U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Office for Civil Rights Evaluation

Beyond Percentage Plans:

The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education 

Draft Staff Report 

November 2002 
Draft Staff Report i

Contents 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... iv

1. The Struggle to Achieve Diversity in Higher Education: Setting the Stage 

 for Percentage Plans............................................................................................1

 Introduction ................................................................................................................1 

 Promoting Diversity Through Affirmative Action .........................................................2 

 Legal and Legislative Challenges to Affirmative Action...........................................4 

 “Softer” Affirmative Action Programs ......................................................................6 

2. Percentage Plans ...........................................................................................................9

 The University of California ...........................................................................................9 

 Overview ....................................................................................................................9

 Admissions Policies .................................................................................................10 

 The 12.5 Percent Plan With and Without Affirmative Action ............................10 

 Admission by Exception......................................................................................13 

 The University- and State-Imposed Race Bans With 50 to 75 Percent 

 Admitted on Academic Merit ....................................................................14 

 “Eligibility in the Local Context”—The 4 Percent Plan .....................................14 

 The Comprehensive Review................................................................................15 

 Undergraduate Enrollment, Applications, and Admissions .....................................17 

 Enrollment ...........................................................................................................17 

 Applications and Admissions..............................................................................20 

 Professional School Enrollment, Applications, and Admissions.............................24 

 Affirmative Action and Outreach.............................................................................26 

 Affirmative Action Programs Before the Race Ban............................................26 

 A Period of Uncertainty About Outreach Programs............................................27 

 Outreach Programs Under the Race Ban.............................................................28 

 Affirmative Action and Outreach at Professional Schools..................................29 

 Conclusion................................................................................................................30 

 State of Texas................................................................................................................30 

 Overview ..................................................................................................................30 

 The Texas Top 10 Percent Law................................................................................33 

 Effects of Hopwood on Minority Enrollment ..........................................................35 

 Admissions Under the 10 Percent Plan ....................................................................38 

Minority Professional Enrollment and Admissions in Selected Programs 

 Pre- and Post-Hopwood ..................................................................................40 

 The University of Texas School of Law..............................................................40 

 Admissions at the Four Public Texas Law Schools ............................................42 
Draft Staff Report ii

 The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine......46 

 Admissions at Four Public Texas Medical Schools ............................................47 

 Conclusion................................................................................................................51 

 State of Florida..............................................................................................................52 

 Overview ..................................................................................................................52 

 The Florida State University System .......................................................................52 

 One Florida Equity in Education Initiative .........................................................53 

 Three Pathways to SUS ..................................................................................53 

 The Talented 20 Program ...............................................................................53 

 Traditional Admissions Criteria .....................................................................54 

 Profile Assessment..........................................................................................55 

 Improvement in Public Education.......................................................................55 

 What Has Talented 20 Wrought? .............................................................................57 

 Undergraduate Application, Admission, and Enrollment ........................................60 

 Minority Application and Admission..................................................................60 

 Racial/Ethnic Composition of Enrolled First-Time Students..............................63 

 Graduate and Professional Enrollment.....................................................................66 

 Racial/Ethnic Composition Among First-Time Graduate Students ....................67 

 Racial/Ethnic Composition Among First-Time Law Students............................68 

 Racial/Ethnic Composition Among First-Time Medical Students......................71 

 Conclusion................................................................................................................74 

3. Admissions Standards and Success Predictors ........................................................75

 Evolving Admissions Criteria.......................................................................................78 

 Diversifying the Pool of Potential Applicants and Promoting Success ........................80 

 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................81 

4. National Trends in College Enrollment ....................................................................82

 Undergraduate Student Enrollment...............................................................................82 

 Graduate/Professional Student Enrollment...................................................................86 

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................88 

5. Facilitating Academic and Financial Access to Higher Education.........................89

 The TRIO Programs......................................................................................................90 

 TRIO—How It Works..............................................................................................90 

 Federal Appropriations for TRIO.............................................................................93 

 Minority Participation in TRIO................................................................................94 

 TRIO—Is It Working? .............................................................................................97 

 Conclusion................................................................................................................99 

 Federal Financial Aid....................................................................................................99 

 Criteria for Receiving Federal Financial Aid.........................................................100 
Draft Staff Report iii

 Types of Federal Financial Aid..............................................................................101 

 Federal Pell Grants ............................................................................................102 

 Campus-Based Programs...................................................................................103 

 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants...............................103 

 Federal Work-Study......................................................................................103 

 Perkins Loans................................................................................................103 

 Loans .................................................................................................................104 

 Federal Stafford Loans .................................................................................104 

 Federal PLUS Loans.....................................................................................104 

 Assessment of Financial Assistance.......................................................................104 

 Expected Family Contribution ..........................................................................105 

 Unmet Needs of Financial Aid ..........................................................................105 

 Merit-Based Scholarships..................................................................................109 

 Conclusion..............................................................................................................111 

6. The Road to Diversity: Percentage Plans Plus.......................................................112 
Draft Staff Report iv

Executive Summary

arWe 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, p

ticularly 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. 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 
Draft Staff Report v

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 UTAustin. 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 TexasAustin still struggles to admit black students. African Americans constitute 12 percent of 

the state’s population. 
Draft Staff Report vi

 Although the number of undergraduate minorities applying to the University of TexasAustin 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 TexasAustin. 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 
Draft Staff Report vii

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 stan-
Draft Staff Report viii

dardized 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. 
Draft Staff Report ix

 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 
Draft Staff Report x

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. 

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. 
Draft Staff Report 1

CHAPTER 1 

The Struggle to Achieve Diversity in Higher Education: 

Setting the Stage for Percentage Plans 

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has throughout its history been concerned about college 

admissions policies and has sought to further those that provide all members of society equal access to higher education.1

 In April 2000, the Commission released Toward an Understanding of 

Percentage Plans in Higher Education: Are They Effective Substitutes for Affirmative Action? In 

it, the Commission examined the use of high school class ranks as a means of increasing the 

presence of minorities in public higher education in the states of California, Florida, and Texas. 

Currently, each of those states has in place what is generally referred to as a “percentage plan.”2

With some variation in procedures between the states, these percentage plans guarantee first-time 

college applicants who have graduated within a predetermined percentage of their high school 

class rank automatic admission into their resident state schools. 

After a thorough review, the Commission concluded in 2000 that percentage plans had significant flaws and failed to create diversity in undergraduate education. The premise of the plans—

that automatic admission of high school students ranked at the tops of their classes will result in 

racially diverse college populations—is contingent upon continued racial segregation of the nation’s high schools. The Commission further found that the percentage plans made no provision 

for professional or graduate education and recommended such plans be used in conjunction with 

affirmative action.3

This staff report updates and expands upon the Commission’s 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. For the purpose of this review, a 

first-time student is an entering freshman who has never formally attended any college. The 

terms “freshman” and “first-time student” are used interchangeably depending on the terminol-

 

1 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans in Higher Education: Are 

They Effective Substitutes for Affirmative Action? April 2000 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Toward an Understanding 

of Percentage Plans) for the Commission’s examination of this topic. 

2

 Other states that have considered some form of a percentage plan include Pennsylvania and Colorado. Pennsylvania has since abandoned its plan, while Colorado’s plan has been tabled since June 26, 2000. See American Council on Education, “Percentage Plans for College Admissions,” issue brief, January 2001, <http://www.acenet. 

edu/resources/reports/percentage-plans.pdf>; see also Automatic Admission Act of 2000, S.B. 59, 62nd Gen. Assem., 2d Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2000). 

3

 USCCR, Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans. 
Draft Staff Report 2

ogy used in the source data.4 The critical question guiding this analysis is: Can percentage plans 

alone achieve the goal of equal educational opportunity? The findings of this staff report mirror 

those of the Commission’s earlier one: percentage plans as they are currently administered do not 

improve diversity and must be implemented in conjunction with affirmative action and other 

supplemental recruitment, admissions, and academic support programs. The ideal percentage 

plan program would include targeted outreach, institutional choice, and an emphasis on improving public elementary and secondary education. 

To assess access to higher education beyond percentage plans and affirmative action, this report 

also examines other gatekeepers, such as the admissions process, financial resources, and college 

preparation. While there are programs in place to assist students in overcoming these barriers, 

such as the federal TRIO outreach programs and financial aid, disturbing patterns in minority 

enrollment remain. States and the federal government must commit to a multifaceted and inclusive admissions process, incorporating adequate financial aid and academic support services, if a 

college education is to be available to all members of society. 

PROMOTING DIVERSITY THROUGH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Throughout most of the 20th century, long-established discriminatory admissions policies at the 

nation’s universities prevented minority individuals from completing their education or even attending the institution that would best prepare them academically for their desired career.5

 Not 

until 1950 was the University of Texas School of Law forced to admit African Americans, and it 

did so as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sweatt v. Painter.

6

 More than a decade 

passed before prospects began improving for minority individuals who had the goal of attending 

college, an improvement that can be largely attributed to the establishment of affirmative action 

programs. 

When President John F. Kennedy first used the term affirmative action in 1961 he did so in reference to increasing the racial integration of workforces employed in federally financed projects.7

 The political and social movements of the 1960s further eroded the color barrier and 

granted minorities greater access to higher education.8 However, it was not until the 1970s that 

affirmative action found its place in college admissions policies, and substantively redressed the 

entrenched discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities and women in the admissions 

process. Admissions policies were amended to consider gender and minority status as assets and 

 

4

 The term includes students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time in the prior summer term 

and also includes students who entered with advanced standing (college credits earned before graduation from high 

school). See U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Glossary, September 

1995, p. 12. 

5 See the Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, “Civil Rights Alert, The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open,” 

n.d., <http://www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/alerts/access.html> (hereafter cited as the Civil Rights Project, “The 

Struggle to Keep College Doors Open”). 

6

 Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). 

7

 Paul Finkelman, “Affirmative Action,” Encarta Online Deluxe, July 22, 2002, <http://encarta.msn.com/find/print. 

asp?&pg=8&ti=761580666&sc=0&pt=1>. 

8

 The Civil Rights Project, “The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open.” 
Draft Staff Report 3

not, as had been done in earlier periods, liabilities to gaining college admission.9 From this period on, affirmative action increased minority access to the nation’s colleges and universities.10

Since its earliest days, however, affirmative action has been controversial, and many judicial and 

legislative attempts have been made to dismantle it. These attempts have limited the scope of acceptable practices, particularly in higher education admissions. Supporters of affirmative action 

argue that it is a necessary policy, having as its purpose undoing historical discrimination. Diversity in the workplace and educational environment is critical to the social, economic, and political 

success of America’s increasingly multicultural society. Supporters also argue that considerations 

of race, ethnicity, and gender help level the playing field for women and persons of color who do 

not have equal opportunities to achieve higher education.11 Opponents of affirmative action argue 

that such policies result in dual standards for minorities and nonminorities, with lower standards 

for minority students. They suggest that the goal of multicultural and gender diversity and fairness 

is misplaced and that educational access should be based solely on merit, not color or ethnicity. 

They further argue that admitting less qualified students to more challenging institutions sets 

them up to fail because they are not academically prepared.12

During the period prior to the retreat from affirmative action on college campuses, minorities had 

increased their enrollment at postsecondary institutions, if not necessarily at prestigious universities in proportion to their population numbers, owing to race-conscious admissions policies. In 

1965, less than 5 percent of 18- to 24-year-old college students were African American. Today, 

African Americans make up roughly 12 percent of undergraduate students.13 The affirmative action measures of the 1960s and 1970s are credited with steadily increasing the college enrollment 

rates of people of color.14 However, recent challenges to the use of race or gender and other factors in college admissions likely will “erode the gains that women and minority group members 

have made in postsecondary education thus far.”15 While Supreme Court precedent supports the 

limited use of affirmative action, the judicial landscape is changing rapidly. 

 

9

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Reconceptualizing Access in Postsecondary Education, Report of the Policy Panel on Access, August 1998, p. 5 (hereafter cited as NCES, Reconceptualizing 

Access in Postsecondary Education). 

10 The Civil Rights Project, “The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open.” 

11 See, e.g., American Council on Education, “Making the Case for Affirmative Action in Higher Education: What 

the Research Shows,” <http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/works/research.cfm>; The 

Civil Rights Project, “The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open.” 

12 See, e.g., Walter Williams, “Affirmative Action Can’t Be Mended,” Cato Journal, Dec. 15, 1997, 

<http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-15-97.htm>; Curt A. Levy, “Diversity on Trial,” National Review On-Line, June 11, 

2001, <http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/levey_profiling_nro.html>; Michael S. Greve, “The Demise of Race-Based 

Admissions Policies,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Mar. 19, 1999, pp. B6–B8. 

13 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, ch. 

3, table 207. 

14 American Council on Education, “Legal Developments Related to Affirmative Action in Higher Education: An 

Update for College and University Presidents, Trustees, and Administrators,” June 1999. 15 NCES, Reconceptualizing Access in Postsecondary Education, p. 6. 
Draft Staff Report 4

Legal and Legislative Challenges to Affirmative Action 

In 1978, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke buttressed affirmative action in admissions policies by establishing that race could be one factor 

considered in admissions decisions for the purpose of promoting diversity in higher education.16

Although this decision upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action, it also stipulated that 

race could not be the sole arbiter in determining admissions.17 Despite the consideration of race 

in the admissions process, by the 1980s it was evident that minorities and women were more 

commonly admitted to less prestigious institutions. That is, affirmative action had done little to 

open the doors of top-tier universities for most minority group members and women.18 This 

situation remained largely unchanged at the close of the millennium for many minority groups, 

especially African Americans.19 Nonetheless, vocal opponents of racial and gender preferences 

continued to challenge the necessity of affirmative action. 

The mid-1990s brought organized efforts against admissions policies that strove for equal access 

through affirmative action. Among these was admissions policy SP-1, adopted in California in 

1995, which ended the use of race as a factor in admissions to the University of California.20 Although this policy was formally rescinded in 2001, California voters had passed Proposition 209 

in 1996, which ended all forms of affirmative action in the state, rendering SP-1 superfluous.21

One educator at the University of California stated that the elimination of affirmative action in 

the state university system “severely intensified problems of inequality in access to postsecondary and professional education.”22 He noted that the numbers of black, Hispanic, and Native American students in the system have since decreased and that the system has begun to segregate into more and less elite campuses, with white and Asian Pacific American students 

enrolling in the former. 

In 1996, the same year Proposition 209 passed in California, the University of Texas School of 

Law lost a challenge against its admissions policies. The Fifth Circuit ruling in Hopwood v. State 

of Texas,

23 which applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, prohibits the use of race or ethnicity as an admissions criterion or in the recruitment, provision of financial assistance, or retention of college students.24 The Hopwood decision, although applicable to only three states, has 

 

16 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). 

17 Finkelman, “Affirmative Action”; Roger Clegg, vice president and general counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity, 

“Not a Close Question: Preferences in University Admissions,” testimony before the United States Commission on 

Civil Rights, May 14, 1999, <http://www.ceousa.org/html/close.html>. 

