Do Minority Applicants Get Preferences in Admissions Decisions? (February, 1999)

Summary

Does the UW-Madison discriminate in admissions on the basis of race/ethnicity? Do applicants from targeted minority groups receive preferential consideration in admission decisions? Many people believe that targeted minority groups do receive preferential consideration. Yet, campus officials typically avoid discussing the issue. Moreover, a succession of campus diversity plans have remained silent on whether and how their success hinges on preferences for minority applicants.This paper seeks to resolve these questions by documenting how targeted minority applicants are given preferential consideration in the admission process. It does so from four perspectives. One is through faculty legislation and policy that deal with admissions requirements and particularly how these requirements are applied to targeted minority applicants. Another is how the UW-Madison Office of Admissions implements faculty legislation and policy. Still another is through the application materials provided to prospective applicants. Last, and perhaps most important, is evidence on disparities in admission rates between targeted minority and non-targeted applicants.

The evidence reveals that faculty legislation explicitly authorizes preferences in admission for targeted minority applicants, the Office of Admissions appears to effectively implement these preferences, but the information provided to prospective applicants is vague on the matter of preferences. The evidence also shows that except for applicants in the top 20 percent of their high school graduation class, the percentages of targeted minority applicants admitted each year exceed by considerable margins the percentages of equally qualified nontargeted applicants.

These results reveal a fundamental clash between the UW-Madison faculty and administrators and the Wisconsin Statutes governing the University of Wisconsin System. Whereas the UW-Madison faculty regularly gives strong vocal support to diversity which is based on discrimination in admissions, Wisconsin Statutes explicitly prohibit discrimination in admissions and programs based on race and ethnicity. How this clash will be resolved remains to be seen. The most obvious solution would be for the UW-Madison faculty to bring its policies into conformance with state law.

Introduction

Whether targeted minority applicants do or should receive preferential treatment in admission has been the subject of heated debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the past two years. The question is almost certain to come up again when the campus must develop, approve, and submit to the Board of Regents a new diversity plan. The purpose of that plan is to implement the University of Wisconsin System’s “umbrella” policy approved by the Board of Regents last spring, namely, “Plan 2008: Educational Quality Through Racial and Ethnic Diversity.”This paper attempts to describe UW-Madison’s admissions policies and practices, and how they affect the admission of targeted minorities. Its purpose is to determine whether members of these groups receive preference in admission based solely on their race/ethnicity.

How race/ethnic minorities are treated in the admissions process at the UW-Madison can be viewed from the perspective of the applications materials given to prospective students, campus admission requirements and policy established through faculty legislation, implementation of this legislation by the Admissions Office, and any differences in the pattern of admission rates between targeted racial/ethnic minorities and non-targeted applicants.

Faculty Perspective

The admission criteria for UW-Madison are determined by the faculty through legislation adopted by the Faculty Senate. The most recent full statement of admissions policy appears in Faculty Senate Document 843, dated 5 March 1990. Faculty legislation lists three minimum requirements for admission:

1. “graduation in the upper half of their high school class from a recognized high school or equivalent;”
2. “a minimum of 16 high school credits [later increased to 17 credits] distributed” among specific academic subjects (see the earlier text table on course requirements); and
3. “a test score (ACT for in-state applicants or ACT or SAT for out-of-state applicants),” with the proviso that “no applicant will be denied admission based on this score alone.”

The minimum required courses and the typical academic preparation is shown below.

Faculty legislation also discusses the case of applicants who do not meet the minimum requirements, stating:”Applicants lacking minimum qualifications may be considered if, on the basis of other factors, they appear to have a reasonable probability of success. Particular consideration in admission will be given to applicants who have been out of school for two or more years, service veterans with at least 180 days of activity duty and to applicants who have been disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background.” [emphasis added] (According to the Admissions Office, “reasonable probability of success” also takes into account the rigor of the high school curriculum and the curriculum the student intends to pursue.)

