain and will persist as states retreat from such policies. For example, black and Hispanic students are more likely to be accepted in two-year programs and second-tier four-year institutions. Minority students also tend to be older than other students, in part because of employment or other factors that prohibit full-time attendance. The underrepresentation of minorities in graduate and professional schools, particularly African Americans and Hispanics, has been a perennial problem in higher education that race-conscious affirmative action had begun to address but had not yet resolved. Although progress had been made, affirmative action policies had not completely brought black and Hispanic students into undergraduate, graduate, or professional higher education programs in parity with their representation in society. Efforts to correct these problems should have been the concern of federal and state governments before further bans on affirmative action were considered.
The three states, California, Texas, and Florida, that have implemented percentage plans automatically admit to state schools students who rank within an established percentage of their high school graduating class. Analysis of admissions in these states reveals that no significant improvement has been made in the rates of minority enrollment at the undergraduate or graduate/professional levels, and in many cases, rates have declined. Specifically:
California’s ban on the use of race in admissions decisions resulted in a decrease in the proportion of black, Hispanic, and Native American students enrolled in state research universities, at both the undergraduate and graduate/professional levels. While the implementation of a 4 percent plan in 2001 led to a small increase in minority enrollment, pre-ban rates have not been restored. Furthermore, in the year after affirmative action admissions practices were abolished, the University of California’s two premier campuses (UCLA and Berkeley) reported lower numbers of black and Hispanic students, despite that both campuses received more minority applications from students with stronger academic credentials than they had in previous years.
Immediately following the Hopwood v. State of Texas decision in 1996, black and Hispanic enrollment at the University of Texas-Austin decreased. While the state percentage plan resulted in an increase in minority enrollment in its initial years, this progress was short-lived. In the fourth year of the plan, the numbers of both black and Hispanic students decreased, with the reduction most pronounced among black students. The same trend is evident at the state’s premier law and medical schools.
When Florida implemented its 20 percent plan, an increase in minority enrollment in the state university system was anticipated. However, the heavy reliance on class ranks for college admission had a negative effect on African American students, who are disadvantaged from the beginning of the admissions process. In addition, black and Hispanic students remain underrepresented in two of Florida’s most selective universities compared with their proportions among high school graduates. Finally, while total minority graduate enrollment increased in the state university system (SUS), black and Hispanic graduate students are underrepresented at the state’s premier research institution, the University of Florida, relative to their presence in SUS. The number of new minority law school students also decreased. It is clear that efforts to close the gap between the proportions of racial/ethnic minorities among Florida high school graduates and first-time enrolled students must extend beyond the Talented 20 Program.
It is too early to determine the long-term effects of percentage plans on diversity; however, when making assessments of their effectiveness, longitudinal analyses must be conducted that compare pre-race ban data with subsequent years, as this analysis has done. Comparisons that only analyze data during post-ban years are misleading and do not reveal the magnitude of the effect on minority enrollment. When evaluating the effect of the race ban in California in particular, comparing pre-ban enrollment data with ensuing years does not show the full effect on diversity. The application and enrollment rates of underrepresented minorities began to decline from the point that the race ban was discussed and announced, years before it was implemented. Thus, minority students most likely will choose not to submit applications in an adverse environment of an affirmative action ban.
This report reveals numerous other drawbacks to overreliance on percentage plans:
The plans themselves are formulaic and deny admissions officers the ability to select students who have potential that has been overlooked.
Arguably, students in the top percentages of their high school classes, particularly in high-performing schools, would have been admitted to colleges and universities on merit, without percentage plans.
Uneven distribution of high-achieving students and high-quality schools unfairly affects percentage plan admissions, unless factors other than class rank are also considered. High-performing students in competitive schools who do not qualify under percentage plans compete for a limited number of remaining seats. Similarly, high-achieving students who fail to fall within the percentage limits at one high school might easily have qualified at an inferior school across town or one that had fewer high-achieving students. Many such students would have been eligible for admission under former affirmative action programs or traditional admissions standards.
