Beyond Percentage Plans: The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
(Staff Report)
Executive Summary
We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and it is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated . . . This is one country.
—President John F. Kennedy
June 11, 1963
Two years before President Kennedy called for a unified America, undivided by race, he had coined the term affirmative action in the context of improving integration in federally financed work projects. In the 1970s, affirmative action broadened to apply to college admissions. Despite that affirmative action programs have significantly improved diversity on America’s college campuses, there have been many legal and legislative challenges to race-based programs, particularly in recent years.
Successful challenges have limited affirmative action in the states of California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Maryland, Washington, and Georgia. The movement away from affirmative action has forced many states, colleges, and universities to reassess their admissions and financial aid programs so that they no longer focus on race, but instead use other criteria to foster diversity. The states of California, Texas, and Florida have adopted “percentage plans.”
This staff report updates the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ previous assessment of percentage plans in California, Florida, and Texas and examines the pattern of racial/ethnic diversity among first-time students and graduate, law, and medical students. Staff of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights analyzed college application, admission, and enrollment data obtained directly from official state and university sources in the three states. The critical question guiding this analysis is: Can percentage plans achieve the goal of equal educational opportunity? Based on the analysis performed here, the answer unfortunately is no. The findings of this report mirror those of the earlier one: percentage plans alone do not improve diversity by reaching underrepresented minority groups and will only have their desired effect if affirmative action and other supplemental recruitment, admissions, and academic support programs remain in place.
This staff report also examines federal outreach programs, such as TRIO and financial aid, that further the goal of equal educational access. Even with such efforts, disturbing patterns in minority enrollment remain. To ensure equal access, states and the federal government must commit to multifaceted and inclusive admissions processes, incorporating adequate financial aid and academic support services.
PERCENTAGE PLANS
The University of California
The University of California has had in place a 12.5 percent plan for admissions since 1960, both with and, later after they were abolished, without affirmative action programs. The 4 percent plan promised to admit California students ranking in the top 4 percent of graduates in each high school, thereby expanding the eligible pool to include students who are not among the top 12.5 percent of graduates statewide. The comprehensive review implemented in fall 2002 expanded the selection criteria to include not just 10 academic criteria, but also four nonacademic ones, for example, motivation.
Outreach programs targeting minority groups also came under scrutiny in 1997–98 after the statewide race ban took effect. Thus, instead of considering race, universities began to institute programs to increase the eligibility rates of students from schools that had significant educational disadvantages and schools that produced few college-bound students. Other outreach efforts were based on geographic distribution and socioeconomic status. However, despite the UC system’s increasing its spending on new outreach efforts, campus diversity did not increase. Specifically:
The race ban of 1997 resulted in reductions in the already small proportions of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans admitted and enrolled in the UC system, including both undergraduate and professional schools.
The recent changes in admissions policies have resulted in small increases in applications and admissions from racial minorities compared to when the race ban was initially imposed. Proportionally fewer racial minorities apply or are enrolled than in 1995, when the race ban was first announced.
In particular, the chances of admission dropped for African American, Hispanic, and Native American applicants to the Los Angeles, Berkeley, and San Diego campuses, and for the system as a whole higher admission rates did not always result in higher enrollment rates.
State of Texas
When Texas instituted an admissions “percentage plan” (HB 588) in 1998, it did so in response to the Hopwood v. State of Texas decision, which effectively ended affirmative action in education in the state. HB 588 was enacted and now guarantees high school graduates in the top 10 percent of their classes admission to a Texas public college or university of their choice. HB 588 also provides admissions guidelines for students not ranked in the top 10 percent of their class, instructing public universities to consider 17 other factors, including socioeconomic background and an applicant’s performance on standardized tests, when determining admission.
While HB 588 offers some recourse to minority undergraduate students, it does not apply to minority graduate students. Both undergraduate and graduate minority students in Texas have been losing ground in admission to the state’s flagship public institutions. This study found:
In 1994, prior to Hopwood, whites made up 64 percent of the total enrollment at UT-Austin. Minorities accounted for 36 percent of the total enrollment; blacks made up 5 percent and Hispanics accounted for nearly 15 percent.
