Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP. All rights reserved. Affirmative Action and its...

Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP. All rights reserved.

Affirmative Action and its Affirmative Action and its Discontents: Lessons from Discontents: Lessons from the Texas Top 10% Planthe Texas Top 10% Plan

Marta TiendaUniversity of Michigan

October 29, 2003

Image Credit: http://www.cscc.edu/bmgtoadm/images/graduation%20cap%20and%20diploma.jpg


Allocating Scarce Slots: From Allocating Scarce Slots: From Ascription to AttributionAscription to Attribution General affirmative action debate

Conceptions of “merit”—rising focus on standardized test scores

Mismatch hypothesis instantiates debate: Bowen & Bok: dismiss for blacks Alon & Tienda: dismiss for Hispanics and blacks using

national data as well as C&B Increasing demand for relatively fixed slots at

selective and highly selective institutions Deserving vs undeserving students Changing demography: numbers and composition


Rising Demand for CollegeRising Demand for College

Texas college enrollment, 1991-2001 Total rose by 16% 2-year vs. 4-year

Racial composition of Texas: H.S. graduates

1992 2001

Change

Hispanic 27 32 + 5 %White 57 51 - 6 %African-American 12 13 1 %Asian and Other 3 4 1 %Total Graduates (‘000) 158 215 + 36 %


Texas shifted terms of Texas shifted terms of affirmative action affirmative action debate…debate…

Relevance of race for admission

versus

School quality as basis for exclusion


Path to Top 10 Percent PlanPath to Top 10 Percent Plan: : HopwoodHopwood and its Aftermath and its Aftermath Context:

Infamous 1996 Hopwood decision; Texas growing rapidly and becoming majority minority state.

The Texas’ response: Bold bi-partisan leadership and interagency cooperation birth of HB588—the Texas Top 10% Law

Rationale: Grades are better predictors of college success than test scores Equalizing higher educational opportunity means leveling playing

field to promote access Seeds of Discontent:

Shifting conception of “merit” from test scores to class rank Shifting debate from deserving vs. undeserving race/ethnic

groups to deserving vs. undeserving schools


Percent Plans: Facts and Percent Plans: Facts and FictionFiction Appeal

Build on merit “Politically correct” affirmative action Allegedly “race neutral” Uniform standard for ALL schools—high and low performing; no

preference for the elite schools Limitations

Capitalize on segregation Compromise full file review for a single indicator Can overwhelm admissions process and saturate the classes Requires massive outreach and retention investments for

students from low performing schools


Texas Plan is Texas Plan is Unique…Unique…

Unrestricted access to public flagships— completed application required

Choice of major (though has been restricted) Accompanied by vigorous outreach and

fellowship support by public flagships By law, out of state admissions to state

institutions are limited Tuition is low relative to other state universities


The Supreme Court has The Supreme Court has Spoken: Spoken: What now for Texas public What now for Texas public institutionsinstitutions Admissions Autonomy: return to affirmative action

“as we knew it”

Admissions under scrutiny: full file review with threats of lawsuits by affirmative action opponents

Symbolic Autonomy Constrained: Gratz and Grutter as footnotes to HB588 and Prop209


Highlights to ComeHighlights to Come

Thumbnail sketch of Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project

Overview of Texas demographics Initial insights from administrative data Early insights from survey data (including

preliminary results for W2) Policy implications in light of Supreme Court

decision


The Texas Higher The Texas Higher Education Opportunity Education Opportunity ProjectProject

Funded by the Ford Foundation, in cooperation with the Mellon and Hewlett Foundations.


THEOP: Primary Research THEOP: Primary Research QuestionsQuestions How does the Top 10% law influence minority

enrollment at Texas public institutions that vary in the selectivity of their admissions? Cascading vs. catapulting Public vs private institutions

How does the Top 10% law influence high school seniors’ college planning and enrollment decisions? Is there a brain drain out of the state from students who attend

the most competitive high schools? Does the Top 10% guarantee encourage minority students to

apply and enroll in 4-yr. institutions? Are students from noncompetitive high schools even aware of

the provisions of HB 588?


Data CollectionData Collection

Administrative Records Records on college applicants, admits & matriculants

from 12 Texas colleges and universities of varying selectivity 1992 – present

Permits comparisons of outcomes pre- and post-Hopwood as “quasi-natural experiment”

Survey Data Statewide survey of high school seniors & sophomores in

2002 Follow-up interviews with high school senior cohort for 6

years Follow-up interviews with sub-samples of high school

sophomore cohort during senior year


TEXAS ChallengesTEXAS Challenges

Growing population diversificationPersisting educational inequalityRising demand for higher education


5344

13

12

3140

1020

5261

1112

3226

3232

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Total Pop,1990

Total Pop,2000

College-Age,1990

College-Age,2000

AsianHispanicBlackAngloOther

Texas Challenge: More Rapid Texas Challenge: More Rapid Diversification of Diversification of College-age College-age PopulationPopulation

Source: Census 2000. All numbers may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.