18 NCES, Reconceptualizing Access in Postsecondary Education, p. 6. 

19 Ibid.; Goodwin Liu, “The Myth and Math of Affirmative Action,” Washington Post, Apr. 14, 2002, p. B1. See

discussion on national trends in enrollment, chap. 4. 

20 University of California, Office of the President, “Current Policies,” Jan. 10, 2002, <wysiwyg://52/http://ucop. 

edu/regents/policies/sp1.html>. The policy was rescinded on May 16, 2001. 

21 American Civil Rights Institute, “California’s Proposition 209,” 1997, <http://www.acri.org/209/209text.html>. 22 Eugene E. Garcia, dean, Graduate School of Education, University of California at Berkeley, “The Elimination of 

Affirmative Action: California’s Degraded Educational System,” La Raza Law Journal, vol. 12 (Fall 2001), p. 373. 23 Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3rd 932, 962 (5th Cir. 1996), is discussed later in this report. 

24 Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, “Report on the Effects of Hopwood on Minority Applications, Offers, and Enrollment at Public Institutions of Higher Education in Texas,” 1998, <http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/ 

cfbin/ArchFetch.cfm?DocID=16&Format=HTML>. 
Draft Staff Report 5

had broader implications for colleges and universities across the country, as it raised the question 

of whether the promotion of diversity is a compelling interest that justifies taking race into account in all university admissions decisions.25 However, the Supreme Court declined to review 

the circuit court decision, and it therefore applies only to the states in the circuit. 

An initiative similar to California’s Proposition 209, Initiative 200 (I-200), was passed by voters 

in the state of Washington in November 1998. Unlike the California proposition, I-200 was not a 

constitutional amendment, therefore it is uncertain whether the law will supercede existing state 

and local laws that allow the use of race in employment and contracting decisions.26 Nonetheless, 

after the passage of I-200, the University of Washington eliminated the consideration of race, 

ethnicity, and gender in admissions. It is estimated that this decision resulted in an immediate 15 

percent decline in African American and Hispanic student enrollment at both the undergraduate 

and graduate levels. A year prior to I-200, four white applicants who had been denied admission 

filed suit against the University of Washington School of Law challenging its use of race in the 

admissions process. Although provisions in I-200 rendered certain claims in the case moot, the 

district court ruled that Bakke, which allowed the consideration of race and gender, was still 

good law. In December 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision and reiterated that educational diversity is a compelling government interest.27 The Supreme 

Court subsequently declined to review this case as well.28

 

Inspired by the initiatives in California and Washington, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed an 

executive order in November 1999, the One Florida Initiative, eliminating race and ethnicity as 

an admissions factor in the state university system.29 According to the plan, minority representation in the state’s universities was adequate, therefore race- and ethnic-based admissions policies 

could be replaced with achievement-based policies, “while still improving and enhancing the diversity” of the system.30 This staff review reveals that this assertion has not held true. In fact, the 

proportions of minority first-time students enrolled in the state system did not increase, particularly African American students. 

In August 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit determined that the admissions 

policy of the University of Georgia was unconstitutional because it gave a fixed preference to 

nonwhite applicants.31 In rendering its decision, the appellate court called into question whether 

the Bakke ruling provided justification for the use of race in admissions decisions. 

 

25 American Council on Education, “Making the Case for Affirmative Action in Higher Education,” <http://www. 

acenet.edu/bookstore/descriptions/making_the_case/threats/index.cfm>. 

26 Ibid. 

27 Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000). 

28 Smith, cert. denied, 532 1051 (2001). 

29 Office of the Governor, State of Florida, “Announcement of the One Florida Initiative,” 2000–2001, <http://www. 

myflorida.com/myflorida/government/governorinitiatives/one_announcementInitiative.html>. See detailed discussion of the One Florida Initiative in chap. 2. 

30 Jeb Bush, governor, State of Florida, Equity in Education Plan, November 1999, <http://www.myflorida.com/ 

myflorida/government/governmentinitiative.on.florida/documents/educationplan.edu>. 

31 Johnson v. Board of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2001). See also Erik Lords, “Affirmative Action Issue in 

College Admissions Grows Murkier,” Black Issues in Higher Education, Sept. 27, 2001, p. 10 (hereafter cited as 

Lords, “Affirmative Action Issue Grows Murkier”). 
Draft Staff Report 6

In May 2002, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

upheld the University of Michigan’s law school admissions policy, citing Bakke as the law of the 

land and opening the door for the Supreme Court to rule on the issue of affirmative action.32 The 

appellate court, in its 5–4 decision, stated that colleges may consider race in admissions as a way 

to enroll a sufficient number of minority students and found diversity to be a compelling state 

interest. Another pending suit, Gratz v. Bollinger, challenges the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy.33 A federal judge ruled in favor of the university, but that ruling 

is currently being reviewed by the court of appeals. On October 1, 2002, the plaintiffs in the case 

filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case even though the appellate court has 

not yet ruled.34 Legal commentators speculate that the Supreme Court will review the Grutter 

case, and now possibly the Gratz case, in its 2002–2003 session, but in the meantime, institutions 

outside the Fifth Circuit continue to have the flexibility to use race as one of many factors in determining admissions, as outlined by the Bakke decision. 

“Softer” Affirmative Action Programs 

Often the discussion around affirmative action programs focuses on admissions criteria and decisions. It is noteworthy, however, that many states have other initiatives in place to recruit, enroll, 

and matriculate minority students. A broader definition of affirmative action includes initiatives 

such as outreach to low-income, inner-city, and high-minority populations, recruitment of underrepresented groups, and targeted scholarships and financial aid. While these “soft” forms of affirmative action remain more widely accepted and are less susceptible to legal challenges than 

are revised admissions policies, they have not been immune to scrutiny. 

Specifically, questions have arisen about the legality of race-specific financial aid. In the 1970s 

and 1980s, the Department of Education (DOEd) authorized colleges to take race into account to 

a greater degree in awarding student aid than in admissions, if the minority-targeted aid was a 

small proportion of total student aid funds.35 In 1994, DOEd again endorsed “appropriatelycrafted minority-targeted” financial aid, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had 

a different opinion.36 In Podberesky v. Kirwan, the court ruled that a University of Maryland 

scholarship program for African American undergraduates, which the school adopted in response 

to a DOEd finding that it had historically discriminated, was not narrowly tailored to overcome 

minority underrepresentation.37 The court held that the school failed to demonstrate that there 

were continuing effects of past discrimination that would warrant such a scholarship.38 In anticipation of challenges to any form of affirmative action, in August 2001, the University of Florida 

 

32 Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6thCir. 2002). 

33 Gratz v. Bollinger, 135 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

34 Jodi Wilgoren, “Justices Asked to Rule Early on University Admissions,” New York Times, Oct. 1, 2002, p. A28. 35 American Council on Education, “Legal Developments Related to Affirmative Action in Higher Education: An 

Update for College and University Presidents, Trustees, and Administrators,” June 1999, <http://www.acenet.edu> 

(hereafter cited as ACE, “Legal Developments Related to Affirmative Action”). 

36 ACE, “Legal Developments Related to Affirmative Action.” 

37 Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994). Rehearing en banc denied, with correction, 46 F.3d 5 (1994), 

cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1128 (1995). 

38 Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994); ACE, “Legal Developments Related to Affirmative Action.” 
Draft Staff Report 7

announced it would no longer award scholarships based on race.39 More than 50 race-based 

scholarships available at the school were recast to become race neutral. 

Table 1.1 

Affirmative Action Timeline

 March 1961 The concept of “affirmative action” was initiated in Executive Order 10925 signed 

by President John F. Kennedy in an attempt to increase racial integration in federally financed workforces. 

September 1965 President Lyndon Johnson enforced affirmative action through Executive Order 

11246, which required government contractors to consider prospective minority 

employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. 

 June 1978 Supreme Court ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke established that race could be one factor considered in admissions decisions for the 

purpose of promoting diversity in higher education. 

October 1994 In Podberesky v. Kirwan, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a University of Maryland scholarship for African American undergraduate students was not 

narrowly tailored to overcome minority underrepresentation or historical discrimination. The school was required to broaden the scholarship’s eligibility, despite the 

fact that the Department of Education had previously endorsed “appropriatelycrafted minority-targeted” financial aid. 

July 1995 SP-1 was adopted in California and ended the use of race in admissions to the 

University of California system. This policy was formally rescinded in 2001, but its 

underlying tenet remained. 

March 1996 Hopwood v. State of Texas was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 

ruling, which applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, prohibits the use of race 

or ethnicity as an admissions criterion or in the recruitment, provision of financial 

assistance, or retention of college students. 

November 1997 California voters passed Proposition 209, which ended all forms of affirmative action in the state and rendered SP-1 superfluous. 

December 1998 Voters in the state of Washington passed Initiative 200. Although questions remain 

about the initiative’s scope, the University of Washington eliminated the consideration of race, ethnicity, and gender in admissions. 

November 1999 The One Florida Initiative was signed into law by the governor of the state. Raceand ethnic-based admissions policies were replaced with achievement-based policies. 

August 2001 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit determined in Johnson v. Board of 

Regents that the admissions policy at the University of Georgia was unconstitutional because it gave a slight preference to nonwhite applicants. 

August 2001 In anticipation of legal challenges, the University of Florida eliminated all racebased scholarships. 

May 2002 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit approved the University of Michigan’s law school admissions policy in Grutter v. Bollinger, allowing the consideration of race and upholding the Bakke decision. A case challenging the university’s 

undergraduate admissions policy (Gratz v. Bollinger) is also under review by the 

appellate court, after a federal judge ruled that the use of race in admissions was 

constitutional. 

 

39 Lords, “Affirmative Action Grows Murkier,” p. 10. 
Draft Staff Report 8

With these legal and legislative challenges percolating up through the courts and statehouses 

across the country, and because the Supreme Court has yet to revisit its decision in Bakke, the 

legal uncertainty of affirmative action has led schools to reassess admissions standards and seek 

new methods for achieving diversity apart from using race as a factor. For example, in 2000 Rutgers Law School in Newark, New Jersey, created a new admissions policy that does not consider 

race as an isolated factor. Instead, the school recruits students based on non-race factors, such as 

overcoming economic and educational disadvantages.40 All applicants to the law school have the 

option of applying under one of two admissions standards. Applicants can choose to be considered (1) mainly on test scores and grades, or (2) on the basis of education and employment experiences, personal and academic accomplishments, socioeconomic background, family 

circumstances, and potential contributions to the diversity of the school.41 Other schools, some of 

which are mentioned in this report, also now take into consideration educational experiences and 

life situations in the admissions process.42 

Finally, and most importantly for this review, localized movements away from affirmative action 

have resulted in the adoption of percentage plans in three states—California, Texas, and Florida. 

Are they effectively providing equal access to education? The following is a detailed assessment 

of the effects of percentage plans on college diversity. 

 

40 Saverio Cereste, “Minority Inclusion Without Race-Based Affirmative Action: An Embodiment of Justice Powell’s Vision,” New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, vol. 18 (Spring 2002), p. 205. 

41 Ibid., p. 225. 

42 See discussion on admissions standards, chap. 3. 
Draft Staff Report 9

CHAPTER 2 

Percentage Plans 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Overview 

When the Commission issued its April 2000 statement on percentage plans,1

 the University of 

California (UC) had had a ban on the use of race for determining first-time student admissions 

for almost two years. A percentage plan for admitting first-time students to the university had 

been in place for decades, but it had been accompanied by affirmative action programs intended 

to augment minority representation in the student body. The affirmative action programs were 

abandoned when the use of race was prohibited, and the university began seeking other means, 

including modifications to the percentage plan and increased outreach, to ensure diversity among 

students. 

Civil rights advocates have urged state university systems to establish percentage plans only 

along with the continued use of affirmative action. The Commission’s statement in 2000 criticized UC admissions policies because declines in enrollment of black, Hispanic, and American 

Indian students, both undergraduates and first-time law students, had occurred following implementation of the race ban, particularly at the premiere Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses.2

Other concerns about the University of California were that African American and Latino and 

Filipino American applicants were denied admission by the following: eligibility requirements 

for courses that were less accessible in the high schools these students attend; an undue and unjustified reliance on standardized test scores and judgments made based on educationally insignificant differences in tests scores; disparities in grade point averages that special considerations 

did not mitigate; and an unvalidated admissions process that did not adopt alternative criteria 

with less disparate impact on minority applicants.3

The section below explains UC’s various admissions policies and is followed by an analysis 

showing the dwindling numbers of Hispanic, African American, and Native American students 

in the UC system using applicant, admissions, and enrollment data from 1995 to the present. Enrollment data for the current 2002–2003 academic year were not available at the time this report 

was prepared. 

 

1

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans in Higher Education: Are They 

Effective Substitutes for Affirmative Action? April 2000 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Toward an Understanding of 

Percentage Plans). 

2

 USCCR, Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans, pp. 6–7. 3

 Ibid., pp. 7–8, citing Rios et al. v. Regents of Univ. Cal., No. C 99-0525 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 1998). 
Draft Staff Report 10

Admissions Policies 

The University of California consists of eight campuses—Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, 

Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz—with a growing population of upward of 

25,000 first-time students (see table 2.1).4

 Its admissions policies are established by a Board of 

Regents. Numerous policies have been in effect both before and since a ban on the use of race in 

admissions was imposed. Table 2.2 shows a timeline for when key decisions about admissions 

were made and the policies implemented. 

Table 2.1

The University of California System

Medical Law Business

Institutions in the University of California (UC) System

UC Berkeley X X X X

UC Davis X X X X X

UC Irvine X X X X

UC Los Angeles X X X X X

UC Riverside X X X

UC San Diego X X X

UC Santa Barbara X X

UC Santa Cruz X X

UC Merced

UC San Francisco X X

Hastings School of Law X

Institutions subject to ...

... the 12.5 percent plan All None None None None

... UC Board of Regents' governance All All All All except 

Hastings

All

... race ban (Propostion 209) All All All All All

Institutions in this analysis

All None All All except 

Hastings

None

Reasons for excluding schools from the analysis

Undergraduate Graduate Professional Schools

Hastings School of Law, although affiliated with UC, is independently governed and does not fall under the UC 

Board of Regents' admissions policies. 

---------------opens 2004--------------

The 12.5 Percent Plan With and Without Affirmative Action 

As early as 1960, the UC Board of Regents and the California State Board of Education approved the California Master Plan for Higher Education. The plan established the principle of 

universal access and choice and established a three-tier system with the University of California 

as the state’s primary academic research institution providing undergraduate, graduate, and professional education. The plan identified college admissions pools for each tier. UC was designated the most selective. It was to admit California residents in the top 12.5 percent of high 

school graduates. Applicants who met the 12.5 percent requirement would be offered a place 

 

4

 The University of California also includes campuses at Merced and San Francisco. The Merced campus is new and 

will open in fall 2004. The San Francisco campus is a graduate health sciences university. See table 2.1 and University of California, Merced, “A University for Our Future,” <www.ucmerced.edu/about_merced/>; University of

California, San Francisco, “Academics,” <www.ucsf.edu/academics/index.html>. 
Draft Staff Report 11

somewhere in the UC system, though not necessarily at the campus or in the major of first 

choice.5

 

The Master Plan broadly confines admissions, but allows the University of California campuses 

to vary criteria within constraints.6

 The UC system has 14 selection criteria, 10 of which are academic, such as standardized test scores, completion of college preparatory curricula, and minimum grade point averages. The other four selection criteria are supplemental, having to do with 

special talents, life experiences, and geographic diversity. Campus differences in the use of 

selection criteria account for whether or not applicants are admitted to their first choice among

schools.7

 Furthermore, given the criteria and other constraints, only 11.1 percent of high school 

graduates statewide were eligible for admission in recent years, not the 12.5 percent the Master 

Plan stated as a goal.8 

The California Master Plan for Higher Education has been reviewed numerous times over the 

decades and has undergone minor modifications in response to some of those reviews.9

 Ethnic, 

gender, and economic diversity issues were raised in reviews of the plan in the early 1970s and 

again in the late 1980s. The 1970s reviews sought to ensure access for all eligible students and to 

expand the use of “non-traditional” criteria for admitting larger proportions of the student body. 