Percentage plans run the risk of admitting students who reach eligibility requirements, but do so in failing schools, and thus are not academically prepared for college. Therefore, states must provide academic support before and during enrollment.
Percentage plan programs deny admissions to students from low-performing schools who do not have college preparatory credentials or academic prerequisites. To be assessed fairly, these students require profile assessments or comprehensive reviews to determine potential. While the three states have alternative pathways for admission, they have not been successful at reaching such students. For instance, in Florida, while 10 percent of students can be admitted through profile assessment, in practice only 3 percent of students gain admission in this manner.
If more states ignore the negative impact on minority students and adopt percentage plans, progress made as a result of decades of affirmative action will be undone, and minority enrollment will decline even further. To stop the erosion of minority enrollment brought about by such plans, if implemented, they must be supplemented with other programs.
In each of the three states examined, institutions subject to percentage plans should increase the number of first-time students admitted through profile assessments, provide rigorous academic and counseling support, and track academic performance. Further, states should expand financial support to universities for outreach activities. Statewide initiatives must also be developed and implemented to improve the admission rates of the more vulnerable minority groups to graduate, law, and medical schools. States, university systems, and individual institutions must rigorously monitor minority admission rates and enrollment patterns in graduate and professional schools. Future reviews of the percentage plan must draw on the expertise of the higher education community.
Thus, this analysis reveals that percentage plans will only have a positive effect if affirmative action and other supplemental recruitment, admissions, and academic support programs remain in place. A model percentage plan would include the outreach innovations of the University of California system, the school choice built into Texas’ plan, and a focus on improving K–12 education, as is the case in the Florida initiative. This is perhaps the most critical element in the current era of education reform. The One Florida Equity in Education Initiative’s second component, improving public education, has the potential to play a pivotal role in reducing the admissions gap and is well worth emulating by other states. It is apparent that opportunities in elementary and secondary schools have important influence on access to college.
Even in states that do not have percentage plans, the admissions process itself must be reevaluated and repaired where necessary. Traditional tools, such as the SAT and ACT, whose use as success predictors has long been questionable, are already being replaced at some institutions. Nonacademic criteria such as athletic ability and having alumni parents have historically been factors in admissions decisions and help faculty to evaluate more of what the student brings. More schools must move toward comprehensive admissions evaluations in which life experiences, academic opportunities, and extracurricular activities determine achievement potential.
The federal government must continue its efforts to reach socially and economically disadvantaged students. Key initiatives such as TRIO programs and financial aid have helped low-income and disadvantaged students who otherwise would not have been able to attend or afford college. However, because of geographic and budget limitations, TRIO only serves less than 7 percent of eligible students. Minorities still tend to cluster in lower income levels, and thus the availability of financial aid is fundamental to access. Tuition increases, higher expectations for family contributions, stagnant need-based funding levels, and increased emphasis on merit-based programs are negatively affecting minority enrollment. State budget crises and corresponding cutbacks on appropriations to colleges and universities and the steps taken by colleges to recover revenue loss further limit access and affordability. The federal government must fortify TRIO funding and federal financial aid programs because many disadvantaged students continue to have unmet financial needs.
Numerous model programs exist that help equal out disparities in education and afford disadvantaged students opportunities to gain admission to colleges and universities. More collaborative efforts must be made on the part of colleges and universities, school districts, educators, and local, state, and federal policymakers.
Federal, state, and local governments must also establish partnerships with private organizations and fortify those that already exist. Private sector companies are realizing the economic necessity of a diverse workforce, yet the nation’s colleges and universities are failing to develop a future workforce that reflects changing demographics. According to one observer, “at stake . . . is America’s competitive edge in an increasingly global marketplace with a customer base that is increasingly nonwhite.”[2] Thus, diversifying higher education is not only a matter of fairness, but also a matter of economic self-interest—for the student, the institution, and the economy. Global economic, political, and social competitiveness depends on equal educational opportunity for all Americans.