Percent High School and Percent High School and College Graduates, Persons College Graduates, Persons 25+: Texas, 200025+: Texas, 2000

81

49

7687

76 80

47

915

3023 24

0102030405060708090

100

Asian

Hisp

anic

Black

Anglo

State

wide

Nati

onwi

de

Per

cen

t

High School Graduates College Graduates


Admission Admission Probabilities—Pre- Probabilities—Pre- and Post and Post HopwoodHopwood

Initial findings from the University of Texas at Austin


Glimpse of Texas Public Glimpse of Texas Public Flagships: 2000Flagships: 2000

U Texas at Austin Texas A&M

Student Body 49,996 45,083

Undergraduates 38,162 36,775

Graduate & Prof. Students 11,834 8,308

Freshman Admits 13,256 11,777

Admission Rate 61.5% 68.1%Source: University of Texas at Austin Fact Sheet; Texas A&M University Office of Institutional Research


Class Rank

1st Decile 2nd Decile 3rd Decile +

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

African American 93.1 99.6 78.7 73.8 53.5 43.4

Hispanic/Latino 93.8 99.7 81.8 79.5 56.6 48.1

Asian American 92.0 99.9 75.3 92.4 48.6 63.8

White 93.7 99.9 80.4 91.1 52.5 61.3

Feeder HS 92.4 100.0 89.1 97.3 56.4 61.4

Admission Probability to UT – Admission Probability to UT – Pre- Pre- Hopwood and 3 Years PostHopwood and 3 Years Post


Early Lessons from Early Lessons from Administrative Records---Administrative Records---The First Three YearsThe First Three Years Top 10% law has capacity to restore some diversity

to flagship public institutions, but not optimal All minority groups are not benefiting uniformly

from top 10% law; Asians appear to benefit most Blacks appear to benefit least

Students from “feeder” schools do not appear to be hurt by 10% law, yet perceptions and reports (based on media sources) are exactly opposite

Top 10% law broadens opportunity in higher education for nonminority excluded groups


24,000

10,000

6,000

20,02519,562

15,53115,80913,663 13,694

9,319 9,472 10,079 10,777 11,413 11,024

6,3406,6646,0005,5295,5475,157

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 2003

APPLIED ADMITTED ENROLLED

Applicant, Admission, & Fall Applicant, Admission, & Fall Enrollment Enrollment Undergraduate Trends: UT Austin, Undergraduate Trends: UT Austin, 1992-2003 1992-2003

Source: The University of Texas at Austin, Office of Institutional Studies


Aftermath of HB588 over Next Aftermath of HB588 over Next Three Years : UT Admissions Three Years : UT Admissions Squeeze Squeeze Rising number of applicants (24K in 2003); falling number admitted (10K)

Rising class saturation with top 10% admits 43% for 1996 cohort 47% for 2000 cohort 52% for 2002 cohort 63% for 2003 cohort 72% for 2004 current cohort

Major guarantee to top 10% admits now capped at 75%

Will the Legislature revoke HB588?


Highlights from Highlights from Survey DataSurvey Data

Initial insights about students’ perceptions of the top 10% law and their college intentions


THEOP: Two-Cohort THEOP: Two-Cohort Longitudinal DesignLongitudinal Design

Cohort 2002 2003 2004 2005

SeniorWave 1

N=13,803

Wave 2

N=6,000

Wave 3

N=6,000*

SophomoreWave 1

N=19,969

Wave 2

N=3,0002,000 Stayers

1,000 Movers

*The actual number of surveys will depend on the completed number in Wave 2 (probably in excess of 6,000) minus attrition, which is expected to be circa 10% or less.