UC was urged to approximate the general ethnic, gender, and economic composition of recent 

California high school graduates. This goal was reiterated again in a 1989 review with a directive 

that governing boards determine policies and programs that increase the access of underrepresented students to first-time admission and college successes. The need for innovative outreach 

programs was stressed.10 

 

 

5

 The other tiers include California State University, which provides undergraduate and graduate education through 

the master’s degree, emphasizing “applied” fields and teacher education; and the California community colleges, 

which provide academic and vocational instruction, remedial instruction, English as a second language courses, 

community service courses, and workforce training services. The Master Plan also establishes admissions pools for 

these schools. The California State University is to select from among the top one-third of the high school graduating class. California community colleges admit any student capable of benefiting from instruction. University of 

California, Office of the President, “Major Features of the California Master Plan for Higher Education,” 

<www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm>. 

6

 Joint Committee for Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education, “California Faces . . . California’s Future: 

Education for Citizenship in a Multicultural Democracy,” Final Report of the Joint Committee for Review of the 

Master Plan for Higher Education, March 1989, p. 6 (hereafter cited as Joint Committee for Review, “California 

Faces”). 

7

 University of California, Office of Strategic Communications, “Facts About the University of California: Comprehensive Review,” November 2001. 

8

 Saul Geiser, University of California, Office of the President, Student Academic Services, Redefining UC’s Eligibility Pool to Include a Percentage of Students From Each High School, March 1998, p. 11. 

9

 University of California, Board of Regents, “The History of the California Master Plan for Higher Education,” 

<www.sunsite.berkeley.edu/UCHistory/archives_exhibits/masterplan/post1960.html>. 10 See ibid.; Joint Committee for Review, “California Faces,” pp. 1–4. 
Draft Staff Report 12

Table 2.2 

Timeline for Events Affecting University of California Admissions

1960 The UC Board of Regents and the California State Board of Education approved the California 

Master Plan for Higher Education, which was implemented through legislation. The plan established the principle of universal access and choice and specified college admissions pools such 

that UC was to select from among California residents in the top one-eighth (12.5 percent) of 

high school graduating classes. Applicants would be offered a place somewhere in the UC system, though not necessarily at the campus or in the major of first choice. 

July 20, 1995 UC Board of Regents approved an admissions policy prohibiting all schools in the UC system 

from using “race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the 

university or to any program of study.” The policy included a statement that the university would 

admit no less than 50 percent and no more than 75 percent of applicants on academic criteria 

alone. 

July 1996 UC’s Office of the President issued a policy on undergraduate admissions, “admission by exception,” which stated that starting with the spring 1998 quarter, up to 6 percent of newly enrolled 

freshmen, including up to 4 percent drawn from disadvantaged students, would be admitted by 

exception to the university’s eligibility requirements. Such students must demonstrate a reasonable potential for success at the university. 

Nov. 6, 1996 California voters approved Proposition 209, prohibiting any state body from using race, ethnicity, 

or gender as criteria for hiring or admission. 

Aug. 28, 1997 California’s Proposition 209 went into effect. 

Fall 1997 The university’s race ban took effect for beginning classes of graduate students. 

Nov. 3, 1997 U.S. Supreme Court denied further appeal of California’s Proposition 209. 

Spring 1998 Current Admissions by Exception program implemented. 

Fall 1998 The university’s race ban took effect for beginning classes of undergraduates. 

Mar. 18, 1999 4 percent plan proposed to take effect starting in fall 2001. 

May 16, 2001 UC Board of Regents rescinded its policy banning racial preferences, although the voterapproved Proposition 209 still prohibited them. New admissions policies would take effect in fall 

2002. 

July 19, 2001 UC Board of Regents approved a “dual admissions” program to take effect for applicants for fall 

2003 admission. In addition to the top 4 percent of each California high school’s graduates, the 

“dual admissions” program will allow an additional 8.5 percent to be given admission somewhere 

in the UC system, provided the students successfully complete first-year and sophomore requirements at a community college. The transfer path will be streamlined. 

Fall 2001 The 4 percent plan took effect, guaranteeing admission to some UC campus; Irvine campus 

guaranteed admission to top 4 percent at its campus. 

Nov. 15, 2001 UC Board of Regents approved a comprehensive review process to evaluate and admit applicants to UC campuses, beginning fall 2002, using multiple measures of achievement and promise and considering the context in which each student has demonstrated academic 

accomplishment. 

May 7, 2002 A new draft Master Plan for Education in California was released for comment and redrafting, 

anticipating that a final plan will be adopted before the end of September 2002. 

Fall 2002 First students admitted to UC under the comprehensive review process will be enrolled. 

Sept. 9. 2002 The California legislature’s Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education released its 

final report for a new California Master Plan for Education, addressing pre-kindergarten through 

adult education, and began pursuing the changes in legislation and regulations needed to implement its recommendations. 

Fall 2003 The “dual admissions” plan will take effect. 
Draft Staff Report 13

The state-imposed Master Plan, with its requirement for UC to admit the top 12.5 percent of high 

school graduates, remains in place today. A new Master Plan for Education, released September 

9, 2002, maintains the 12.5 percent admissions policy.11 What has changed about the plan over 

the decades is emphasis on affirmative action. This emphasis grew in the 1970s and 1980s, with 

the incorporation of outreach to minority students intended to increase enrollment of underrepresented groups, and was then abandoned after race bans were imposed in the late 1990s.12 The UC 

system’s selection criteria appear to have changed in relatively minor ways over the years.13

However, the 2002 Master Plan recommends placing less weight on honors and advanced 

placement courses and considering both objective and qualitative personal characteristics of applicants equally in the admissions process.14

Admission by Exception 

Concurrent with other admissions plans, UC has had a policy to admit a small proportion of students who did not meet the eligibility requirements but demonstrated reasonable potential for 

success. Enrolling students who are otherwise fully eligible and admissible but who have course 

deficiencies due to the unavailability of courses in their high schools has been a UC practice for 

more than a decade.15 In July 1996, UC’s president articulated the policy, providing campuses 

explicit flexibility to admit a small proportion of students effective with the spring 1998 quarter: 

Up to 6 percent of newly enrolled freshmen could be admitted “by exception” at each campus. 

Up to 4 percent could be drawn from disadvantaged students, and up to 2 percent from other students. Disadvantaged students were defined as students from low socioeconomic backgrounds or 

students who had experienced limited educational opportunities.16

 

11 Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education, The California Master Plan for Education, August 

2002. 

12 See, e.g., Joint Committee for Review, “California Faces,” pp. 1–4; University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Future Admissions, Employment, and Contracting—Resolution Rescinding SP-1 and SP-2, Approved May 16, 2001,” <www.ucop.edu/regents/policies/6031.html>. 

13 Note that a policy described below as the “4 percent plan” has been added as a selection criteria. See University of 

California, Office of Strategic Communications, “Facts About the University of California.” The required preparatory courses for admission have been the same since 1994 and include, for example, one year of study in history, 

cultures, and geography, two years of laboratory science in different disciplines, and two years of elective courses. 

As amended March 19, 1999, and effective for freshmen in fall 2003, the requirements will include one year of 

study in the visual and performing arts and will reduce the college preparatory elective courses from two years to 

one year. The computation of the academic grade point average uses all grades achieved in the required courses and 

assigns extra points to grades received in two approved honors-level courses completed in the 10th grade. University 

of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Changes in Freshman Admissions Requirements, Approved March 

19, 1999,” <www.ucop.edu/regents/policies/6161.html>. 

14 Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education, The California Master Plan for Education, August 

2000. 

15 Joint Committee for Review, “California Faces,” pp. 4–5. For example, in 1989 UC campuses were reported to 

admit 6 percent of freshmen on the basis of individual talent or special criteria, which could include “ethnic minorities whom counselors say have the potential to succeed in college even though they started too late in high school to 

meet all admissions requirements.” David Smollar, “Colleges Wooing Minority Students Younger and Younger,” 

Los Angeles Times, May 21, 1989, Metro, p. 1. See also Kenneth Rogers, “Don’t Lower the Bar—Elevate the Students,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 10, 1995, p. B7. 

16 See University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Undergraduate Admissions by Exception, Issued 

by the Office of the President, July 1996,” <www.ucop.edu/regents/policies/6160.html>. 
Draft Staff Report 14

The University- and State-Imposed Race Bans With 50 to 75 Percent Admitted on 

Academic Merit 

On July 20, 1995, the UC Board of Regents approved an admissions policy prohibiting all 

schools in the UC system from using “race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as 

criteria for admission to the University or to any program of study.”17 The policy further stated 

that the university would admit no less than 50 percent and no more than 75 percent of applicants 

on academic criteria alone.18 

On November 6, 1996, the voters of California passed Proposition 209, further prohibiting the 

use of race in college admissions for any state body. The proposition was incorporated into the 

California Constitution and took effect on August 28, 1997. Several lower court decisions challenged the proposition, but the U.S. Supreme Court denied further appeal on November 3, 1997, 

and the proposition remains in effect today.19 The first UC students the proposition affected were 

those entering in the fall of 1998 (see table 2.2). 

The race bans imposed by Proposition 209 and the university’s Board of Regents, therefore, began with the same entering undergraduates. The university-imposed race ban, emphasizing academic merit, was only in effect until May 16, 2001, when the Board of Regents rescinded it. 

With Proposition 209 becoming part of the state constitution, the regents’ act, in effect, shifted 

accountability for the race ban to the state. However, in addition to rescinding the ban on race, 

the regents did away with the requirement that 50 to 75 percent of admissions be based on academic merit alone.20

“Eligibility in the Local Context”—The 4 Percent Plan 

The Board of Regents approved a 4 percent plan on March 19, 1999. Referred to as “eligibility in 

the local context,” it guaranteed admission in the UC system to the top 4 percent of students in 

California high schools, if the students had successfully completed specific college preparatory 

coursework. This policy supplemented other existing admissions policies and took effect for students entering UC as freshmen in the fall 2001.21 

 

17 See University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Future Admissions, Employment, and Contracting.” 

18 See University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Comprehensive Review in Undergraduate Admissions, Approved November 15, 2001,” <www.ucop.edu/regents/policies/compreview.html>. 

19 See e.g., Coalition for Economic Equity, et al. v. Pete Wilson, Governor of California, et al., 122 F.3d 692 (1997),

cert. denied 522 U.S. 963 (1997); University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Future Admissions, 

Employment, and Contracting”; University of California, Santa Cruz, “Implementation of Proposition 209: How It 

Impacts UC’s Employment Practices,” p. 1, <www2.ucsc.edu/eeo-aa/Post209.html>. 

20 University of California, Office of the President, “Comprehensive Review,” <www.ucop.edu/news/compre/ 

welcome.html>. 

21 See University of California, Office of the President, “Establishment of UC Freshman Eligibility in the Local 

Context, Approved March 19, 1999,” <www.ucop.edu/regents/policies/6173.html>; and University of California, 

Office of the President, “Eligibility in the Local Context,” <www.ucop.edu/news/cr/welcome.html>. Note that a 

further modification to the 4 percent plan has been approved for admission of the class entering in the fall of 2003. 

In addition to the top 4 percent of each California high school’s graduates, the proposed “Dual Admissions” program will allow an additional 8.5 percent to be given admission somewhere in the UC system, provided the students 

successfully complete first-year and sophomore requirements at a community college. See Roya Aziz, “U. California 
Draft Staff Report 15

The “Eligibility in the Local Context” program, or 4 percent plan, did not bring about a major 

change in UC admissions. The California Master Plan for Education already guaranteed admission to California residents graduating from high school in the top 12.5 percent of students 

statewide, and an estimated 60 to 65 percent of students in the top 4 percent of their local high 

schools were already eligible for UC admission under the statewide 12.5 percent plan. Thus, the 

4 percent plan merely broadened the UC eligible pool to include an estimated additional 3,500 to 

4,000 students who ranked near the top of their schools but were not among the top 12.5 percent 

of students statewide.22 The addition of the 4 percent plan was expected to increase underrepresented minorities, yielding an additional 300 to 700 Chicano/Latino and African American students within UC’s eligibility pool.23 

The Comprehensive Review 

On November 15, 2001, the UC Board of Regents approved a comprehensive review process that 

would evaluate and admit applicants to UC campuses beginning in fall 2002 using multiple 

measures of achievement and promise and consider the context in which each student had demonstrated academic accomplishment. The board further indicated that the comprehensive review 

policies “shall be used fairly, shall not use racial preferences of any kind, and shall comply with 

Proposition 209.”24

The comprehensive review replaced the requirement that 50 to 75 percent of students be admitted on academic criteria alone. Thus, the older system created a two-tier selection process 

whereby campuses used only the 10 academic criteria to admit 50 to 75 percent of students. The 

remainder of the students could be selected using a set of 14 criteria, four of which were nonacademic. Under the comprehensive review system, all 14 criteria are used to select all students. 

Thus, student records are analyzed not just for grades and test scores, but also for evidence of 

such qualities as motivation, leadership, intellectual curiosity, and initiative.25

University officials tout the comprehensive review for leading to a more thorough and complete 

review of the broad variety of applicants’ academic and personal qualifications, yet continuing to 

ensure the admission of highly qualified students.26 Critics of the comprehensive review charge 

that it is a “backdoor attempt to boost minority enrollment in the post-Proposition 209 era at the 

expense of objective, academically based entrance criteria.”27

 System Creates New Admissions Plan,” California Aggie, Sept. 26, 2000; Tanya Schevitz, “UC Widens Chance of 

Gaining Admission; Policy Approved to Aid Minorities, Disadvantaged,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 2001. 

22 In fact, the 4 percent plan was not expected to displace students eligible under the 12.5 percent plan because fewer 

than the 12.5 percent met other UC eligibility requirements. See Geiser, Redefining UC’s Eligibility Pool, pp. 11–12. 23 Ibid., p. 7. 