When the UW System began restricting the size of the new freshman class in the late 1980s and found it necessary to select whom to admit from among its many qualified applicants, the UW-Madison faculty in 1987 established two additional criteria for admission (Document 655a, 4 May 1987). As described in current faculty legislation (Document 843, 5 March 1990), these criteria were included “to implement the University’s goal of maximizing the success of students who are admitted to UW-Madison and of achieving a more heterogenous and ethnically diverse student body.” [Emphasis added] Faculty legislation elaborates by stating that the “primary criteria for admission shall be:”

“Membership in a minority, disadvantaged, or other group for which the University has authorized special outreach efforts. Qualified applicants in these special outreach groups shall normally be admitted.” [emphasis added]

“Likelihood of graduation” as determined by high school rank (the primary criterion), test scores at the 90th percentile or above, and a combination of high school rank and test scores for those all other applicants that will “produce a freshman class as close as possible to the targeted enrollment, consistent with the goals stated above” (i.e., “maximizing the success of students who are admitted to UW-Madison and of achieving a heterogeneous and ethnically diverse student body”).

Faculty legislation describes in more revealing ways than do the admissions materials the priority for admitting applicants when “it is not possible to admit all qualified applicants.” That legislation makes it clear that minimally qualified applicants who come from a “minority, disadvantaged,” or other group for which special outreach efforts are being made, are “normally admitted,” i.e., without explicit regard for their “likelihood of graduation,” according to the Office of Admissions. For all other applicants, “likelihood of graduation” is a key determinant of admission.

That legislation also says that targeted minority applicants not meeting the minimum requirements for admission can receive “particular consideration” because they are designated members of special outreach efforts. It adds: “Personal characteristics that will contribute to the strength and diversity of the university community may also be considered.” (p. 4)

From time to time the faculty reconsiders the definition of “special outreach” groups, more recently called “Targeted Application Groups” by the Office of Admissions. Currently, four such groups are identified. The first, “Under-Represented Minority Students,” includes “African-American/Black; Hispanic/Latino; American Indian/Alaskan Native; Hawaiian, and Asian Americans from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam”. Another, “Students with Self-Disclosed Disability,” includes both physically and learning disabled students. A third group, “Recruited Athletes,” includes those applicants being recruited by the Athletic Department for an intercollegiate sport. The final group, “Returning Adults,” includes applicants who have been out of school for two or more years or are at least 25 years old.

Each group is subject to a somewhat different set of rules that have been worked out with the Faculty Senate’s Admissions Policy Committee, The rules with respect to rank in class are most pertinent to this discussion. Under-Represented Minority Students are “normally admitted” provided they are in the upper half of their high school class; if not, they are referred to the AAP and TRIO programs for “special consideration.” Applicants with disabilities are also “normally admitted” provided they are in the upper half of their high school class; if not, and if their disability is confirmed, they are admitted automatically. Recruited athletes are admitted if they rank in the upper half of their high school class; presumably, personal characteristics or exceptional talent could result is admitting some athletes who are not in the upper half of their high school class. It should also be noted that an appeals process exists to deal with conflicts between the decisions of the Office of Admission and the Athletic Department’s desire to recruit particular athletes. Applicants who are returning students may be admitted even if they are not in the upper half of their high school class.

No explicit mention is made of veterans of the U.S. armed forces, perhaps because most would qualify by being out of school for at least two years. Nonresident children of UW-Madison alumni, called “legacies,” as well as students from Minnesota under the reciprocal tuition Compact agreement, are considered using the same criteria applied to Wisconsin residents, Foreign students are treated the same as out-of-state applicants.

Whether the faculty has authorized special outreach efforts for groups described as “disadvantaged by substandard education [or] family income” is less clear. Though some applicants may identify themselves as disadvantaged or claim to be disadvantaged in some way, their status is difficult to verify. Even if these applicants could be identified, other applicants not offering such information could not benefit from this special outreach status.

In summary, there are two major exceptions to the UW-Madison’s admissions standards that affect targeted minority applicants, namely, those who are “normally admitted” and those less-than-minimally qualified targeted minority applications who may receive “special consideration” in admission decisions.

Admissions Office

As applications arrive in the admissions office, they are checked for completeness, color-coded to reflect the status of the applicant, i.e., by special outreach category, residence status, etc. Applications are then reviewed to make sure applicants have completed the minimum number and distribution of college preparatory courses.The next step involves assessing the probability that each applicant will perform successfully in college and graduate. Past research indicates that future academic success, i.e., likelihood of graduation, is best measured by freshman-year grade-point average. Because freshmen grade-point averages are not yet available, a predicted value of freshman-year GPA is estimated for each applicant. Past research also shows that the best predictor of freshman-year GPA is high school percentile rank (HSPR), commonly known as “class rank;” ACT scores add to the predictive power of HSPR.