By 1997, the rate of minority enrollment had declined to its lowest point since 1994; blacks accounted for less than 3 percent of the total enrollment at the UT-Austin and Hispanics accounted for nearly 13 percent.
Asian Pacific Americans benefited from the 10 percent law, but the University of Texas-Austin still struggles to admit black students. African Americans constitute 12 percent of the state’s population.
Although the number of undergraduate minorities applying to the University of Texas-Austin has continued to increase since 1996, the percentage of those admitted has declined, as has the number of those who actually enroll.
By 2001, the number of blacks applying to UT-Austin had increased by 24 percent, but the percentage of applicants who were admitted had decreased by 19 percent. Only 38 percent of black applicants were admitted in 2001.
In 1996, 65 percent of Hispanic applicants were admitted. By 2001, the number of Hispanics applying to UT-Austin had increased by 20 percent but the percentage of applicants who were admitted had decreased by 15 percent.
Although graduate and professional schools are not covered under HB 588, minorities have historically been underrepresented and remain so:
Minority enrollment rose to 17.2 percent at University of Texas School of Law in 2000–01. However, this was only a 1.1 percent increase from the previous academic year, and an overall decline of 7.5 percent from the year following Hopwood.
In 2000–01, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine enrolled 5.6 percent fewer minority students than in the 1997–98 academic year.
Asian Pacific Americans were the only group to have experienced a steady increase in enrollment at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine over the five-year period.
Outlawing race-conscious affirmative action programs in higher education in Texas had a negative impact on black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment at the University of Texas-Austin. In addition, although minority admission rates have increased at some schools, they have declined overall at the premier Texas law and medical schools.
State of Florida
In November 1999 Governor Jeb Bush signed Executive Order 99-281, banning the use of race or ethnicity in university admissions decisions in Florida. In place of affirmative action in higher education, the state instituted the Talented 20 Program (T20 Program), which guarantees admission to one of Florida’s 11 public institutions for students graduating in the top 20 percent of their high school class and completing a prescribed 19-unit academic high school curriculum. No provisions were made for graduate and professional admissions. The T20 Program, which became effective in 2000–01, is now one of three pathways to admission in the state university system (SUS). The other two are admission through traditional criteria, such as standardized test scores and grade point average, and profile assessment, which takes into consideration a variety of factors. The three pathways form one component of the One Florida Equity in Education Initiative, and improving poor performing schools forms the other. An assessment of the state initiative revealed:
The T20 Program hinders black high school graduates’ participation in higher education because of its reliance on class ranks. Compared with other groups, blacks have the smallest percentage of high school graduates qualifying as T20 students, at levels substantively lower than their representation among high school graduates.
Black applicants who apply independent of T20 are also admitted to SUS at a lower rate relative to other groups.
The ratio of black enrolled T20 first-time students to all black enrolled first-time enrolled students in SUS is the lowest compared with all other groups. This is associated with underrepresentation in higher class ranks, the beginning of the admissions process.
Relative to their presence in SUS, Hispanic, Native American, and especially black T20 students are underrepresented at the University of Florida, the flagship campus, while Asian Pacific Americans are well represented.
The three pathways to enrollment taken together increased the number of minority and nonminority first-time students enrolled in SUS, but failed to change the proportions of the minority groups.
In the two post-race ban years, blacks were underrepresented among first-time students, within SUS and the most selective University of Florida and Florida State University, compared with their representation among 1999–00 high school graduates. The same underrepresentation is evident when comparing black first-time students in the pre-race ban year with the 1999–00 high school graduates. A similar situation prevails for Hispanics at the two more selective universities.
First-time minority graduate enrollment increased substantially in SUS in 2001–02, the second year of the race ban. However, first-time black graduate admission rates declined over the two years of the race ban and have almost always remained lower than those of other groups.
In law schools, the number of first-time minority students fluctuated in SUS and decreased steadily in the University of Florida College of Law. Furthermore, black and Hispanic law students were admitted at lower rates than whites and Asian Pacific Americans. The two new laws schools, one affiliated with Florida A&M University and the other with Florida International University, are hoped to increase black and Hispanic lawyers without using affirmative action.