24 See University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Comprehensive Review in Undergraduate Admissions.” 

25 University of California, Office of Strategic Communications, “Facts About the University of California.” 

26 Ibid. 

27 Pacific Legal Foundation, “Fifth Anniversary of 209’s Passage: A.G. Gets Failing Grade for Prop. 209 Enforcement; PLF Calls for End to Racially Divisive Programs,” press release, Nov. 5, 2001. 
Draft Staff Report 16

Table 2.3 

Admissions Policies in Effect for University of California Undergraduates 

by School Year

 School Year: 

Admissions Policy: 

1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 

12.5 percent plan 

Admission by exception 

Affirmative action 

University race ban 

State race ban (Proposition 209) 

50 to 75 percent on academic merit 

4 percent plan 

Comprehensive review 

Table 2.3 lists the various admissions policies that have applied to UC and illustrates the school 

years for which they were in effect. With regard to timing, the policies follow three co-existing 

patterns. First, the 12.5 percent plan and the admission by exception policy were in effect 

throughout the period studied here, which includes the 1995–96 school year through the 2002–03 

school year. 

Second, bans on the use of race for undergraduate admissions were not in effect before the fall 

1998 school year, but have been since that time. Approved in mid-1995, the UC ban on race did 

not take effect for undergraduates until the 1998–99 school year; Proposition 209, passed by the 

voters in 1996, affected the same entering students, and remains in effect today. 

Third, a series of other admissions policies occurred during the period studied. Affirmative action programs, including outreach, were in place during the pre-ban school years of fall 1995 to 

spring 1998. An emphasis on academic merit—the requirement that 50 to 75 percent of entering 

students be admitted on academic criteria alone—was imposed from fall of 1998 to spring 2002. 

“Eligibility in the local context,” the 4 percent plan, was implemented in fall 2001, and overlapped for one year with the 50 to 75 percent academic merit requirement and for one year, so 

far, with the latest program, the comprehensive review. The comprehensive review was used for 

the first time with the class entering in the fall of 2002. The 4 percent plan and the comprehensive review, along with other new policies to take effect with future admissions, were intended to 

diversify the class to achieve representation of minorities closer to that achieved with affirmative 

action programs before the use of race was banned. 
Draft Staff Report 17

Undergraduate Enrollment, Applications, and Admissions 

Enrollment 

For this study, University of California data were obtained for California resident applications, 

admissions, and enrollees by race.28 The analysis that follows examines first the racial and ethnic 

composition for the 1995–96 school year and contrasts it with other pre- and post-ban years and 

admissions policies that were in effect. 

Figure 2.1 shows enrollment data by race of freshmen entering the University of California system in fall 1995 when affirmative action programs were still in place. The university as a whole 

had approximately equal proportions of Asian Pacific American and white students enrolled (36 

to 37 percent) in the 1995–96 school year. Sixteen percent of students were Hispanic, 4 percent 

black, and 1 percent Native American. 

The UC campuses varied in the racial and ethnic composition of 1995 freshmen, between campuses that were majority white, slightly preponderant in whites, majority Asian Pacific American, and diverse with a slight preponderance of Asian Pacific Americans. The Santa Barbara and 

Santa Cruz campuses were majority white—59 and 55 percent, respectively. The Davis and San 

Diego campuses had more whites than Asians, but not a white majority, with 43 to 44 percent 

white and 34 and 39 percent Asian Pacific Americans. Irvine was majority Asian Pacific American (60 percent). Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Riverside had more Asian Pacific Americans (38 to 

41percent) than whites (25 to 30 percent), and larger proportions of Hispanics (17 to 22 percent) 

and African Americans (7 percent), making them the most diverse campuses (see figure 2.1). 

As for people of color other than Asian Pacific Americans: Los Angeles and Riverside had the 

most Hispanics (22 percent); Santa Cruz and Berkeley each 17 percent; Santa Barbara, Davis, 

and Irvine, 13 to 14 percent Hispanics; San Diego, only 9 percent. Perhaps the most striking observation is that African Americans were never more than 7 percent at any UC campus. Santa 

Cruz, Santa Barbara, and Davis had 3 to 4 percent blacks and Irvine and San Diego, only 1 to 2 

percent. The proportions of Native Americans ranged between 0.5 and 1.8 percent at the various 

campuses (see figure 2.1). 

Changes over time have brought slightly more preponderance of Asian Pacific Americans to the 

racial/ethnic character of the UC campuses. From the entering class of 1996 to that of 2001, the 

UC system had 36 to 39 percent Asian Pacific Americans and 33 to 40 percent whites. Santa 

Barbara and Santa Cruz continued to have majority-white campuses; Irvine continued to have an 

Asian Pacific American majority. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Riverside maintained the preponderance of Asian Pacific Americans, if not the diversity of other minority groups. Davis and San 

Diego, which had a slight preponderance of whites in 1995–96, changed over time to have a 

slight preponderance of Asian Pacific Americans. San Diego began to have a greater proportion 

of Asian Pacific Americans than whites with entering freshmen in fall 1998 when the race ban 

 

28 University of California, Office of the President, Student Academic Services, “University of California Application, Admissions and Enrollment of California Resident Freshmen for Fall 1995 through 2001,” “REG004/005, 

Jan02 f01/flowfrc9501” (hereafter cited as University of California undergraduate data). 
Draft Staff Report 18

was first imposed and thereafter. Davis showed more Asian Pacific Americans than whites in fall 

2001.29

 

Figure 2.1 

Racial/Ethnic Composition of First-Time Freshmen Enrolled in the University of California System, 

1995–96

Source: Compiled from University of California, "Application, Admissions and Enrollment of California Resident Freshmen for Fall 

1995 through 2001."

Universitywide, 1995-1996

36%

16% 4%

1%

37%

2%

4%

Berkeley, 1995-1996

38%

7%

17%

2%

30%

1% 5%

Davis,1995-1996

34%

13% 3%

1%

44%

2%

3%

Los Angeles, 1995-1996

39%

7%

22%

1%

26%

2% 3%

Irvine, 1995-1996

60%

2%

13%

0%

20%

2%

3%

Riverside, 1995-1996

41%

7%

22%

1%

25%

2% 2%

Asian American Black

Hispanic Native American

White Other

Unknown

San Diego, 1995-1996

39%

1% 1% 9%

43%

2% 5%

Santa Barbara, 1995-1996

18%

3%

14%

1%

59%

2%

3%

Santa Cruz, 1995-1996

15%

4%

17%

2%

55%

5%

2%

 

29 Percentages are calculated from University of California undergraduate data, not shown here. Note that the race 

ban resulted in a large increase in the number of students with “unknown” race, particularly in the fall of 1998. A 

couple of exceptions occurred in the trends described above, but would likely prove to be true if the race/ethnicity 

were known for all students. For example, Santa Cruz had only 45 percent whites in the 1998–99 school year, but

likely had a sizeable proportion of whites among the 19 percent with unknown race. Elsewhere, university officials 

determined that the vast majority who did not report racial information were white or Asian. See Rebecca Trounson 

and Kenneth R. Weiss, “California and the West; Numbers of Blacks, Latinos Admitted to UC System Rise,” Los 

Angeles Times, Apr. 4, 2001, p. A-3.
Draft Staff Report 19

The preponderance of Asian Pacific Americans and whites in the UC system and its campuses 

hide, however, the subtle dwindling in the enrolled proportions of Hispanic, black, and Native 

Americans—the underrepresented minority groups.30 The UC system had 16 percent Hispanics 

in 1995–96, but has had only 12 to 14 percent thereafter. It had 4 percent blacks in 1995–96, but 

has often had only 3 percent since then. It had 1.1 percent Native Americans in 1995–96, but 

only 0.5 to 1.0 percent in the ensuing school years.31 The Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, 

which had been quite diverse with 26 and 30 percent Hispanics, African Americans, and Native 

Americans in 1995–96, had only 16 and 17 percent in 2001–02.32 It is these changes in enrollment that will be analyzed below in light of the various admissions policies. 

Table 2.4 shows changes in the representation of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans among 

the University of California’s first-time enrolled students from classes entering in 1995 through 

2001. The first columns show the number and percentage of these groups that were admitted in the 

1995–96 school year. The remaining columns show, for the fall 1996 through fall 2001 school 

years, the difference between the numbers of these groups enrolled and the number that would 

have been enrolled had the proportional representation of the group in the 1995–96 school year 

been sustained along with the growth of the university. Deficits are shown in parentheses. 

For the UC system as a whole, all three groups show deficits in the numbers enrolled for every 

year since the baseline 1995–96. For this six-year period, a total of nearly 1,600 fewer African 

Americans, approximately 4,000 fewer Hispanics, and 675 fewer Native Americans have been 

enrolled than would have been had the representation of these groups in the baseline year been 

preserved (see table 2.4). 

The latter two pre-ban years (1996–97 and 1997–98) show smaller deficits in this expected number of enrollees than the years following the race ban. For blacks, the UC system shows a deficit 

of about 100 enrollees in the pre-ban years and between 320 and 377 in the race-ban years. For 

Hispanics, there were deficits of 409 and 564 enrollees in the pre-ban years. The deficit grew to 

933 Hispanics in 1998–99, the first year of the race ban, and then waned some after that to a 

deficit of 614 in 2001–02. For Native Americans, deficits in enrollees increased across the years 

from 24 in 1996–97 to 160 in 2001–02, showing no obvious effect of the ban on race. 

Rarely did schools in the UC system enroll proportionally more of these groups than they had in 

1995–96. Santa Barbara was an exception, having enrolled 14 to 16 percent Hispanics each year 

since the baseline year. San Diego was able to enroll proportionally more of the underrepresented minority groups than in 1995–96 in a number of instances, possibly because the campus 

had such small proportions enrolled in the first place. Berkeley was able to enroll a larger number of blacks in the last pre-ban year, 1997–98; Irvine was able to do so recently for the 2001–02 

school year. 

 

30 The broad category of “Asian Pacific Americans” may mask other underrepresented groups. For example, East 

Indians/Pakistanis and Filipino Americans have been included with Asian Americans in this category, although the 

University of California undergraduate data track them separately. UC’s race bans did not diminish the proportional 

presence of East Indian/Pakistani or Filipino American enrollees. (University of California undergraduate data, not 

shown.) 

31 University of California undergraduate data (not shown). 

32 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 20

Table 2.4 

Surplus or Deficit in Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans Enrolled in University of California 

Relative to 1995–96 School Year 

Actual

Number Percent

TOTAL

1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 1996-2002

UC System 945 4.3% (108) (100) (330) (360) (320) (377) (1,595)

Los Angeles 259 7.4% (39) (62) (151) (138) (142) (156) (687)

Riverside 101 6.5% (24) (39) (34) (19) (16) (44) (177)

Berkeley 202 6.7% (4) 38 (100) (92) (80) (97) (335)

Santa Cruz 67 4.0% (29) (38) (36) (37) (40) (33) (213)

Davis 108 3.4% (16) (23) (27) (33) (29) (36) (164)

Santa Barbara 103 3.2% (12) 7 (9) (31) (12) (19) (75)

Irvine 64 2.2% (15) (10) 4 (7) (11) 28 (12)

San Diego 41 1.4% 24 17 7 (11) (16) (20) 2

UC System 3,432 15.6% (409) (564) (933) (819) (706) (614) (4,044)

Los Angeles 790 22.4% (126) (236) (449) (380) (361) (318) (1,870)

Riverside 344 22.2% (29) (81) (46) (19) 6 6 (163)

Berkeley 514 16.9% (42) (76) (299) (224) (246) (218) (1,105)

Santa Cruz 288 17.0% (68) (97) (78) (87) (98) (84) (512)

Davis 415 13.1% (123) (87) (82) (127) (121) (89) (630)

Santa Barbara 439 13.6% 41 20 53 19 54 93 280

Irvine 371 13.0% (100) (77) (58) (50) (67) (20) (373)

San Diego 271 9.2% 29 47 (25) (4) 29 (30) 46

UC System 248 1.1% (24) (84) (112) (153) (141) (160) (675)

Los Angeles 42 1.2% (12) (5) (33) (34) (31) (35) (150)

Riverside 11 0.7% (0) (8) (5) (6) (8) (7) (34)

Berkeley 56 1.8% (17) (41) (49) (38) (43) (45) (233)

Santa Cruz 27 1.6% (9) (14) (13) (17) (19) (23) (95)

Davis 45 1.4% (13) (15) (15) (27) (27) (21) (11

Santa Barbara 31 1.0% 18 (1) 4 (6) (5) (5) 5

Irvine 14 0.5% (8) (4) 4 (8) 1 1 (13)

San Diego 22 0.7% 12 2 (6) (12) (8) (19) (31)

Source: Compiled or calculated from University of California, "Application, Admissions and Enrollment of California Resident Freshmen for 

Fall 1995 through 2001" (no date).

Surplus or deficit of students needed to maintain proportional representation 

of 1995-1996 school year 

African Americans

Hispanics

Native Americans Native Americans

1995-1996

African Americans

Hispanics

Pre-Ban Pre-Ban Race Ban

9)

In short, UC data show that seemingly low proportions of African Americans, Hispanics, and 

Native Americans are enrolled in the system and that the percentages have diminished since the 

1995–96 school year, even in the pre-ban years. The percentages dropped further after the race 

ban went into effect, and have not recovered in recent years despite changes in policy intended to 

diversify the student populations. At the same time, some campuses did better than others at enrolling underrepresented students despite admissions policies that the state and the university 

system imposed. 

Applications and Admissions 

The racial/ethnic composition of the university’s enrollment is partly determined by who is eligible and who applies to the school. Each of the underrepresented minority groups is a larger proportion of high school diploma recipients in California than of UC applicants. Of the spring 2000 

California high school diploma recipients, 7.3 percent were African American, 32.6 percent were 
Draft Staff Report 21

Hispanic, and 0.9 percent, Native American.33 The proportions among UC applicants were only 

4.2, 14.6, and 0.7 for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans applying for the 

2000–01 school year.34 If UC received applications from the top 12.5 percent of African American and Hispanic diploma recipients from California, the university would have received more 

than 2,800 applications from African Americans and nearly 12,600 from Hispanics.35 Instead, the 

system received only 2,376 and 8,234 applicants from African Americans and Hispanics for that 

fall.36

The University of California’s applications and admissions follow trends similar to the enrollment data. Table 2.5 shows the numbers and percentage of persons from underrepresented minority groups who were admitted to the UC system for selected years—the baseline 1995–96 

school year, the first year of the race ban (1998–99), and the most recent year (2001–02). The 

table reveals, first, that both the numbers and percentages of the underrepresented minority applicants and admissions declined when the race ban was imposed. For example, about 150 fewer 

African Americans applied to UC in the year the race ban was implemented than in 1995–96. 

About 300 fewer African Americans were admitted to UC in the first year of the race ban than in 

1995–96. About 450 fewer Hispanics were admitted when the race ban was first imposed than 

had been in the baseline year. 

Pre-Ban Pre-Ban

1995-1996 1998-1999 2001-2002 1995-1996 1998-1999 2001-2002

UC applicants 2,292 2,151 2,590 5.0% 4.1% 4.3%

UC admissions 1,683 1,368 1,734 4.4% 3.2% 3.4%

UC enrollment 945 739 856 4.3% 3.0% 3.0%

UC applicants 7,332 7,285 9,265 16.0% 13.9% 15.5%

UC admissions 6,050 5,503 7,433 15.8% 12.9% 14.6%

UC enrollment 3,432 2,948 3,864 15.6% 11.9% 13.5%

UC applicants 459 408 379 1.0% 0.8% 0.6%

UC admissions 392 316 312 1.0% 0.7% 0.6%

UC enrollment 248 168 164 1.1% 0.7% 0.6%

Native Americans

Source: Compiled or calculated from University of California, "Application, Admissions and Enrollment of

California Resident Freshmen for Fall 1995 through 2001" (no date).