The predicted GPA is generated through a statistical procedure, called regression analysis, and draws on information about the experience of freshman enrolled over the previous couple of years . (Office of Admissions, “Using a ‘Predicted Grade-Point Average’ in Making Freshman Admissions Decisions,” October 1993). The variables used in producing these estimates include a range of measures representing academic achievement in high school, including: high school percentile rank (HSPR), high school GPA for the freshman through junior years of high school, the ACT test scores for English, Mathematics, and Reading, and the SAT Verbal and Mathematics test scores for those applicants who do not supply ACT test scores. The resulting coefficients from the regression analysis are then used to estimate a predicted GPA for each applicant. These predicted values are then used to sort applicants and thereby facilitate processing the thousands of applications received, in this case, for Fall 1997.

Based on faculty legislation that established these admissions criteria, several decision rules have been formulated to determine the order in which applicants are admitted. These rules are applied by the Office of Admissions, as described below, for the Fall 1997 entering freshman class (Office of Admissions, “Criteria for Freshman Admission, 1997,” 11/96). The information presented here applies only to applications from Wisconsin and Minnesota Compact residents. Comparable information available for out-of-state applicants is not shown.

The admissions office’s target for fall 1997 called for admitting sufficient numbers of Wisconsin-Minnesota Compact resident applicants, plus out-of-state applicants, to enroll 5,500 to 6,000 new freshmen. Reaching this goal called for admitting about 6,800 Wisconsin and Minnesota Compact applicants.

Two groups of applicants are admitted based on quantitative indicators of their academic achievement. The first group, those with a HSPR of 80 or above or with a high school GPA of 3.4 or above, is admitted automatically, and their total number was projected at more than 5,400. The second group includes applicants with high ACT or SAT scores — a composite ACT score of 32 or more, or an SAT total score of 1360 or more, without particular regard to high school grades. The admission office reports that the size of this group is typically small, comprising perhaps no more than 50 applicants.

The next stage involve a review of applicant files. Those applicants with a predicted GPA of 2.8 or above and who demonstrate, based on a review of their application file by admissions counselors, a reasonable likelihood of academic success, and characterized by the Admissions Office as “among the best”, are admitted. The approximately 900 applicants who meet these criteria bring the total number of admitted applicants to almost 6,400. The next group of applicants, those with predicted GPAs of 2.55 or more, who are characterized by the Admissions Office as “among [the] better”, are reviewed in the same way. This step adds approximately 1,700 more applicants to the list of potential admits. However, decisions to admit most if not all of this group are postponed until later in the spring when the admissions office has a clearer indication of the acceptance rate for applicants who have already been admitted. The final group of applicants, those with predicted GPAs of less than 2.55, are reviewed but denied admission. As space becomes available, applicants on whom decisions were postponed and whose chances of success appear to be the highest are admitted. The process of admitting additional applicants and denying admission to other less well qualified applicants continues through the late spring and summer in an effort to reached the enrollment target for the fall semester.

Applications are processed on what is described as a “rolling basis.” Beginning September 15, applications are accepted for the following academic year, and they are considered in the order of their arrival. Admissions decisions are typically made within a few days. As soon as possible, applicants are notified by mail that their applications have been accepted, denied, or postponed for a later decision. By the end of the application period, the Office of Admissions estimated that for the Fall 1997 entering class it would have received over 15,000 applications, with more than 10,000 of them from Wisconsin and Minnesota Compact residents.

In dealing with applications that are reviewed individually, decisions made by one admissions counselor to deny admission based on review of an applicant’s file requires that the file be reviewed by another counselor to affirm the decision, and if disagreement exists, a third reader is used. Similarly, if the predicted GPA indicates that an applicant should be denied admission, affirmative decisions by two admissions counselors can override the denial. However, in evaluating the files of applicants, extra “credit” is given to applicants who took exceptional course loads in high school, AP/Honors courses, the nature and competitiveness of their high school, and the strength of the trend in their high school grades.

