Kevin,
I don't know which tally sheet you are looking at but IPEDS does track completions, and does so by gender and ethnicity. All of this data is available online at the NCES website to any school. People may not be publishing this data for the world to see but any school receiving federal aid is tracking these numbers.

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that the information isn't available. My point is that when institutions track and evaluate student diversity, it's generally based on enrollment, not degrees.

The answer is always graduation. It really doesn't matter how many of this or that one enrolls it should be how many one graduates since that is the job of higher education.

Kevin, your supposition that most institutions do not track graduation rates by race/ethnicity as a component of diversity is also unfounded. Examining diversity initiatives at a wide range of institutions, I have found that student success, typically characterized by graduation rates, is often a key element. Many institutions know about their "gaps" in completion rates and they are not uniform across groups or across institutions. Many try to address these gaps. It is not a simple problem for which there are silver bullets and you are correct that some places are more conscientious and more effective than others. What institutions do not generally do (as most organizations and people don't do), is advertise their problems widely. Just because you haven't seen it advertised, doesn't mean it's not tracked. Now, of course, you will see the rates by race/ethnicity on every institution's "consumer information" page, thanks to HEOA, along with enough other required information to make none of it accessible. As Herbert Simon said, a wealth of information leads to a poverty of attention.

Kevin, why, in describing the arguments for affirmative action, do you present them as either/or choices? It seems clear that affirmative action policies are, indeed, important both to ensure previously restricted access to selective institutions for minority students and to help institutions provide educational environments that benefit all students--helping them become effecitve practitioners in a diverse society. Can't it be both?

The case--or rather the argument--against affirmative action isn't based on whether or not it helps African-American and Latino students attend college and graduate. It's based on principle: whether or not it's ethical or should be considered Constitutional to make admissions decisions based on race. The complicated formulae concocted by colleges and the convoluted court decisions supporting them don't really change that, nor do the arguments of historical context which say, in essence, "Well, we've had a history of bad racism, so why not a little good racism to balance things out?" Right now, of course, affirmative action is Constitutional, as determined by court decisions. But that doesn't mean it will stay that way indefinitely or that critics of affirmative action on principle are, at bottom, white (or Asian) racists.

"It's based on principle: whether or not it's ethical or should be considered Constitutional to make admissions decisions based on race."


Right. And if the decisions were going the other way (i.e. rejecting folks of color because of race), there would be hell to pay in our leftist universities.

Let's just call AA what it is: in a zero sum game, you have to take from someone to give to someone. Taking from someone because of perceived past inequities is called vengeance. Revenge historcally produces only more revenge. Sad, really, that people don't understand this. The only way to deal with inequality is through a very long period of equality (for all), which would allow people to climb or fall based solely on their merit.

In addition to simply graduating from college, it is also important to be mindful what programs students are graduating from. As long as there are enormous racial disparities in students graduating from science and engineering programs, we will continue to have systemic and pervasive racial inequality in America. In the discussion of institutional "mismatch," the more important question might be "is an African American student who wants to graduate with a Biology B.S. better off going to UCLA or UC Riverside?" My sense is that the vast majority of students who have academic difficulties cope not by dropping out or by delaying their graduation through persisting in their original plan of study--they bail out of rigorous majors and pick easier ones. In the end, this is probably the greatest source of drain in American higher education--for the colleges and universities themselves that have under-utilized capacity in some of the most well-resourced part of the campus and in the loss hopes and dreams of students who have to readjust their academic goals.

At the Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida we collect a wide variety of data sets, among which are performance rates of our 28 colleges and universities, including minority success rates. Go to www.icuf.org and look for our collection of
many years of Annual reports, all filled with data claimed in these comments and in the story to not be collected. We are proud of our school's efforts at serving all of Florida.

Ed H. Moore

Bodies on campus do not equal a diverse learning environment. Check out the dining hall and see how many minority students are eating only with others like them. Look at membership patterns in student organizations, study groups, etc. If minority students don't graduate and the learning environment is not enhanced, what are we actually accomplishing? The answer is not to stop admitting minority students but to insist on student success and meaningful measures of a truly diverse learning experience.

"The answer is not to stop admitting minority students but to insist on student success and meaningful measures of a truly diverse learning experience."