Race Ban Race Ban

African Americans

Hispanics

Number Percent

Table 2.5

University of California Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollment for 

Underrepresented Minority Groups in Selected School Years

 

33 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Common Core of Data,” 2000–2001

(hereafter cited as NCES, “Common Core of Data,” 2000–01). The most recent data available are for 2000–2001, 

but include diploma recipients from the previous year. 

34 University of California undergraduate data (not shown). 35 NCES, “Common Core of Data,” 2000–2001. 36 University of California undergraduate data (not shown). 
Draft Staff Report 22

By the 2001–02 school year, UC received more applications from and admitted more African 

Americans and Hispanics than it had in 1995–96. However, the proportions of these two groups, 

although larger than when the race ban was first instituted, remained smaller than during the 

baseline year. Thus, African Americans were 4.3 percent of applications in 2001–02, but had 

been 5.0 percent in 1995–96. African Americans were 3.4 percent of those admitted to UC in 

2001–02, but had been 4.4 percent of those admitted in the baseline year. Native Americans were 

only 0.6 percent of applicants or those admitted in 2001–02, although they had been 1.0 percent 

in 1995–96. The numbers of Native American applicants and admissions were still lower than 

they were in 1995–96 (see table 2.5). 

Despite the seemingly small decreases in the numbers of underrepresented minorities admitted to 

UC when the race ban was imposed, dramatic changes occurred in the admissions of some institutions making up the UC system. Figure 2.2 shows the ratio of the number of students admitted 

to the number of students who applied for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. 

The graphs depict these ratios for the university system and three of its campuses—Los Angeles, 

Berkeley, and San Diego. 

The UC admission rates are lower for African Americans than for Hispanics or Native Americans, and lower after the race ban than before. Between 80 and 87 out of 100 Native American or 

Hispanic applicants were admitted to UC in the years before the race ban, but only 71 to 73 out 

of 100 African American applicants. In the years since the race ban was imposed, 73 to 82 out of 

100 Native American and Hispanic applicants were admitted, but only 64 to 67 out of 100 African Americans. At the Los Angeles, Berkeley, and San Diego campuses, the admission rates for 

the underrepresented minorities are even lower. Although these campuses admitted between 38 

and 55 out of 100 African American applicants before the race ban, they only admitted between 

20 and 28 out of 100 when the ban was imposed and thereafter. They admitted between 40 and 

58 out of 100 Hispanic applicants before the race ban, and between 20 and 36 out of 100 after. 

Between 50 and 73 out of 100 Native American applicants were admitted before the ban, and 

only 18 to 36 out of 100 after (see figure 2.2). Figure 2.2 does not show any upswing in the acceptance rates of these three campuses suggesting greater likelihood of underrepresented minorities being admitted as the new admissions policies, implemented in 2001 and touted for 

promoting diversity, would lead one to expect. 

Furthermore, a comparison of admission rates and enrollment rates in table 2.5 shows that these 

underrepresented minorities are often an even smaller proportion of students who enroll in the 

university than they were of those who were admitted. For example, although 14.6 percent of 

persons admitted for the 2001–02 school year were Hispanic, only 13.5 percent of those who actually enrolled were Hispanic. Thus, UC was not always as successful in enrolling persons from 

these underrepresented groups as it was in admitting them. 
Draft Staff Report 23

Figure 2.2

Difficulty of Gaining Admission to the University of California for 

Underrepresented Minority Groups

Source: Calculated from University of California, "Application, Admissions and Enrollment of

California Resident Freshmen for Fall 1995 through 2001" (no date).

Ratio of African American Admissions to Applicants

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1995-

1996

1996-

1997

1997-

1998

1998-

1999

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

UC System

Los Angeles

Berkeley

San Diego

Ratio of Hispanic Admissions to Applicants

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1995-

1996

1996-

1997

1997-

1998

1998-

1999

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

UC System

Los Angeles

Berkeley

San Diego

Ratio of Native American Admissions to Applicants

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1995-

1996

1996-

1997

1997-

1998

1998-

1999

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

UC System

Los Angeles

Berkeley

San Diego
Draft Staff Report 24

Recent news articles have reported on admissions for fall 2002 freshmen, stating that the University of California has admitted more minority students for the first time since affirmative action 

was abandoned. According to one article, 19.1 percent of the university system’s admissions for 

fall 2002 were from underrepresented minority groups.37 This compares favorably with the admissions figure of 18.8 percent for these groups for the pre-ban year of 1997–98. However, as 

indicated here, the percentages of these minorities had already begun decreasing by fall 1997. 

Thus, 2002 admissions still fall below the 21.2 percent of the 1995–96 admissions that were African American, Hispanic, and Native American (adding figures from table 2.5). 

Professional School Enrollment, Applications, and Admissions 

Five of the University of California campuses—Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San 

Francisco—have medical schools; Berkeley, Davis, and Los Angeles have law schools (see table 

2.1, above). Table 2.6 shows the numbers and percentages of applicants, admissions, and new 

registrants in the three underrepresented minority groups for University of California medical 

and law schools. The race ban was imposed upon graduate admissions one year earlier than on 

undergraduates.38 Thus, the 1997–98 school year is shown as the first year of the race ban, and 

1998–99 as the second year. 

First, only a few (just three in fall 1995) Native Americans were admitted to UC medical schools 

prior to the race ban. Given these very small numbers, improved performance in later years (five 

in fall 1997) is hardly significant (see table 2.6). The general trends described below with other 

groups do not apply to Native Americans in regard to medical schools. 

Apart from this special occurrence with Native Americans, the University of California medical 

and law schools had large drops in the numbers of applicants, admissions, and new registrants 

for the three underrepresented minority groups from the 1995–96 pre-ban year to 1997–98, when 

the ban was implemented. In most instances, applications continued to drop in 1998–99, the second year of the race ban. Furthermore, the proportional representation of these groups among 

applicants, admissions, and new registrants decreased when the race ban was imposed. The lower 

representation of African Americans in law schools was particularly severe, as is shown in more 

detail in figure 2.3. African Americans were 7.2 percent of those admitted to UC law schools in 

1995–96, but only 2.2 percent of admissions in 1997–98 (see table 2.6 and figure 2.3). 

 

37 See, e.g., Piper Fogg, “U. of California, for First Time, Admits More Minority Students Than It Did Under Affirmative Action,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 8, 2002, <www.chronicle.com/daily/2002/04/ 

2003040801n.htm>. Note that these reports are based on preliminary data and the numbers and percentages sometimes differ from those given here for earlier years. See University of California, Office of the President, “Student/Workforce Data,” <www.ucop.edu/news/studstaff.html>. 

38 University of California, Office of the President, “Policy on Future Admissions, Employment, and Contracting.” 
Draft Staff Report 25

Table 2.6 

University of California Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollment for Underrepresented Minority

Groups in Medical and Law Schools for Selected School Years 

Pre-Ban Pre-Ban

1995-1996 1997-1998 1998-1999 2001-2002 1995-1996 1997-1998 1998-1999 2001-2002

University of California Medical Schools -- Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco

Applicants 1,382 1,042 820 846 4.9% 4.2% 3.5% 3.9%

Admissions 76 47 51 75 6.5% 4.1% 4.5% 6.1%

New registrants 36 27 24 20 6.3% 4.7% 4.2% 3.5%

Applicants 2,586 1,811 1,741 1,606 9.1% 7.3% 7.4% 7.4%

Admissions 180 117 144 121 15.4% 10.3% 12.6% 9.8%

New registrants 81 53 62 46 14.2% 9.3% 10.9% 8.1%

Applicants 197 191 117 141 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7%

Admissions 3 8 5 5 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4%

New registrants 2 5 3 2 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4%

University of California Law Schools -- Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles2

Applicants 962 647 504 643 7.8% 6.3% 4.5% 4.8%

Admissions 186 59 68 107 7.2% 2.2% 2.7% 4.0%

Enrollment 44 16 19 28 6.5% 1.9% 2.6% 3.4%

Applicants 1,339 895 856 1,060 10.9% 8.8% 7.7% 7.9%

Admissions 242 170 159 184 9.3% 6.4% 6.3% 6.8%

Enrollment 86 59 51 57 12.8% 7.2% 7.0% 7.0%

Applicants 178 81 104 101 1.5% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7%

Admissions 28 14 18 12 1.1% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4%

Enrollment 11 4 7 5 1.6% 0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 1

 "Mexican Americans/Chicanos," "Puerto Rican (mainland)," and "Other Hispanic" are included. 2 The Hastings School of Law is also part of the University of California system, although it is not included in these figures.

Source: University of California, Office of the President, "University of California, Medical School Applicants, Admits and New 

Registrants, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1996 to Fall 2001, Numbers"; "University of California, Medical School Applicants, Admits and

New Registrants, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1996 to Fall 2001, Percentages"; "University of California, Medical School Applicants,

Admits and New Registrants, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1991 to Fall 1995, Numbers"; "University of California, Medical School 

Applicants, Admits and New Registrants, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1991 to Fall 1995, Percentages"; "University of California, Law

School Applications, Admissions, and First Year Class Enrollments, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1993 to Fall 2001, Numbers"; and 

Admissions, and First Year Class Enrollments, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1993 to Fall 2001, Percentages." See

<www.ucop.edu/acadadv/datamgmt/graddata/>, Feb. 5, 2002 (accessed on Aug. 14, 2002).

Hispanics

Native Americans

African Americans

Hispanics 1

Native Americans

African Americans

Number Percent

Race Ban Race Ban

Whatever professional school admissions policies were put in place by fall 2001, they increased 

the admissions among African Americans slightly. However, the increases in admissions were 

not always realized in enrollment. The proportions of African Americans and Hispanics enrolled 

in UC medical and law schools remained below the levels of 1995–96, and the proportion of Native Americans enrolled in law schools remained below that baseline year (see figure 2.3 and table 2.6). In short, for the 2001–02 school year, the five UC medical schools enrolled an average 

of four African Americans, nine Hispanics, and no Native Americans each. The law schools each 

enrolled an average of nine African Americans, 19 Hispanics, and one to two Native Americans. 
Draft Staff Report 26

Source: University of California, Office of the President, "University of California, Law School Applications,

Admissions, and First Year Class Enrollments, by Ethnicity/Race, Fall 1993 to Fall 2001, Percentages."

Figure 2.3

Percentage of African American Applicants, Admissions, and New Registrants at

University of California Law Schools, 1995 to 2001

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1995-

1996

1996-

1997

1997-

1998

1998-

1999

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

Applicants

Admissions

New

registrants

Affirmative Action and Outreach 

Before the ban, the University of California had affirmative action programs. When Proposition 

209 passed, there was uncertainty about whether the race ban applied to outreach. Ultimately, 

programs to diversify the university’s student body were targeted differently and were referred to 

as outreach.39 Thus, not just admissions, but outreach programs were affected by the race ban. 

Affirmative Action Programs Before the Race Ban 

UC affirmative action efforts were characterized as “race-attentive” programs because race was 

one factor considered, but no student was to be admitted on the basis of race alone. With few exceptions, all applicants must meet UC academic requirements to be admitted.40 Instead, efforts 

were directed toward bolstering the eligibility of underrepresented minority groups. In the mid1980s, these included programs to encourage African Americans and Latinos to attend college, 

to provide counseling and tutoring to help retain more minorities in the UC system, and to work 

with public school teachers to raise the quality of teaching at schools with high minority enrollments.

41 

 

39 Amy Wallace, “Los Angeles Times Interview; Richard Atkinson; Maintaining a Diverse UC in a Post Affirmative-Action World,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 27, 1996, p. M-3. 40 Bill Stall, “Wilson Steps up Affirmative Action Attack,” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 1995, p. A-3. Exceptions 

were under the “Admissions by Exception” policy that provided for students with course deficiencies due to the unavailability of courses in their high schools. One UC regent stated, in 1996, that 16 percent of African Americans, 1

percent of Asians, and 2 percent of whites were admitted to Berkeley under this policy. Ruben Navarrette Jr., “The 

State/Affirmative Action; Will Outreach Programs Be the Next Target?” Los Angeles Times, July 28, 1996, p. M-6. 41 “Opening the Door Wider,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 20, 1986, Metro, part 2, p. 4.
Draft Staff Report 27

The Early Outreach Program (later the Early Academic Outreach Program) helped high school 

minority students take college preparatory classes. The program gave parents information about 

college entrance requirements and financial aid, brought students to campus for visits, and provided summer enrichment and UC minority students to act as tutors and role models.42 A second 

key outreach program encouraged minority students to concentrate on mathematics, science, and 

engineering and offered internships, research support, and stipends for minority undergraduates 

studying these subjects.43

The Young Black Scholars program was a UC Los Angeles effort to increase representation of 

minority students by helping promising students prepare for college. It provided academic support and informal mentoring to ninth- through 12th-grade students in the Los Angeles school district and several surrounding communities. The academic support included workshops on writing 

skills, math, and science and preparation for college entrance exams. Community organizations 

provided mentors matched to the career, subject, or interests of the students. In 1995–96, the 

program had 800 students, most of whom were headed to college.44

UC affirmative action programs were never as well financed, widespread, comprehensive, or 

successful as one might hope. The Board of Regents often planned expanded outreach to African 

Americans and Latinos, but was not always successful in obtaining the requested state funding.45 

A Period of Uncertainty About Outreach Programs 

In July 1999, proposed legislation to exempt certain outreach efforts and the pursuit of diversity 

goals from the affirmative action ban was vetoed by the governor.46 On November 30, 2000, the 

California Supreme Court ruled on a San Jose contracting program that government agencies 

could no longer limit recruitment efforts to women and minorities. It dismissed affirmative action programs as “proportional group representation” that grant preferences in favor of minorities, but gave limited guidance on how to construct programs that comply with Proposition 209.47

Subsequently, a court distinguished between outreach efforts “designed to broaden the pool of 

potential applicants without reliance on . . . impermissible race or gender classifications” and 

those that discriminate against or grant preferences to individuals or groups based upon race or 

gender. The court declared the latter prohibited, but not the former.48 The University of California, however, had reconstructed its programs to no longer use race and ethnicity in identifying 

recipients of outreach long before these court and legislative decisions were made. 

 

42 Anthony Perry, “Asians Make Big Gains at UCSD,” Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1987, Metro, part 2, p. 1; David 

Smollar, “Colleges Wooing Minority Students Younger and Younger,” Los Angeles Times, Metro, part 2, p. 1. 

43 “Opening the Door Wider”; Ralph Frammolino, “UC Plans to Boost Aid to Minorities,” Los Angeles Times, p. A-3. 44 “Southern California Voices/A Forum for Community Issues,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 30, 1996, Metro, part B, 

p. 7. The Young Black Scholars program was described by Virginia Hathaway, interim director of the program in 

Los Angeles. 