Another view of the admission process is provided by a flow chart devised by the Admissions Office, carrying the title “Admission of Freshmen Decisioning Processes” 5/95 (Office of Admissions, University of Wisconsin-Madison). Because that flow chart attempts to capture many details, it obscures two important matters. One is the decision-making process as it applies to the vast majority of applicants. The other is its failure to indicate how special outreach applications, including targeted minority applicants, are processed.

A simplified flow chart developed by the author, and shown as Figure 1, deals with the first problem. The upper left-hand side of the chart portrays the process that admits the vast majority of applicants. However, it still fails to reflect the admission process for special outreach applicants, including targeted racial/ethnic minorities.

A modified version of this simplified flow chart, Figure 2, fills the latter gap by showing how special outreach groups are handled in light of the two exceptions to the standard admission process. The first is the practice of “normally admitting” all targeted minority applicants who are minimally qualified, meaning those who are at least in the upper half of their high school class, offer the minimum number of courses required in high school, and supply an ACT score. The second is the practice of giving “particular consideration” to targeted minority applicants who do not meet the UW-Madison’s requirements for admission (because their high schools do not provide information on high school class rank, they themselves for some reason do not provide ACT or SAT scores, or they do not meet the minimum requirement or distribution of college preparatory courses).

The impact of the first exception is shown in by the shaded areas midway down the left half of the chart. Those shaded areas indicate that minimally qualified targeted minority applicants on whom decisions would be postponed or whose applications would be rejected, are identified and “normally admitted,” i.e., admitted automatically. By contrast, comparably qualified nontargeted applications from people who are not members of special outreach groups would be postponed or denied admission.The impact of the second exception is shown by the shaded area in the right half of the Figure 2. That shaded area indicates that “particular consideration” leads to some less-than-qualified, special outreach applicants being admitted. Those admitted could include students with disabilities, recruited athletes, returning adults, as well as targeted minorities. Whatever the case, this exception means that the applications of some apparently less-than-minimally-qualified minority applicants receive the “particular consideration” that is not available to similar less-than-minimally-qualified nonminority applicants.

Applicant Perspective

The student perspective is reflected in the contents of the booklet made available to potential applicants; the most recent issue is the Wisconsin Undergraduate Admissions Materials: Celebrating 150 Years (1999), published by the UW-Madison Office of Admissions. This booklet, accompanied by an application form, describes the process of applying for admission to UW-Madison in Fall 1999. The booklet begins by listing the three requirements for admission:

1. high school graduation or its equivalent (e.g., GED),
2. completion of 17 units of required college preparatory courses, and
3. submission of test scores (ACT for Wisconsin residents, and either ACT or SAT for out-of-state students).

Much additional information relevant to applying is provided. For example, applicants are warned that admission is competitive because not all applicants can be accommodated. Applicants are informed that out-of-state students must meet a higher admission standard than either Wisconsin students or Minnesota Compact students, and that nonresident children of Wisconsin alumni are considered under the Wisconsin resident admission criteria. Applicants are also told that the admissions criteria are the same for all majors, except the School of Music where auditions are required for admission, and the College of Engineering which holds nonresident applicants to a higher admission standard.

Applicants are informed that those with the “strongest academic records of grades, represented by a grade-point average or class rank, courses taken (including senior year courses), and test scores will have the greatest chance of admission.” (p. 4) To assist applicants, the booklet presents two tables. The first table shows the minimum course requirements and the “typical” level of freshman preparation that is presented in the section on faculty legislation. The University of Wisconsin System in a comparable booklet for all UW System applicants, called The University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1997-98, is more directive, saying that “applicants are strongly encouraged to select courses beyond the minimum.” (p. 31)

The other table shows the distribution of Fall 1997 applicants by percentile rank in their high school graduation class, the percentage of applicants admitted by percentile rank, and the distribution of enrolled students by percentile rank. This information, reproduced below, is provided so that “students may estimate their chances for admission by comparing their class rank with those in the table.” (p. 4)