Statewide Baseline Statewide Baseline SurveySurvey Fielded Spring, 2002 108 schools in sample: 93% cooperation

rate 98 cooperating (87 in-class administration; 11

mail) 3 ineligible; 7 non-cooperating (2 refusal; 5

recalcitrant) 34,000 surveys completed

14K seniors & 20K sophomores Mostly in-class censuses; 12 mail only


Senior Survey DataSenior Survey Data

Wave 1 Demographics Course taking/grades Knowledge/perceptions of

Top 10% Law School attitudes/behavior Peer information College plans Extracurricular activities Self-esteem Language Interaction with counselors Plans for future Knowledge of class rank

Wave 2 Demographics Current enrollment or

employment status Work & college experiences College preparedness Reasons for college choice College finances Psych well-being Civic activity Admission by college rank Family status/living

arrangements Future plans/expectations


Demographic Composition of Demographic Composition of SamplesSamples Sophomores Seniors

% Female 51.7 52.0

Race/Ethnicity

% White 48.5 51.2

% Black 11.7 10.3

% Hispanic 34.2 32.6

% Asian 3.7 3.8

% Other 2.1 2.0

% U.S. Born 84.2 86.6

% Speak Second Language at Home 38.7 38.1

% Father Absent 33.7 33.7

N* 19,969 13,803

*N’s vary across items due to missing information and filtered questions.Photo Credit: http://www.uic.edu/cba/Acadprgms/students.jpg


Father’s Educational Father’s Educational Attainment by Ethnicity: All Attainment by Ethnicity: All SeniorsSeniors

39

7

21

812

36

50

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

White Black Hispanic Asian

B.A. or Higher Less than High School Diploma

Per

cen

t


Percent of Seniors Who Percent of Seniors Who Know Their Class Rank by Know Their Class Rank by EthnicityEthnicity67

62

51

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Per

cen

t


Percent of Seniors Who Know “A Percent of Seniors Who Know “A Lot” About 10% Law by EthnicityLot” About 10% Law by Ethnicity

31

22

16

49

05

101520253035404550


Per

cen

t


College Plans by Ethnicity: All College Plans by Ethnicity: All SeniorsSeniors

77

58

72

5462

46

87

68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


College is Primary Post-High School Activity Applied to College

Per

cen

t


When Did You First Think When Did You First Think About Going To College?: All About Going To College?: All SeniorsSeniors

68

1116

61

16 19

53

14

27

71

916

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

White Black Hispanic AsianAlways or During Elementary School During Middle School During High School

Per

cen

t


When Did You First Think When Did You First Think About Going To College?: Top About Going To College?: Top 10% Seniors10% Seniors83

84

67

19

10

71

11 14

85

7 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Always or During Elementary School During Middle School During High School

Per

cen

t


Intentions versus Intentions versus Attendance—who shows Attendance—who shows up on Campus?up on Campus?

Paper presented at policy conference in California with Kalena Cortes and Sunny Niu


College Intentions by Demographic Group College Intentions by Demographic Group & Class Rank& Class Rank

Class Rank

10 % 11-20%

30-100%

Group Average

% Seniors who reported college plans

White 94 90 77 77

Black 90 89 70 72

Hispanic 89 81 62 62

Asian Pacific Islander 98 86 81 87


Seniors:Seniors:Actualization of College PlansActualization of College Plans

Fulfillment:

2- or 4-year preference and enrollment Community college backup:

unspecified preference, enrolled 2-year Scaled back aspirations:

4-year preference, 2-year enrollment Understated intentions:

2-year or no preference, 4-year enrollment Dreams deferred:

2 or 4-year preference, no enrollment


Actual Enrollment by IntentionsActual Enrollment by Intentions

Enrollment

Intentions No College 2-Year 4-Year Col %

No Plans 62 27 11 100 22

2-Year Only 24 72 4 100 5

2- & 4-Year 14 74 12 100 10

4-Year Only 7 17 76 100 50

College Bound 21 50 29 100 13

Average Share 22 33 46 100 Fulfillment Community college backup Scaled back aspirations

Understated intentions Dreams deferred


Multivariate ResultsMultivariate Results

Knowledge of Law Timing of college orientation Class rank differentials Race/Ethnic differentials Factors that influence college choice


Policy RecommendationsPolicy Recommendations

Calls to repeal legislation may be premature Raise enrollment rates of minority population,

especially Hispanics Strengthen institutional links

High school to college 2- to 4-year institutions

Make college affordable


Should HB 588 be repealed Should HB 588 be repealed or modified? or modified? Do highly qualified students from the most

competitive high schools leave the state because they rank below the guaranteed admission threshold?

Do students “game the system” by transferring high schools to improve their rank standing?

What role does knowledge of HB588 play in college decision-making and type of institution attended?

Are capable students postponing college, and if so, who are these students?


Policy Questions…Policy Questions…Sustainability: Taxing the carrying capacity of public flagships or expanding educational opportunity by creating more flagships?

Challenges: Has the balance of Inclusion, Opportunity, and Standards been compromised?

Criteria: Given the demography of Texas, is 10% the appropriate threshold? Should any criterion serve as an admission guarantee?


Thank YouThank You

Texas Higher Education Opportunity Projectwww.texastop10.princeton.edu

Date post:	20-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP. All rights reserved. Affirmative Action and its...

Documents