45 See “Opening the Door Wider,” p. 4; Perry, “Asians Make Big Gains at UCSD.” 46 Dave Lesher, “California and the West; Davis Rejects Gender, Racial Hiring Efforts,” Los Angeles Times, July 29, 

1999, p. A-3. 

47 Hi-Voltage Wire Works Inc. et al. v. City of San Jose et al., 24 Cal. 4th 537 (2000). See, e.g., Maura Dolan, “State 

Justices Deal New Setback to Affirmative Action,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 2000, p. A-1. 

48 See Ward Connerly v. State Personnel Board et al., and California Business Council for Equal Opportunity et al., 

2001 CA (Cal. Ct. App., 3rd App. Dist.) C032042, p. 33. 
Draft Staff Report 28

Outreach Programs Under the Race Ban 

To refocus the programs not to directly use race to identify schools to receive outreach, UC’s 

president, Richard C. Atkinson, directed the campuses to target schools that had significant educational disadvantages, such as limited college preparatory courses and a poor record of sending 

students to the university.49 Even before any prohibition was issued against targeting outreach 

programs to particular races or ethnic groups, Atkinson had decided to focus programs using 

geographic distribution, income level, or lower socioeconomic background, and high schools 

with low numbers of students going to UC—criteria he claimed would primarily reach black and 

Latino high schools.50

 

In 1997, because of anticipated drops in the numbers of black and Latino students admitted, 

UC’s Board of Regents recommended a major expansion of, often doubling, the university’s college-prep programs in high schools and the extension of them deeper into middle and elementary 

schools.51 The expanded effort included: 

 Academic enrichment programs, such as the Early Academic Outreach Program now focused on disadvantaged schools.52 The plan called for UC campuses to adopt 50 lowperforming high schools, about 100 middle schools, and 300 elementary schools.53 In 

2000, UC was involved in 7 or 8 percent of schools in California.54 

 Mentoring programs by which UC students make contact with California’s public school 

students and their parents.55 

 Plans for improving teaching skills in low-performing schools and for teacher recruitment 

and retention programs.56

 Scholarships for disadvantaged students.57

 Programs to assist community college students in transferring to UC.58

Examples of programs to increase college eligibility among minority students are (1) UC Irvine’s 

Partnership to Accelerate College Eligibility (PACE), started in 1997 in five poor school districts 

 

49 Amy Wallace, “New UC Chief to Seek Input on ‘Downsizing’ Bureaucracy,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3, 1995, p. 

A-3; Wallace, “Los Angeles Times Interview; Richard Atkinson; Maintaining a Diverse UC in a Post AffirmativeAction World”; Kenneth R. Weiss, “UC Proposes Push to Ready Disadvantaged for College,” Los Angeles Times, 

May 21, 1997, p. A-1. 

50 Wallace, “Los Angeles Times Interview; Richard Atkinson; Maintaining a Diverse UC in a Post AffirmativeAction World.” 

51 Weiss, “UC Proposes Push to Ready Disadvantaged for College”; Amy Wallace, “UC Regents Panel OKs Minority Outreach Plan,” Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1997, p. A-3. 

52 Weiss, “UC Proposes Push to Ready Disadvantaged for College.” 

53 Ibid.; Amy Wallace, “UC Regents Panel OKs Minority Outreach Plan.” 54 Kenneth R. Weiss, “Los Angeles Times Interview; Alex Saragoza,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 2000, p. M-3. 

55 Wallace, “New UC Chief to Seek Input on ‘Downsizing’ Bureaucracy”; Weiss, “UC Proposes Push to Ready Disadvantaged for College.” 

56 Wallace, “UC Regents Panel OKs Minority Outreach Plan.” 

57 Ibid. 

58 Weiss, “UC Proposes Push to Ready Disadvantaged for College.” 
Draft Staff Report 29

to raise the reading skills of second graders, prepare middle school students for algebra, and get 

high school students ready for the SAT;59 (2) Berkeley’s program, Break the Cycle, in which 

university students give individual math instruction to neighboring poor and minority students;60

and (3) UC San Diego’s charter school, the Preuss School, which grooms needy middle and high 

school students for the rigors of elite colleges with in-depth instruction, extended class periods, 

longer than usual school days and school years, and mentoring.61

Yet, while UC outreach programs are no longer targeted by race or ethnicity, there are some privately funded programs for underrepresented minority groups. A UC Santa Barbara project, 

called Engaging Latino Communities for Education or ENLACE, was implemented in 2001 and 

funded through the W.K. Kellogg Foundation with a $1.5 million grant. The plan targeted three 

areas in California and called for educating families about college options, showing bilingual 

public service commercials and video histories of Latino leaders on cable stations, and assigning 

Latino college students as mentors to grade-schoolers. It emphasized literacy for students in elementary grades, college preparation for high school students, and retention for college students.62

Affirmative Action and Outreach at Professional Schools 

Officials at UC medical and law schools recognize a vast need to increase the numbers of underrepresented students among enrollees in the professional schools.63 To combat shortages of African American and Latino professionals in medicine and law, university officials emphasize a 

need for outreach targeted to underrepresented minority groups and for an overhaul of admissions to include nonacademic criteria and lowered entrance requirements, not necessarily nonqualifying ones, for these students. The decision to eliminate race-based affirmative action in 

admissions hurt professional schools through both outreach and admissions practices.64 

Current outreach programs for professional education include high school science fairs aimed at 

motivating more young minority students to consider becoming physicians, and incentive programs, for example, that assist new medical school graduates with paying off large school loans 

in exchange for agreeing to work in underserved communities.65 

 

59 Randal C. Archibold, “Young College Try; UCI Pilot Program Aims to Raise Minority Students’ Junior High 

Grades, University Admission Rates,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 22, 1997, Metro, part B, p. 1; “Orange County Perspective, Helping Poor Kids Beat the Odds,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 14, 1997, Metro, part B, p. 6. 

60 Weiss, “UC Proposes Push to Ready Disadvantaged for College.” 

61 Martha Groves, “Nurturing Seeds of College Success; Concerned About Disadvantaged Students’ Poor Preparation for Admission to Top Universities, UC San Diego Is Starting Its Own School to Help Them Get Ready,” Los 

Angeles Times, Aug. 18, 1999, Metro, part B, p. 2. 62 Jenifer Ragland, “Steering Latinos Toward College,” Los Angeles Times, Ventura County Edition, May 18, 2001, 

California section, part 2, p. 1. 

63 Herma Hill Kaybym and Michael Sharlot, “Affirmative Action Was a Success,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 29, 

1997, Metro, part B, p. 9; Antonio Olivo, “Doctor Shortage Severe in Poor Areas,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 19, 

1999, p. A-1. 

64 Olivo, “Doctor Shortage Severe in Poor Areas.” 

65 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 30

Conclusion 

The University of California has used a statewide 12.5 percent plan for college admissions for 

decades both with and without affirmative action. Bans on the use of race for admissions imposed 

in the late 1990s resulted in reductions in the already small proportions of African American, Hispanic, and Native American students admitted and enrolled in the system, as demonstrated here 

with undergraduate and professional school data. The university has instituted modifications to its 

admissions plan to help diversify the student population, including a 4 percent plan to admit the 

top students in any California high school, initiated for fall 2001, and a comprehensive review 

process, used first for fall 2002. These changes have led to small increases in the presence of 

these underrepresented minority groups. However, the success of the new policies is often 

judged against the year before the race ban was imposed, when anticipation of implementation 

had apparently already led to the dismantling of some affirmative action programs. The proportions of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are not as high as those in the 

1995–96 school year, when admissions processing occurred before the race ban was announced. 

Furthermore, the proportions of these underrepresented groups were not large even under affirmative action, and higher admission rates have not always translated into higher enrollment rates. 

The University of California operates an array of outreach programs intended to increase students’ rates of eligibility for college. Before the race ban, these programs were known as a

firmative action and targeted to minority students. Because of the race ban, the university 

targeted the programs more generally to disadvantaged students, doubled their outreach efforts 

and extended them deeper into middle and elementary schools. The effects of these efforts were 

also represented in the analysis of trends in admissions and enrollment data that revealed only 

small increases in the presence of underrepresented minority groups on UC campuses. However, 

the full effects of academic enrichment programs to middle and elementary school students will 

not be known for years to come. 

f-

 

The University of California system differs from those in Texas and Florida, which are analyzed 

below, in several ways. First, the analysis of California shows the effects of a race ban, since the 

percentage plan has been in place for decades. In Texas and Florida, analyses show the before 

and after effects of percentage plans adopted together with race bans. Second, the 12.5 percent 

plan applies only to California’s research institutions, that is, the University of California system. 

Texas and Florida imposed the percentage plan more broadly. Third, in California students must 

be in the top 12.5 percent of students statewide to gain admission to UC. The 4 percent plan relaxed this criterion so that the best students in each high school would qualify even if they were 

not in the top 12.5 percent statewide. In Texas and Florida the percentage is applied to the students’ high schools, not statewide. 

STATE OF TEXAS

Overview

The March 1996 ruling in Hopwood v. State of Texas by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abolished the use of race or ethnicity as a college recruitment, admission, financial aid, and student 

retention criterion in Texas.66 Centering on the University of Texas School of Law, the ruling 

66 Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996). USCCR, Toward an 

Understanding of Percentage Plans; Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, “Report on the Effects of Hop-
Draft Staff Report 31

found that by considering race or ethnicity in its admissions process the law school was violating 

the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.67 The court’s decision ended Texas’ use of the “Classic Model,” which incorporated affirmative action, for making admissions decisions.68 With its 

history of segregation, Texas had been hindered in its efforts to establish an effective affirmative 

action college admissions policy. Partial success was only achieved in the late 1980s, when minority enrollment increased slowly and only slightly.69

The Hopwood decision has had a lasting impact on the participation of minority group members 

in Texas’ institutions of higher learning, especially at its flagship institutions. Minority undergraduate and graduate enrollment and admissions have largely, except for the rare instance, declined at Texas’ public institutions. This is true for the state’s premier schools and programs, 

including the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) for undergraduate schools and UT 

School of Law and the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine 

(UTMB) for professional programs. To address the dearth of and decline in minority undergraduate students, Texas instituted a percentage plan aimed at maintaining minority group access 

to colleges and universities.70 The burden of maintaining minorities’ access to professional programs has fallen to Texas’ public institutions of higher learning because the percentage plan does 

not apply to professional programs. 

The following analysis reveals that Texas’ public institutions are providing fewer minorities with 

an opportunity to obtain a quality, if any, undergraduate education. Minority group members 

seeking to pursue professional academic training also face an often insurmountable barrier. Data 

analysis of undergraduate and professional enrollments and admissions pre- and post-Hopwood 

 wood on Minority Applications, Offers, and Enrollment at Public Institutions of Higher Education in Texas,” 1998, 

<http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/cfbin/ArchFetch.cfm?DocID=16&Format=HTML> (hereafter cited as Texas Higher 

Education Coordination Board, “Effects of Hopwood”). Affirmative action plans in higher education were also 

struck down in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi as they fall under the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction. It must be noted that a Texas A&M University associate dean views the initial Hopwood decision as more limited in scope and attributes its extension to scholarships and recruiting to former Texas Attorney General Dan 

Morales. See “ ‘Hopwood’ Ruling Could Roll Back Texas A&M’s Minority Progress,” February 1999, 

<http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/99/022599-12.html> for this discussion. 

67 Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, “Effects of Hopwood.” 

68 Gary M. Lavergne and Bruce Walker, Implementation and Results of HB 588 at the University of Texas at Austin, 

Report No. 3, p. 2. The Classic Model relied heavily on “SAT scores . . . high school class rank, and a required high 

school curriculum.” It also incorporated affirmative action and considered the “extent to which students exceeded 

high school curriculum requirements.” The University of Texas used the Classic Model during the years immediately preceding Hopwood. Affirmative action addressing higher education in Texas has been guided by three successive statewide planning documents. From 1983 to 1988, the Texas Educational Opportunity Plan for Higher 

Education was based on negotiations between Texas and the federal government resulting from the Adams v. 

Richardson lawsuit. Although Texas was not party to the suit, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil 

Rights determined that Texas had segregated African Americans in higher education and that vestiges of that dual 

system continued in 1979. Between 1989 and 1994, Texas addressed discrimination in higher education based on the 

Texas Plan, which it voluntarily developed and implemented. Finally, Access and Equity 2000 was developed and 

implemented in 1994, two years prior to the Hopwood decision. See Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, 

“Higher Education in Texas: 1998 Status Report,” 1998, <http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/HTML/0089/statbod.htm>. 69 The Texas Commission on a Representative Student Body, “Report of the Texas Commission on a Representative 

Student Body,” Oct. 15, 1998, <http://www.uhsa.uh.edu/TCRSB/report.html>. See footnote 3 for a historical discussion of Texas’ higher education affirmative action efforts. 70 The percentage plan is discussed in detail below. 
Draft Staff Report 32

reveal an overall, sometimes drastic, decline in the number of minorities. This staff analysis updates the Commission’s earlier findings in its 2000 statement Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans in Higher Education: Are They Effective Substitutes for Affirmative Action? which 

focused on UT-Austin. The current paper expands the analysis of professional programs to test 

the impact of the Hopwood decision on professional school admissions because Texas’ percentage plan does not apply to professional schools.71 Data sources include the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Education Data Center; the University of Texas at Austin, Office of 

Admissions; and a report examining the implementation and results of the Texas Top 10 Percent 

Law.72

Table 2.7 

Texas Public Institutions

Institutions in Texas A&M University System

Prairie View A&M University Tarleton State University 

Texas A&M International University Texas A&M University 

Texas A&M University at Galveston Texas A&M University-Commerce 

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Texas A&M University-Kingsville 

Texas A&M University-Texarkana West Texas A&M University 

Institutions in Texas State University System 

Angelo State University Lamar University 

Sam Houston State University Southwest Texas State University 

Sul Ross State University Sul Ross State University-Rio Grande College 

Institutions in the University of Texas System 

University of Texas at Arlington University of Texas at Austin 

University of Texas at Dallas University of Texas at Brownsville 

University of Texas at El Paso University of Texas-Pan American 

University of Texas of the Permian Basin University of Texas at San Antonio 

University of Texas at Tyler 

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 

Medical School 

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School 

of Medicine 

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of 

Medicine 

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School of Medicine 

Institutions in the University of Houston System 

University of Houston University of Houston-Clear Lake 

University of Houston-Downtown University of Houston-Victoria 

 

71 Flagship undergraduate Texas institutions are the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University. The 

four public institutions conferring law degrees in Texas are the University of Texas School of Law, University of 

Houston Law Center, Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and Texas Tech University 

School of Law. Furthermore, although the University of Texas System includes six health institutions, the Texas 

Higher Education Coordinating Board, Education Data Center only provided the Commission with data on the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center at 

Houston Medical School, and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School of Medicine. 

Data were not available for the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, the University of Texas 

MD Anderson Cancer Center, or the University of Texas Health Center at Tyler. 