The publication, The University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1997-98, repeats much of this same information for all UW System campuses, including the UW-Madison. In describing the data shown immediately above, the entry for the UW-Madison advises applicants that “By comparing their class ranks with applicants from last year’s class, students may roughly estimate their chances of admission. Students whose schools do not rank [i.e., either they do not calculate class rank or as a matter of policy do not supply this information] will receive full consideration based on grades and other indicators of achievement.” (p. 31)The treatment of race/ethnic minority applicants in these publications is limited. Four statements are illuminating. The first from Undergraduate Admissions Materials (1999) (p. 4) says: “Particular consideration will be given to applicants who have been out of school two or more years, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background.” [emphasis added] Another statement from the same source (p. 4) says: “Personal characteristics that will contribute to the strength and diversity of the university community may also be considered.” [emphasis added] The third from the University of Wisconsin System: Introduction (p. 28) says: “You may also seek consideration on the basis of racial/ethnic group status, U.S. Armed Forces veteran status, age group, incarceration, or economic or educational disadvantage.” These three statements provide the only explicit information to applicants about the existence of race/ethnic preferences in admissions.

A fourth statement from the University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1997-98 (pp. 27-28) says: “If your class rank is not available or you do not meet standard admission requirements, you may be considered for admission on the basis of other measurable criteria, such as standardized or institutional achievement tests, alternate high school credits, specified course or graduate point average, or if you demonstrate exceptional talent in a particular area.” [emphasis added] While this statement says nothing about racial/ethnic minorities, it could be interpreted as a vehicle for accepting applicants with diversity-related talents, similar to the rationale for considering “personal characteristics” above.

The four statements taken together indicate that race/ethnic diversity, membership in other designated groups, as well as “personal characteristics” and “exceptional talent in a particular area,” singly and perhaps in combination, all provide a basis for admitting applicants who fail to meet UW-Madison’s minimum admission requirements. Nothing is said about minority applicants who meet the minimum requirements but would not otherwise be admitted.

Several differences exist between faculty legislation and the information provided to UW-Madison applicants. First, the description of requirements provided to potential applicants in Wisconsin Undergraduate Admissions Materials (1999) fails to mention that applicants to UW-Madison must graduate in the upper half of their high school class. Second, this booklet is not as forthcoming as it might be about the use of preferences in admitting targeted minority applicants. Third, this booklet, perhaps quite understandably, omits mention of the faculty-legislated “particular consideration” that is given to applicants not meeting the minimum qualifications who fall into the specified categories.

Race/Ethnic Preferences and Admissions Rates

What is known about how targeted minorities are treated in the admissions process? This question has been difficult to answer for lack of properly structured data tabulations. However, recently completed tabulations provided to the author make it possible to compare admission rates for targeted minorities and non-targeted applicants by their residency. The evidence is revealing.The percentages of applicants by high school percentile rank who were admitted for Fall 1997 are shown in Table 1 for targeted minority and nonminority Wisconsin residents, and similarly for nonresidents and Minnesota compact residents. The first column shows that the admission rates of approximately 90 percent for Wisconsin targeted minorities are uniformly high above in the four highest class rank categories. At the 50-59 HSPR the rate drops to 76 percent. Below the 50th HSPR, 37 percent of applicants in the third quarter of their high school class are admitted, and in the bottom quarter, 15 percent are admitted.

Compare the admission rates for nonminorities. While the rates are very high for the top 20 HSPR, the admission rates drops off rapidly below that point. At the 70-79 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 63 percent as contrasted to 86 percent for targeted minorities. At the 60-69 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 23 percent is less than a quarter as large as the 96 per cent for targeted minorities. At the 60-69 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 23 percent is less than a quarter as large as that for targeted minorities. At the 50-59 HSPR the nontargeted admission rate of 9 percent is less than an eighth as large as the 76 percent for targeted minorities. Below that, no nontargeted applicants are admitted.

These results also reveal the impact of the two exceptions that give preferential treatment to targeted minority applicants. First, among minimally qualified minority applicants, i.e., those graduating in the top half of their high school class, the gap in admission rates between minority and nonminority applicants is widest at the 50-59 HSPR, declines somewhat at the 60-69 HSPR, and even at the 70-79 is still sizable. Second, among unqualified applicants, i.e., those graduating in the lower half of their high school class, the gaps in admissions rates is even larger in the third quartile and still larger in the bottom quartile. These results suggest that “unqualified” targeted minority applicants receive more favorable consideration than do “unqualified” nontargeted applicants.