Opponents of affirmative action do not advocate "stop[ping] admitting minority students." They simply oppose racially rigging the admissions system.

And, as the kids say, "WTF" does "to insist on student success and meaningful measures of a truly diverse learning experience" mean? Can somebody remove the air from that eduspeak cotton candy and be a little more concrete?

to: goxewu

You make a valid point on your comment and I will remove the air to clarify the AA issue for law school admissions.
First and foremost the courts have never expressed concern on the undergraduate admissions process simply because they and we (the old council folks) have yet to find any individual who has been denied access to education (undergraduate and/or K-12). Not withstanding the issue of Finance (respectively), every attempt is made to ensure that you have access to a college and achieve a degree.

The issue of Air (and well put I might add) evolves around the selection process for Law School. My experience as a former employee of LSAS/LSAC may shed the light on your comment.

The Law School admissions selection process has always been based on representation thru constitutional law. This does not disqualify any individual from being selected for law school admissions so long as they have a 120 LSAT score and an adjusted GPA of 1.0.

Todate, we have nearly 150K students that apply to law school each year that meet the requirements for admissions. And as law school applicants understand, The selection process is not one and done. 80 percent of the applicants do get accepted into a school by their 'Third Summer'. The selection process must also respect the issue of 'Supply and Demand' In-short if you do a straight top down selection utilzing the law candidates home address/zip code, they fail financially which has already resulted in the loss of 925K attorney over the last 12 years with nearly 22 billion in uncollectable loans just within the profession. All uncollectable loans now total 100 billion in loss moneies as reported by Mary Sue Coleman in 2004.

Diversity permits each law school the opportunity to select candidates that will represent their culture or Race upon graduation. With each law candidate having a 'Identifiable Potental' in law school, their only opportunity upon graduation is heading home to become the representative for their community. Now let's remove the air !! Would any kid want to set up shop (if not hired by a big firm) in a impoverished community ?? NO........ And the council knew this thirty years ago, Diversity is based on representation, thru the various employment opportunities (and some do not pay at all). May I suggest you read the following article: Fixing law school admissions (click on web) The Argus paper will summize the issue that is at hand. The case no# is DJ 69-73-0 so if you have any kid (respectively) that has been denied access to law school, you can now challenge their denial. The National Federation for the Bolind has such a candidate and with the scandal at U of Illinois school of law. This will now play out. we had to look out for your financials upon graduation, Diversity was a way to state this without giving away the objectives of the law school selection process. And keep in mind that each year only 17 thousand law graduates receive an employment offer that warrants their relocation expenses, the rest must make do with their community and it's financial support.

It's business. But if you want a straight top down selection process, just don't ask the taxpayers for financial support. and remember, 100 billion has yet to be resolved in uncollectable student loans......

Since the Grutter Decision, some of us have been busy in resolving the issue.

Respects to a good Question !!!

Thanks to oceansmarine. I haven't read the cited article yet, and perhaps shouldn't reply until I do, but two sentences bother me: "Diversity permits each law school the opportunity to select candidates that will represent their culture or Race upon graduation" and "But if you want a straight top down selection process, just don't ask the taxpayers for financial support."

As to the first: Is that what graduates of public law schools are supposed to do--represent their own culture or race"? White lawyers are supposed to represent white clients, black lawyers black clients, etc.? Isn't this just Jim Crow, Esq.? Or are minority law students who get into law school on the basis of an affirmative action boost supposed to sign an agreement to work among poor minorities for a while before they go off and try to make the big bucks?

As to the second: Isn't a straight top-down selection process (i.e., race/ethnicity neutral) exactly what, under the Constitution, what the taxpayers are supposed to get? It seems to me that if any law school wants to tweak its admissions process along racial lines, it should be a private, no-public-funds law school.

Minnesotan is right when he or she says, "Let's just call AA what it is: in a zero sum game, you have to take from someone to give to someone." All the cloudy language from the admissions people and all the baroque reasoning in court decisions can't change the fact that what affirmative action means, on the ground, is that X number of minorities are awarded the places in whatever school that, under a "straight top-down admissions process," i.e., a meritocracy, would have otherwise gone to whites or students of Asian heritage.