First-time minority medical students grew very slightly, but medical school admission rates are lower for blacks and Hispanics relative to those of whites and Asians.
These staff findings reveal an urgent need to go beyond the Talented 20 Program in university admissions to narrow the gap between the proportions of blacks in SUS and in the two more selective universities, and the comparable proportion among high school graduates. The same urgency prevails for Hispanics with regard to the two selective institutions. In the long term, the Education Initiative’s second component, improving public education, is a pivotal one. Statewide initiatives must be implemented to improve the admission rates of the more vulnerable minority groups, such as blacks, to graduate, law, and medical schools.
ADMISSIONS STANDARDS AND SUCCESS PREDICTORS
Today, high school grade point average is the most widely used factor in admissions decisions, followed closely by standardized test scores, such as the SAT and ACT. The reliance on standardized tests has become controversial in recent years, with critics citing differences in the quality of education afforded students and disparities in test scores between racial/ethnic groups as reasons to discontinue their use. Research indicates:
The gap in test scores between white and nonwhite students has widened over the years, with the average SAT scores of black, Hispanic, and American Indian students trailing those of white students by a wider margin today than 10 years ago.
In the 2000–2001 academic year, the difference in average SAT scores between black and white test takers was 201 points out of a possible 1600. On the ACT, the difference in scores was nearly 5 points, of a possible 36.
One study found that admissions strategies that rely on SAT scores result in a greater number of rejections of otherwise qualified minority and low-income students, as compared with strategies that rely on high school records alone.
Test scores are also often used to determine recipients of merit awards and scholarships. Because high-income students tend to score higher, there is greater potential that these awards will be given to students who may not need them.
At the same time score gaps are widening, selectivity at four-year institutions is increasing, with higher standards (and test scores) being required of potential students, and targeted recruitment efforts are decreasing. Both trends come at the expense of minority and low-income students. The College Board announced in June 2002 that it would revamp the SAT to include an essay portion and higher levels of mathematics, leaving some educators concerned that students at less rigorous schools will be penalized once again and that average score gaps will continue to widen.
Many schools are beginning to move away from reliance on the SAT and ACT and have made efforts to take a more holistic approach to admissions, giving consideration to students’ talents and extraordinary accomplishments. Others have implemented early intervention initiatives to better prepare underrepresented students for college. It is hoped that these approaches will increase diversity on college campuses absent affirmative action programs.
NATIONAL TRENDS IN COLLEGE ENROLLMENT
Over the last 25 years, it is evident that affirmative action policies significantly increased minority representation in higher education, although not necessarily at selective institutions. While it is too soon to tell whether state percentage plans will have any long-term success, it appears that minority enrollment rates are leveling off. A closer examination of college enrollment reveals:
The gap between minority and nonminority students has narrowed since 1976, when whites accounted for more than 80 percent of college students; today whites make up 67 percent of the postsecondary student population. Non-Hispanic black students make up 12.2 percent of college enrollees, Hispanic students make up 11.5 percent, and Asian American students make up 5.2 percent.
There is significant enrollment variation within groups, particularly among Asian Pacific Americans and Hispanics.
Non-Hispanic white students are more likely to attend college at the traditional age of enrollment (18–23 years old). Minority students are less likely to enroll in college right after high school, and because of employment and other factors that might limit full-time attendance, are more likely to take longer to complete a course of study.
White and Asian American students are more likely to attend four-year institutions, whereas black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students are more likely to attend two-year institutions or vocational schools. In 1999, minorities accounted for 24.8 percent of students enrolled in four-year institutions and 33.4 percent of those enrolled in two-year institutions.
White and Asian American students are more likely to attend the most competitive institutions, while black students are more likely to be enrolled in the least competitive institutions.
There has been a similar trend in graduate and professional school enrollment, with a marked increase in the representation of graduate students of color over the last 25 years, from 10.8 percent in 1976 to 21.3 percent in 1999. However, there are disparities that remain significant:
At 21.3 percent of graduate students, minorities remain underrepresented. Hispanic and African American students are particularly underrepresented, making up only 5.7 and 9.3 percent of graduate students, respectively.