72 The report is Implementation and Results of the Texas Automatic Admissions Law HB 588, by Gary M. Lavergne 

and Bruce Walker. 
Draft Staff Report 33

Table 2.7 (continued)

Non-System Institutions 

Midwestern State University Stephen F. Austin State University 

Texas Southern University Texas Southern University 

Texas Tech University Texas Woman's University 

University of North Texas 

Institutions to Which the 10 Percent Plan Applies 

All Texas public institutions offering undergraduate 

programs 

Institutions in This Analysis 

University of Texas-Austin 

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 

Medical School 

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston 

School of Medicine 

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center 

School of Medicine 

University of Texas Health Science Center at 

San Antonio School of Medicine 

Reason for Inclusion in the Study

Flagship status 

Selective status 

Key professional institutions 

Source: Compiled from various sources. 

The Texas Top 10 Percent Law 

Following the Hopwood decision, the state of Texas instituted an admissions percentage plan 

(HB 588) in 1998.73 The plan guarantees high school graduates in the top 10 percent of their 

class admission to Texas’ public institutions of higher learning.74 Unlike the percentage plans in 

California and Florida, Texas’ plan guarantees eligible first-time freshman students admission to 

the Texas public institution of their choice.75

HB 588 requires institutions to review the academic records and other factors they deem appropriate of non-top 10 percent applicants to determine individual abilities to perform universitylevel work.76 This assessment also resolves whether an applicant would benefit from a retention 

program. Universities may require academically deficient students to enroll in enrichment 

courses and orientation programs during their academic career.77 UT-Austin78 has established 

 

73 American Council of Education, Center for Policy Analysis, “Percentage Plans for College Admissions,” ACE 

Issue Brief, January 2001, <http://www.acenet.edu/resources/reports/percentage-plans.pdf> (hereafter cited as ACE, 

“Percentage Plans”). 

74 TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 51.803(a) (1997); ACE, “Percentage Plans.” 75 TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. §§ 51.802–51.803(a) (1997); USCCR, Understanding Percentage Plans; ACE, “Percentage Plans.” 

76 TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 51.805(b) (1997); Bruce Walker, Implementation and Results of HB 588, Report 1: The 

University of Texas at Austin, The University of Texas Admissions Research at Austin, November 1998, 

<http://www.utexas.edu/student/research/reports/admissions/HB588.html> (hereafter cited as Walker, Implementation and Results). 77 TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 51.803(b) (1997). 
Draft Staff Report 34

guidelines that direct its retention officer to carefully review the files of top 10 percent students 

who have “weak high school preparation or . . . extremely low SAT/ACT test scores . . . to determine the appropriate academic support required for success.”79

The Texas plan also provides public universities with admissions guidelines for students not 

ranked in the top 10 percent of their class. In addition to considering a student’s academic performance, universities are instructed to “consider all of, any of, or a combination of” 17 other 

factors when determining whether to admit a first-time freshman applicant,80 including: 

 Socioeconomic background, including household income and parent’s level of education. 

 Whether an applicant is bilingual. 

 The financial status of the applicant’s school district. 

 The performance level of the applicant’s school as determined by the school accountability criteria used by the Texas Education Agency. 

 An applicant’s responsibilities outside of school, including employment and assisting in 

raising a child. 

 An applicant’s performance on standardized tests. 

 An applicant’s performance on standardized tests in comparison with that of other students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. 

 An applicant’s personal interview. 

 Any other consideration an institution deems necessary in accomplishing its stated mission.81

Texas A&M82 may provide a limited number of those lacking college preparatory coursework or 

strong academic credentials provisional admission contingent upon successfully completing a 

summer school program at the university.83

UT-Austin, the University of Texas System, and Texas A&M also responded to Hopwood. UTAustin ensures top 10 percent students enrollment in their choice of major, with the exceptions of 

the architecture and fine arts programs.84 According to UT-Austin’s admissions office, students 

 78 The University of Texas at Austin is part of the 15-member (nine academic universities and six health institutions) 

University of Texas System. 

79 Walker, Implementation and Results. 80 TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 51.805 (1997). 81 Id.

82 Texas A&M University is part of the nine-member Texas A&M University System. 83 Texas A&M University, Office of Admissions, “Freshman Admission—2002,” November 2002, <http://www. 

tamu.edu/admissions/Undergrad/ubook01/a_fresh.htm>. 

84 Walker, Implementation and Results; Wayne J. Camara, “Pursuing Campus Diversity After Affirmative Action: 

An Assessment of Class Rank Plans for College Admissions,” Association of American Colleges and Universities, 

Diversity Digest, Spring/Summer 2000, <http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/Sp.Sm00/affirmative.html>. Enrollment in the architecture program is determined by the department faculty, who consider more than class rank, while 

fine arts faculty base enrollment in music and dance on the results of a student’s audition. 
Draft Staff Report 35

admitted into their first-choice major enroll more frequently than students who are offered admission to their second choice.85 Students recruited by the academic institutions in the UT system are given information on the educational opportunities available to them at these 

universities.86 Recruitment of “socially and economically disadvantaged students” is enhanced 

by innovative approaches to meeting financial aid needs, according to officials.87 UT system institutions also run student retention programs.88

In December 2001, Texas A&M University System regents tentatively approved a plan that 

would permit the university to pursue the top 20 percent of students at approximately 250 Texas 

high schools that had been deemed low performing or disadvantaged.89 The goal: to automatically admit to Texas A&M graduating seniors from these schools who ranked in the top 20 percent of their class if they met the university’s requirements for curriculum, grade point average, 

and standardized test scores.90 However, unresolved legal concerns prompted university officials 

to table the proposal temporarily in March 2002.91 When revived, the plan will include about 100 

eligible high schools and be on sounder legal footing given standards set after the Hopwood decision, according to university officials.92

Other universities in Texas have also created policies within the legal boundaries established by 

Hopwood for increasing minority enrollment. Texas Tech University, for instance, has been increasing the opportunity for students to participate in retention programs at the college and university levels.93 According to university officials, many ongoing programs target underrepresented 

groups and will provide greater diversity among students in the next few years.94

Effects of Hopwood on Minority Enrollment 

During the years immediately preceding Hopwood, the University of Texas used what was 

known as a “Classic Model” for making admissions decisions, which relied on the combined 

SAT score and high school class rank, but this method alone had not produced diverse classes.95

 

85 Walker, Implementation and Results. 86 The University of Texas System, Special Regental Committee on Minorities and Women, “A Time for Fulfillment: The 21st Century Commitment to Equal Opportunity in the University of Texas System,” July 2000, p. 2. Recruitment efforts are universal, not solely directed at minority students. 87 Ibid. 

88 Ibid. 

89 Linda K. Wertheimer, “A&M Tries New Diversity Tactic: University Wants to Target Top 20% at 250 LowRanking Schools,” Dallas Morning News, Feb. 10, 2002, p. 1A; Lydia Lum, “Texas A&M Admission Proposal 

Draws Controversy,” Black Issues in Higher Education, vol. 18 (January 2002), p. 10. 90 “Texas A&M Shelves Pilot Enrollment Plan,” Black Issues in Higher Education, vol. 19 (March 2002), p. 14. 91 Ibid.; Diana Abouali, “Affirmative Action’s Uncertain Future: Proponents of Race-Conscious Admissions Firm 

on Belief, But Less Confident on Whether Policy Could Survive a Supreme Court Review,” Black Issues in Higher 

Education, vol. 19 (March 2002), p. 13; Ron Nissimov, “Detouring Toward Diversity, Schools Pushing Limits of 

Hopwood Ruling,” Houston Chronicle, May 5, 2002, p. 1A. 

92 Nissimov, “Detouring Toward Diversity.” 

93 Texas Tech University, “Agency Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2001–2005,” June 2001, p. 24. 

94 Ibid. 

95 Gary M. Lavergne and Bruce Walker, Implementation and Results of the Texas Automatic Admissions Law HB 

588, Report No. 4, p. 2. 
Draft Staff Report 36

The SAT, like virtually all standardized tests, has a well-documented history of differential performance gaps among socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups and between genders.96 As a result, to meet its diversity goals, and in order to enroll a freshman class whose demographics bore 

some resemblance to the state’s, the university continued to use the Classic Model, with affirmative action, until Hopwood forced its removal.97 

In 1994, prior to Hopwood, whites made up 64 percent of the total enrollment at UT-Austin. Minorities accounted for 36 percent; blacks made up 5 percent and Hispanics accounted for nearly 

15 percent. During the next two years, the percentage of whites and Hispanics continued to increase slightly as the percentage of blacks continued to decline. The summer/fall 1996 freshman 

class was the last one to be admitted under the Classic Model. In 1996, the percentage of whites 

and Hispanics enrolled at UT-Austin increased from the previous year to 65 and 16 percent, respectively, but the percentage of enrolled blacks decreased by one percentage point to 4 percent. 

By 1997, minority enrollment as a percentage of the total enrollment had declined to its lowest 

point since 1994; blacks accounted for less than 3 percent of the total enrollment at the UTAustin and Hispanics accounted for nearly 13 percent (see figure 2.4). 

Between 1997 and 1999, after the Hopwood decision, minority enrollment for both blacks and 

Hispanics increased (see figure 2.4). The largest increase in minority enrollment occurred between 1998 and 1999, which was the first year that the percentage plan was in effect. The enrollment rate of Asian Pacific Americans also increased, and by 2000, Asian Pacific Americans 

accounted for 17 percent of all freshmen enrolled at UT-Austin.98 Between 1999 and 2000, Hispanic enrollment at UT-Austin decreased by one percentage point to 13 percent and the enrollment rate for blacks remained unchanged at 4 percent. 

By 2001, the enrollment rates for blacks had decreased to 3 percent from 4 percent in 2000. Although the enrollment rate for blacks decreased, those rates for both Hispanics and Asian Pacific 

Americans increased. Hispanic enrollment rates increased slightly to 14 percent from 13 percent. 

Enrollment rates for Asian Pacific Americans increased to 19 percent (an all-time high) from 17 

percent.99 The enrollment rate for whites was at an all-time low of 61 percent. The 2001 enrollment rates for both blacks and Hispanics were lower than the pre-Hopwood rates (see figure 2.4). 

The University of Texas-Austin still struggles to recruit black students, who constitute 12 percent of 

the state’s population.100 Bruce Walker, the university’s admissions director, stated, “We haven’t 

found that magic that makes the numbers jump quickly as we have with Hispanics and Asians.”101

University administrators continue to modify the implementation of the law. For example, UTAustin recently started a “Keep Texans in Texas!” plan, which matches scholarship offers from 

 

96 Ibid. 

97 Ibid. 

98 Ibid., p. 4. 

99 Ibid. 

100 Jim Yardley, “The 10 Percent Solution,” New York Times (Education Life), Apr. 14, 2002, p. 29. 101 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 37

out-of-state universities made to students in 130 high schools, in an effort to attract and retain 

students from the state.102

Figure 2.4 

The Effects of Hopwood on Minority Enrollment at UT–Austin, 1994–2001 

61.0 65.0 63.0 63.0 64.2 64.7 66.8 64.0

5.3 4.9 4.1 2.7 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0

13.0 14.0 14.7 15.5 12.6 13.0 14.0 14.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

White Black Hispanic

Source: University of Texas at Austin, Office of Admissions, Implementation and Results of HB 588, Report 2; Gary M. Lavergne 

and Bruce Walker, Implementation and Results of the Texas Automatic Admissions Law HB 588, Report 4, p. 4. 

Although the number of undergraduate minorities applying to the University of Texas-Austin has 

continued to increase since 1996, the percentage of those applying who are admitted has declined 

and the number of those admitted who enroll has also declined. In 1996, 809 blacks applied to 

UT-Austin and more than half were admitted. By 2001, the number of blacks applying to UTAustin had increased by 24 percent, but the percentage of applicants who were admitted had decreased by 19 percentage points. Only 38 percent of black applicants were admitted in 2001 and 

of those admitted only 266 enrolled. A pattern similar to that of blacks is evident for Hispanics. 

In 1996, 2,492 Hispanics applied to UT-Austin and 65 percent of those 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 percentage points (see table 

2.8). 

The acceptance rate (referred to here as the percentage of applied admitted) may better gauge the 

impact of percentage plans. Table 2.8 shows the existence of an alarming trend: acceptance rates 

have not kept pace with the number of minority students applying to the UT-Austin. 

 

102 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 38

Table 2.8 

UT-Austin Undergraduate Admissions Statistics by Ethnicity

Applied Admitted Percent of 

applied admitted Enrolled 

1996 

White 10,584 6,571 62.0 4,159 

Black 809 461 57.0 266 

Hispanic 2,492 1,617 64.9 932 

1999 

White 10,406 6,802 65.4 4,084 

Black 957 452 47.2 251 

Hispanic 2,615 1,498 57.3 861 

2001 

White 11,164 6,720 60.2 3,684 

Black 999 380 38.0 205 

Hispanic 2,998 1,513 50.5 832 

Source: University of Texas at Austin, Office of Admissions, Implementation and Results of HB 588, 

Report 2; Gary M. Lavergne and Bruce Walker, Implementation and Results of the Texas Automatic 

Admissions Law HB 588, Report 4, p. 4. 

Admissions Under the 10 Percent Plan 

The automatic admissions policy mandated by HB 588, or the 10 percent plan, has had an impact 

on enrollment and admission at the University of Texas-Austin. The number of minority freshmen admitted to UT-Austin continued to increase during the first three years of the plan. The 

largest increase in the number of minorities admitted to UT-Austin occurred between 1998 and 

1999, when 125 more blacks and 177 more Hispanics were admitted (see table 2.9). Such increases are partially results of an increase in the number of students applying because of new efforts that encourage minority high school students to attend UT-Austin.103 

The greatest change in the rate of the top 10 percent of students admitted to UT-Austin occurred 

between 1998 and 1999, when the percentage of blacks and Hispanics admitted increased by 87 

and 24 percent, respectively (see figure 2.5). This increase is partially explained by a change in 

the university’s recruitment policy and the reassessment of recruitment, retention, and scholarship programs that occurred during that time.104 Historically, UT-Austin had admitted students 

from only about 50 of the same schools within the state. The new policy had not brought about 

aggressive recruitment of students from Texas high schools that historically had sent few students to the University of Texas. As a result, recruiters began targeting students in ninth and 10th 

grades as prospects for the program. To draw students attending schools traditionally underrepresented to UT-Austin, the Longhorn Scholarship program, aimed at specific low-income high 

schools, was also created and awarded 64 four-year need-based scholarships in its first year. 

 

103 USCCR, Understanding Percentage Plans, p. 3. 

104 John F. Kain and Daniel M. O’Brien, “Hopwood and the Top 10 Percent Law: How They Have Affected the College Enrollment Decisions of Texas High School Graduates” (paper presented at the National Bureau of Economic 

Research Meeting on Higher Education, Boston, MA, Nov. 9, 2001), p. 5. 
Draft Staff Report 39

Table 2.9 

Top 10 Percent of Students Admitted to UT-Austin by Ethnicity 

White Black Hispanic 

1997 – before percent plan 2,262 118 613 

1998 – 1st year of plan 2,561 143 734 

1999 – 2nd year of plan 2,753 268 911 

2000 – 3rd year of plan 3,182 291 1,020 

2001 – 4th year of plan 3,213 245 1,012 

Source: Gary M. Lavergne and Bruce Walker, Implementation and Results of the Texas 

Automatic Admissions Law HB 588, Report 4, p. 4. 

