Transcript Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project

Affirmative Action and its
Discontents: Lessons from
the Texas Top 10% Plan
Marta Tienda
University of Michigan
October 29, 2003
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Image Credit: http://www.cscc.edu/bmgtoadm/images/graduation%20cap%20and%20diploma.jpg
Allocating Scarce Slots: From
Ascription 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Rising 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
-
African-American
12
13
1%
3
4
1%
158
215
+ 36 %
Asian and Other
Total Graduates (‘000)
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
6%
Texas shifted terms of affirmative
action debate…

Relevance of race for admission
versus

School quality as basis for
exclusion
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Path to Top 10 Percent Plan: Hopwood
and its Aftermath

Context:



The Texas’ response:



Bold bi-partisan leadership and interagency cooperation
birth of HB588—the Texas Top 10% Law
Rationale:



Infamous 1996 Hopwood decision;
Texas growing rapidly and becoming majority minority state.
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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Percent Plans: Facts and Fiction

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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Texas Plan is 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
The Supreme Court has Spoken:
What now for Texas public institutions

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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Highlights 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
The Texas Higher Education
Opportunity Project
Funded by the Ford Foundation, in
cooperation with the Mellon and Hewlett Foundations.
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
THEOP: Primary Research Questions

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?
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Data 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 postHopwood 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
TEXAS Challenges
Growing
population diversification
Persisting educational inequality
Rising demand for higher education
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Texas Challenge: More Rapid
Diversification of College-age Population
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2
26
2
3
31
32
3
40
Asian
Hispanic
Black
Anglo
Other
12
13
11
12
61
52
0
Total Pop,
1990
53
2
44
0
1
Total Pop, College-Age, College-Age,
2000
1990
2000
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Source: Census 2000. All numbers may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.
81
87
76
49
30
N
at
io
id
e
St
at
ew
Bl
ac
k
pa
ni
c
is
H
An
gl
o
15
9
24
23
id
e
47
ia
n
80
76
nw
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
As
Percent
Percent High School and College
Graduates, Persons 25+: Texas, 2000
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
High School
Graduates
College Graduates
All rights reserved.
Admission Probabilities—
Pre- and Post Hopwood
Initial findings from the
University of Texas at Austin
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Glimpse of Texas Public Flagships:
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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Admission Probability to UT –
Pre- Hopwood and 3 Years Post
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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Early Lessons from Administrative
Records---The 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Applicant, Admission, & Fall Enrollment
Undergraduate Trends: UT Austin, 1992-2003
30,000
25,000
19,562
20,025
11,413
11,024
6,664
6,340
24,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
13,663
9,319
13,694
9,472
15,809
10,079
5,157
5,547
5,529
1992
1994
1996
15,531
10,777
6,000
10,000
6,000
5,000
0
APPLIED
Source: The University of Texas at Austin,
Office of Institutional Studies
1998
2000
ADMITTED
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
2001
ENROLLED
2003
Aftermath of HB588 over Next Three
Years : UT Admissions 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?
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Highlights from Survey
Data
Initial insights about students’
perceptions of the top 10% law and
their college intentions
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
THEOP: Two-Cohort Longitudinal
Design
Cohort
2002
2003
Senior
Wave 1
N=13,803
Wave 2
N=6,000
Sophomore
Wave 1
N=19,969
2004
2005
Wave 3
N=6,000*
Wave 2
N=3,000
2,000 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
attrition, which is expected to be circa 10% or less.
All rights reserved.
Statewide Baseline Survey


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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Senior 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Demographic Composition of Samples
Sophomores
Seniors
51.7
52.0
% 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
19,969
13,803
% Female
Race/Ethnicity
N*
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
reserved.
*N’s vary across items due to missing information and filtered questions.
Photo Credit: http://www.uic.edu/cba/Acadprgms/students.jpg
All rights
Father’s Educational Attainment by
Ethnicity: All Seniors
50
50
Percent
40
39
36
30
21
20
10
0
7
8
White
Black
B.A. or Higher
12
Hispanic
11
Asian
Less than High School Diploma
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Percent of Seniors Who Know Their
Class Rank by Ethnicity
78
80
70
67
62
60
51
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
White
Black
Hispanic
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Asian
Percent
Percent of Seniors Who Know “A Lot”
About 10% Law by Ethnicity
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
49
31
22
16
White
Black
Hispanic
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Asian
College Plans by Ethnicity: All Seniors
87
90
80
Percent
70
60
77
72
58
68
62
54
46
50
40
30
20
10
0
White
Black
Hispanic
College is Primary Post-High School Activity
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Asian
Applied to College
When Did You First Think About
Going To College?: All Seniors
90
80
Percent
70
71
68
61
60
53
50
40
27
30
20
11
16
16 19
14
10
9
16
0
White
Black
Always or During Elementary School
Hispanic
During Middle School
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Asian
During High School
When Did You First Think About Going
To College?: Top 10% Seniors
90
85
83
80
70
Percent
71
67
60
50
40
30
20
10
19
8
10
4
11 14
7 7
0
White
Black
Always or During Elementary School
Hispanic
During Middle School
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Asian
During High School
Intentions versus
Attendance—who shows
up on Campus?
Paper presented at policy conference in California
with Kalena Cortes and Sunny Niu
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
College Intentions by Demographic Group
& 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Seniors:
Actualization 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Actual Enrollment by Intentions
Enrollment
No College
2-Year
4-Year
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
Intentions
Fulfillment
Col %
Community college backup Scaled back aspirations
Understated intentions Dreams deferred
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
100
Multivariate Results





Knowledge of Law
Timing of college orientation
Class rank differentials
Race/Ethnic differentials
Factors that influence college choice
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Policy 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
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Should HB 588 be repealed 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?
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
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?
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.
Thank You
Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project
www.texastop10.princeton.edu
Copyright © 2003 Marta Tienda for THEOP.
All rights reserved.