In 1999–2000, minorities made up 21.6 percent of law school students and 31.5 percent of medical students.
While it appears that minority students have reached parity in medical schools, it is because Asian/Pacific Islander students make up 17.3 percent of medical students. Black and Hispanic students are still underrepresented in both law and medicine.
Although progress has been made, disturbing trends in minority enrollment persist. Students of color remain underrepresented at the most selective undergraduate institutions, in those that offer four-year programs, and in graduate and professional schools. Clearly, equal access to education has not yet been achieved.
FACILITATING ACADEMIC AND FINANCIAL ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION
Access to higher education is not only dependent on a fair and flexible admissions process, but also on adequate academic preparation and financial support. It is in these two areas that the federal government’s role is most pronounced. With recent attention drawn to America’s failing schools, federal intervention in the form of outreach, counseling, supplemental academic instruction, and financial support is paramount. There are federal programs in place to improve college access for low-income students. If strengthened and used in conjunction with proactive recruitment and admissions efforts, these programs can contribute significantly to increased diversity in higher education.
For example, the importance of TRIO, the federal programs designed to assist and encourage economically disadvantaged students to pursue and complete postsecondary education, is unquestionable. Without its programs, many minority and low-income students would not have had the opportunity to pursue college education. However, improvement is needed in the area of outreach and in the scope of the Department of Education’s evaluation of the TRIO programs.
Rising tuition costs and the failure of federal funding to keep pace have resulted in a decline in the purchasing power of financial aid. Over the next 10 years, 4.4 million qualified students will not be able to afford a four-year college education, and 2 million will not be able to afford any college. In addition, expected family contributions have increased, resulting in an increase in the amount of student loans. Unmet needs for college funding have also increased over the years.
Despite the increased demand for need-based financial aid, several states have substituted portions of funding for merit-based programs, awarding scholarships for academic performance. An overarching concern about this trend is that these scholarships may benefit students who can already afford college. The civil rights community is similarly concerned that changes in how financial aid and merit-based scholarships are distributed have had a detrimental effect on minority and other disadvantaged students.
Budget crises precipitated by a national fiscal downturn, made worse by the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, caused states to cut back appropriations for higher education. Declining interest rates during budget crises also cut returns on college endowments. Making matters worse, private giving declined. To compensate for revenue loss, colleges and universities have further raised tuition, increased mandatory fees, imposed new fees, charged new first-time students higher tuition than returning students, tightened residency requirements, and raised admission and financial aid requirements to curtail enrollment. These actions further diminish access for the economically disadvantaged and minority students. Families with college-bound dependents and/or dependents in college as well as financially independent individuals attending college are similarly affected. As a result of the fiscal downturn, these families and individuals may suffer declining incomes, investment loss, and sudden layoffs, all of which negatively affect college access and affordability.
CONCLUSION
As affirmative action comes increasingly under fire, and if percentage plans grow in popularity, it is inevitable that the numbers, and subsequently proportions, of minority students pursuing higher education will decrease. Though affirmative action programs were not perfect, this analysis reveals that in each of the three states that have replaced them with percentage plans, minority students are faring the same or worse. The staff analysis found numerous other drawbacks to overreliance on percentage plans. Thus, if percentage plans as they are currently administered remain a part of the higher education landscape, they must be supplemented with proactive recruitment, outreach, and academic support programs.
This is not to suggest that existing percentage plans are entirely without merit, but they are simply not enough. A model plan would include the outreach innovations of the University of California system, the focus on improving K–12 education as Florida’s plan does, and the school choice built into Texas’ plan. The alternatives to top-percent admissions that are built into each state’s plan (i.e., comprehensive review, profile assessment, and supplemental criteria) should be commended. Additionally, states must broaden the use of holistic admissions standards that allow participation by students who have unrealized potential.
State governments must take this review even further and perform regular, thorough examinations of these programs and closely study admission and enrollment rates at all schools. The federal government must make TRIO and financial aid programs accessible to all who are eligible for them. The administration, Congress, and those in the education field must work together proactively to guarantee all Americans equal access to higher education.