These results lead to the inescapable conclusion that UW-Madison’s policy of giving preferences to racial/ethnic minorities in the interest of promoting increased minority enrollment does indeed work. Much the same conclusion emerges from comparable data for nonresidents and for Minnesotaa Compact residents. The gaps are somewhat narrower for nonresidents but they continue to be substantial for Minnesota resident applicants.The evidence presented here also demonstrates that the two exceptions in admissions procedures lead to preferential treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity. The language of these exceptions indicates that they are designed to discriminate to achieve race/ethnic “diversity” even though discrimination in admission based on race/ethnicity is strictly prohibited by Wisconsin Statutes. The effect of these exceptions is to produce a “disparate impact” on enrollment patterns. The consistently higher percentages of minority applicants admitted indicates that the UW-Madison practices discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity in freshmen admissions.

Readers need to be reminded that Wisconsin Statutes, Ch. 36.12, which govern the University of Wisconsin System, including the UW-Madison, expressly prohibit discrimination in admission on the basis of race and ethnic background. The language reads:

“No student may be denied admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers because of the student’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status.”

This language would seem to prohibit the preferences accorded race/ethnic minorities in UW-Madison admissions. The argument that many factors are taken into consideration is certainly true for all applicants. However, the fact that minority group applicants not admitted on the basis of academic merit are “normally admitted” indicates that race/ethnicity is the sole factor at work in determining who will be admitted from among those applicants with less than outstanding academic records.The way the UW-Madison, and also the UW System, describe their interests in preventing discrimination is curious. For example, UW-Madison Timetable contains a section dealing with discrimination, in what is labeled “Publisher’s Notes” on page 2 of the Spring 1998-99 Timetable. The first paragraph, after several disclaimers pertaining to the information provided, goes on to emphasize “tolerance,” the importance of learning “tolerance,” and the need to “maintain an environment conducive to teaching and learning that is free from intimidation for all.”

The next two paragraphs are quoted in their entirety:

In its resolve to create this positive environment, the UW-Madison will ensure compliance with federal and state laws protecting against discrimination. In addition, the UW-Madison has adopted policies that both emphasize these existing protections and supplement them with protections against discrimination that are not available under either federal or state law.Federal and state laws provide separate prohibitions against discrimination that is based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or disability. State law additional prohibits discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, arrest or conviction record, marital status, pregnancy, parental status, military status, or veteran status. The application of specific state prohibitions on discrimination may be influenced by an individual’s status as an employee or student.

What is puzzling about these two paragraphs is their failure to mention what kinds of discrimination are prohibited by state law. Why is there no mention of prohibitions against discrimination in “. . . admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers . . .”? Why is the focus entirely on the categories of people who cannot be discriminated against?In the interest of providing full and accurate information to students and the university community, the UW-Madison should revise these paragraphs that appear in the Timetable, in the admissions material, and in other official documents. Quoting the legislation would bring to public attention, in a way it prefers not to do, the prohibition against discrimination in admission that UW-Madison so obviously practices.

Concluding Comments

This description of how the admission process favors targeted minority applicants would be enhanced if detailed information were available on the number and race/ethnic composition of each of the special outreach groups. Ideally, such information could be incorporated into Figure 2, along with the size of the other flows of talent. Indeed, regular publication of such information would help illuminate the admissions process and assist in evaluating its effectiveness. Despite this caveat, the conclusion remains, namely, that racial/ethnic preferences in admissions, that are firmly rooted in faculty legislation but not much talked about, do operate to boost targeted minority enrollments. Moroever, this policy of discriminating in admission through preferences for minorities appears to be contrary to state laws governing this institution.This study also raises several new questions. First, how many fewer entering freshmen would be enrolled at UW-Madison in the absence of preferential admissions for targeted minority applicants? Second, by how much would second-year retention rates and six-year graduation rates for targeted minorities rise if admission were restricted to minority applicants who were academically competitive with non-targeted applicants? These questions are answered in a related study, “How Admission Preferences Affect Minority Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation Rates.”