To goxewu

To clarify: Communities are made up of cultures and in every respect the subset of Race is included. A CULTURE as identified by the DOJ would be the handicap and disabled, Military, the gay population, the Amish, The Little people, respectively...etc......

The proposal that the DOJ and US Attorney General have, will permit each State and US territory to establish its candidate pool for law school based on their governing laws and principles.

We (LSAC) re-affirmed the process thirty years ago after the Bakke decision was announced. The current problem .... or... the 'Entanglement' is that each selection committee is taking a resource and attempting to match it to a unknown opportunity. The missing step for law school has always been that we failed to acknowledge the law applicant first for the various opportunities that require admissions into a law school and a law degree.

In respects, who would be the best representative of a culture ?? Someone who came from a military family and understands the problems that arise in both peace time and war time events or someone from a community who does not come from a military family and cannot comprehend the challenges that these families must endure.

We set the selection process up based on a worst case scenario.

And where we knew what neighborhood required the services for a young law graduate in respects to representation thru Community Law but they could not afford the payment for services, we, the old council would offer scholarships to this individuals and in knowing that they were not going to graduate with a high GPA (identifiable potential), it eliminated them from high dollar job offers upon graduation. Keep in mind that LSAS/LSAC (The people who oversee the LSAT and GPA leveraging), is a non-profit organization which means that we must spend the monies left from each calendar year. Again ensuring both academics and financials upon graduation which permitted the continuation of the secondary degree loan program.

In-review, by removing the opportunities that would not generate income but was identified as a requirement for law school and a degree, we offered candidates from that region a scholarship in knowing that they could get through a law school cirriculum, establish a GPA for graduation, but their career would begin in community law until they built their professional resume. In doing so that process came to be associated with AA. But it permitted (through a review the continuation of) the secondary degree loan programs, the drop out rate was near zero and the return on monies was at 99 percent. The violations however of supply and demand, over the years, has lead to the meltdown of the student loan program(s).

The 'SMART KID' would not consider this opportunity, for the vision that they foresaw was based on wealth through their GPA achieved upon graduation.

Sets, Subsets and Formulas !!

This is why we do not send every kid to law school who qualifies.

And why the law seats are regulated in respects to numbers and support.

And as implied, our government did not want to extend any loans to the secondary degree candidates until the primary degree loan was paid in full. I mention this in the article.

We built everything on a business model with flexibility to permit each state to establish their pool. But we did not have the tools to complete the cycle.

Today, we have a power struggle, for the law schools do not want to be compliant with the Grutter ruling. They want absolute control, but once the candidate pool is established by each state, it does not prevent any law school graduate from obtaining their financial objectives, however we had to play by the rules in that we could not allow tax payers monies to be thrown away on a invalid or flawed selection process.

As the DOJ and US Attorney General Stated in my conversation, all law schools are funded (in one way or another) with tax payers monies (i.e Loans), which answers your question.

As I stated, The DOJ, US Attorney General, The Section of Legal Education, The Department of Education and Higher Education, The Division of Civil Rights, the Texas State Attorney General, the Texas House of Representatives and the Law School Admissions Services (LSAS) organziation (who replaced their CEO just days after the re-introduction of the Old Diversity Standard to the ABA) all know that someday this will be played out. They know that you are coming so be prepared to argue your valid point.

But should you want immediate results, just pull the funding for all graduate loan programs, and you will witness 'The Resolution.' And in exchange for the resolution, may I suggest that we fund all educational loans to permit no monies required from mom and dad.

What we conceived and what has now been presented, ensures a 100 percent re-payment of all loans. I respect your opinion and they are valid, but everyone has a different vision for their law career. Unless they know that they can make money, they will not attempt admissions into any law program.

oceansmarine's comment, above, is a depressingly picture-perfect example of what I meant by "the cloudy language from the admissions people and all the baroque reasoning in court decisions." Worse, it deliberately garbles the hifalutin ideal of diversity with the lowball necessary of recouping student loans to come up with a dubious rationale for, when the white or Asian law school applicant's application isn't superior ENOUGH, that slot going lower-placing a non-Asian minority student--something which affirmative-action proponents never seem to have the cojones to say plainly and simply up front.