Between 1999 and 2000, the percentage of minorities being admitted to UT-Austin increased, 

but to a lesser extent. By the fourth year of the plan, the admittance rate for both blacks and Hispanics decreased. Between 2000 and 2001, the number of black students admitted to UT-Austin 

fell by nearly 16 percent, a rate nearly 14 times greater than that for Hispanic students (see figure 

2.5). The reason for the decline in minority enrollment, especially for blacks, is unclear. But 

what is clear is that efforts such as recruitment, financial aid, and academic support attract and 

retain minorities. As stated by Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard, 

“if you have a percent plan without those, you don’t have too much.”105

A statewide survey of minority high school students concluded that universities need to increase recruitment efforts and improve communication about financial aid opportunities.106

Students indicated that a welcoming campus environment, financial and academic assistance, 

and multicultural programs were the three top factors that could improve retention of minority 

students. 

 

105 Yardley, “The 10 Percent Solution,” p. 29. 

106 Texas A&M University, “How the Hopwood Decision Has Affected Texas Universities,” Aggie Daily, p. 1, 

<http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/archive/021398-1.html>. 
Draft Staff Report 40

Figure 2.5 

Change in the Top 10 Percent of Students Admitted to UT-Austin by Ethnicity, 1997–2001

13.2

7.5

16.8

0.9

21.2

87.4

8.6

19.7

24.1

12.0

-15.8

-0.8

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

 White Black Hispnanic

Source: Data calculated from table 2.9. 

Minority Professional Enrollment and Admissions in Selected Programs 

Pre- and Post-Hopwood

The Hopwood decision immediately affected the enrollment of African Americans and Hispanics 

in Texas’ public law and medical schools, causing a significant drop in the number of African 

American and Hispanic law and medical students.

107 Since HB 588 does not apply to professional schools, it plays no role in providing equal access to professional schools for minority students. Thus, Texas professional schools are not legally required to accept the top 10 percent of 

college graduates from public and private colleges and universities throughout the state. The effects of Hopwood on minority enrollments and admissions in several professional schools are 

examined below. 

The University of Texas School of Law 

The effects of the Hopwood decision on the UT School of Law, the premier public law school in 

the state, are apparent after analysis of enrollment data for the academic years 1996–97 through 

2000–01.108 In 1996–97, the final year in which affirmative action played a role in admissions 

policies, African Americans and Hispanics were 6.4 and 11.8 percent, respectively, of total en-

 

107 Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, “Effects of Hopwood”; the Texas Commission on a Representative 

Student Body, “Report of the Texas Commission on a Representative Student Body,” Oct. 15, 1998, 

<http://www.uhsa.uh.edu/TCRSB/report.html>. 

108 Note that for the academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 the number of students listed as Unknown/Not Reported are, respectively, 78 (5.7 percent) and 99 (7.0 percent). Although these numbers are substantial, statistically, 

the probability that all or most of them are members of a particular minority group is highly, if not wholly, improbable. However, being that we will never know the racial or ethnic makeup of these individuals the analysis must 

state this fact. 
Draft Staff Report 41

rolled students, while Asian Pacific Americans represented 5.8 percent and Native American/Alaska Natives109 0.6 percent of the student body. White students accounted for 73.7 percent 

of total enrolled students at this time. During the initial year of the restrictions imposed by Hopwood, 1997–98, both white and Asian Pacific American student enrollment increased. For white 

students, the enrollment percentage rose to 77 percent, while for Asian Pacific Americans it 

reached 6.6 percent. Conversely, African American enrollment dipped to 4.7 percent, Hispanic 

enrollment to 10.2 percent, and Native American/Alaska Native to 0.5 percent (see table 2.10). 

Table 2.10 

Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, UT School of Law, 1996–97 through 2000–01

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01

Total enrollment 1,513 1,415 1,377 1,380 1,406

White 1,115 1,089 1,043 1,040 1,014

73.7% 77.0% 75.7% 75.4% 72.1%

Black 97 67 40 17 33

6.4% 4.7% 2.9% 1.2% 2.3%

Hispanic 179 145 122 114 126

11.8% 10.2% 8.9% 8.3% 9.0%

Asian Pacific American 88 94 90 83 73

5.8% 6.6% 6.5% 6.0% 5.2%

Native American/AK Native 9 7 10 8 10

0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7%

Unknown/Not reported 0 0 36 78 99

-- -- 2.6% 5.7% 7.0%

All minorities 373 313 262 222 242

24.7% 22.1% 19.0% 16.1% 17.2%

Source: The University of Texas School of Law, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Education Data Center. 

In 1998–99, there was a decline in enrollment from the previous academic year for all groups, 

except Native American/Alaska Natives. However, only African American and Hispanic enrollments declined from 1996–97, the final pre-Hopwood year. Specifically, African Americans represented only 2.9 percent of enrolled students, while Hispanics represented 8.9 percent in 1998–

99. The previous year, African American and Hispanic enrollments had been 6.4 and 11.8 percent, respectively. Academic year 1999–2000 witnessed a decline in enrollment across all groups 

compared with the previous year. However, once more, only African American and Hispanic enrollments were reduced from the pre-Hopwood numbers. The final year of the analysis reveals a 

decrease in the enrollment percentage of all groups, except Native American/Alaska Natives, 

from the final pre-Hopwood year (see table 2.10). Yet, perhaps most disturbing is the steady de-

 

109 It must be noted that since the number of Native American/Alaska Native enrolled students is comparatively 

small, any change in percentages is also comparatively minor. 
Draft Staff Report 42

cline of minority enrollments from 1996 through 2000. In 1996–97, minorities represented 24.7 

percent of enrolled students; by 1999–2000 they were only 16.1 percent of the student body. Although in 2000–01 minority enrollment rose to 17.2 percent, this was only a 1.1 percent increase 

from the previous academic year but an overall decline of 7.5 percent from 1996–97, the final 

pre-Hopwood year. Finally, it must be noted that both 1999–2000 and 2000–01 include large 

numbers of “Unknown/Not Reported” entries. If many or all of these enrollments were members 

of a specific minority group, however unlikely that probability is, this analysis would have to be 

revised to account for that. 

Admissions at the Four Public Texas Law Schools 

Declining minority enrollment numbers at the UT School of Law only reveal one aspect of the 

situation encountered by minority law school applicants in Texas.110 Enrollment, of course, is 

contingent upon gaining admittance to the particular law school. In this respect, minorities have 

encountered varying degrees of success reliant upon the particular law school applied to. Admissions numbers are down for all minorities at the UT School of Law since the Hopwood decision 

while quite variable at the three other Texas public law schools. As seen in figures 2.6 through 

2.10, all minority admissions numbers in 2000–01 were below those of the final pre-Hopwood

year of 1996–97 at the UT School of Law.111 Thus, while African Americans were gaining admission to the school at a rate of 5.9 percent in 1996–97, by 2000–01 this rate had dropped to 3.6 

percent. Asian Pacific Americans, Hispanics, and Native American/Alaska Natives also experienced varying rates of decline over this period. The only group to have experienced a higher admissions rate than 1996–97 over this five-year period was Asian Pacific Americans. In 1997–98, 

the first year Hopwood was in effect, the admissions rate for this group was 9.9 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 1996–97. Since then, however, admission rates have been below 8.4 

percent for Asian Pacific Americans (see figures 2.6 through 2.10). 

 

Of course, minority applicants in Texas have other law schools from which to choose, although 

the UT School of Law is the premier program in the state. Success has varied for minorities at 

the three other Texas public law schools. At the University of Houston Law Center (UH), the 

African American admissions rate in 2000–01 (3.2 percent) was below that of 1996–97 (3.7 percent) (see figures 2.6 and 2.10). Although peeking in 1998–99 at 4.1 percent (see figure 2.8), the 

admissions rate has been in decline since then (see figures 2.9 and 2.10). A similar scenario has 

developed for Hispanic admissions, although post-Hopwood rates have never surpassed the 10.5 

percent of 1996–97 (see figures 2.6 through 2.10). Asian Pacific Americans are the only minority 

group with a higher admissions rate in 2000–01 (6.3 percent) than in 1996–97 (5.3 percent) (see 

figures 2.6 and 2.10). 

 

110 In admissions data, UT-Austin specifies Mexican American as opposed to Hispanic and Asian American as opposed to Asian/Pacific Islander. The university chose to count Hispanics other than Mexican Americans in the 

“Other” category, since the “Other” category is predominately, and, at least for 1998 enrollments, exclusively nonMexican-American Hispanic. 

111 The increase and decline in admissions numbers for African Americans at the UT-H (1996–97 through 1998–99) 

and Hispanics at UT-SA (1996–97 and 1997–98) are due to the small sample sizes (n). For African Americans at 

UT-H the sample sizes (n) are, respectively, 3 (1996–97),13 (1997–98), and 5 (1998–99). For Hispanics at UT-SA 

the sample sizes (n) are, respectively, 37 (1996–97) and 20 (1997–98). 
Draft Staff Report 43

Declining minority admission rates at the UT School of Law and the University of Houston Law 

Center have been addressed, to some degree, by the other two law schools examined, Texas 

Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) and Texas Tech University 

School of Law (TTU).112 African American admission rates at TMSL, a historically black 

institution, have been higher every year, except for 1998–99, since the Hopwood decision. The 

same is true for TTU, although numbers are significantly below those of TMSL (see figures 2.6 

through 2.10). Conversely, the rates of white admissions at TMSL from 1997–98 through 2000–

01 have consistently been below that of 1996–97, while at TTU they have stayed above the final 

pre-Hopwood rate (see figures 2.6 through 2.10). The same generally holds true for Hispanic 

admission rates over this period, except that TMSL admitted a higher rate, often significantly 

higher, of Hispanic applicants than TTU did (see figures 2.6 through 2.10). Interestingly, although TMSL has had a higher admissions rate for Asian Pacific American applicants than TTU 

over this period, post-Hopwood rates have been below that of 1996–97, while at TTU they have 

generally been above (see figures 2.6 through 2.10). 

Figure 2.6 

Admission Offers at the Four Public Texas Law Schools, 1996–97 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

57.5% 76.1% 22.8% 62.4%

3.7% 5.9% 44.4% 0.6%

10.5% 6.3% 22.8% 7.6%

5.3% 8.4% 6.4% 2.5%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 0.7%

UH UT Law TMSL TTU

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 

 

112 Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law, “About Thurgood Marshall School of Law and

Texas Southern University,” 2002, <http://www.tsu.edu/law/aboutus/aboutus.htm>. TMSL is a historically black

college established in 1947 and originally known as Texas State University for Negroes.
Draft Staff Report 44

Figure 2.7 

Admission Offers at the Four Public Texas Law Schools, 1997–98 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

55.8% 83.1% 10.2% 73.7%

3.8% 1.0% 45.8% 2.5%

8.9% 3.7% 23.1% 11.6%

7.6% 9.9% 4.7% 2.9%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% 0.6%

UH UT Law TMSL TTU

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 

Figure 2.8 

Admission Offers at the Four Public Texas Law Schools, 1998–99 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

55.6% 66.8% 7.9% 71.8%

4.1% 2.1% 41.6% 1.7%

8.3% 5.3% 17.4% 11.6%

5.3% 7.8% 4.5% 2.4%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.7%

UH UT Law TMSL TTU

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 
Draft Staff Report 45

Figure 2.9 

Admissions at the Four Public Texas Law Schools, 1999–2000 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

46.2% 68.7% 15.0% 69.1%

3.5% 2.9% 51.3% 2.8%

8.5% 5.5% 18.2% 15.5%

6.7% 6.6% 5.6% 3.3%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3%

UH UT Law TMSL TTU

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center.

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Figure 2.10 

Admission Offers at the Four Public Texas Law Schools, 2000–01 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

50.2% 66.3% 17.7% 75.0%

3.2% 3.6% 57.2% 2.2%

7.3% 6.1% 17.7% 8.8%

6.3% 7.7% 4.2% 2.9%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 1.6%

UH UT Law TMSL TTU

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 
Draft Staff Report 46

As hinted at by the data, it is possible that minority law school applicants are being attracted to 

other than the premier law school in Texas by the abandonment of affirmative action in the state. 

Although minority admissions data from the three other law schools vary to some extent, the UT 

School of Law has admitted fewer minorities in every post-Hopwood year examined.113

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine 

Overall, minority enrollment at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), the premier 

public medical school in Texas, did not decline as sharply as the UT School of Law. The latest 

data available, 2000–01, reveal an overall decline of 1.5 percent from the final pre-Hopwood

year of 1996–97. Respectively, 49.9 percent of enrollments were minority in 1996–97, compared 

with 48.4 percent in 2000–01. The highest percentage of minority enrollments in the five-year 

period, 54.0 percent, occurred in the 1997–98 academic year. Since then, minority enrollment 

has steadily declined, with the sharpest drop occurring between the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 

academic years, when overall minority enrollment fell to 50.6 percent from 53.9 percent (see table 2.11). However, only in the 2000–01 academic year was there a lower percentage of minority 

enrollment than the final pre-Hopwood year of 1996–97. Nevertheless, the most recent data on 

minority enrollment reveal that 5.6 percent fewer enrolled students are minorities than in the 

1997–98 academic year, the highpoint of this analysis. 

Minority group enrollment in 2000–01 was 1.5 percent less than in the final pre-Hopwood year 

of 1996–97. The percentage of minority students only declined by 1.5 percent because fewer 

Asian Pacific American students enrolled in 2000–01 than in 1996–97. Conversely, the percentages of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native American/Alaska Natives114 enrolled at 

UTMB during 2000–01 are below their respective numbers of 1996–97. For example, in 1996–

97, 11.8 percent of enrollments were African American; by 2000–2001 African Americans were 

9.4 percent of enrolled students. Furthermore, except for Hispanics, who accounted for higher 

percentages of enrollment in 1997–98 (24.0 percent) and 1998–99 (24.8 percent) than they did in 

1996–97 (22.3 percent), the enrollment of these groups has steadily declined since 1996–97. The 

sharpest reduction has been in African American enrollments, from 11.8 percent in 1996–97 to 

9.4 percent in 2000–01. The difference between Hispanic and African American enrollment during 1997–98 and 2000–01 is only 0.3 percent.115 However, unlike Hispanic enrollment, African 

American enrollment steadily declined over the five-year period of analysis (see table 2.11). 

 

113 The University of Texas School of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law, and University of Houston Law 

School all report modifications of their admissions procedures, placing more weight on factors other than grade 

point average and scores on the primary law school admissions test, the LSAT. The University of Texas listed 19 

“other” factors; Texas Tech University listed 15. The University of Houston noted that “other” factors now compose 

70 percent of its admissions index, as compared with 30 percent devoted to the LSAT and grade point average, a 

reversal of earlier weighting. These three law schools also report an expansion of recruitment activities, including 

alumni contact with prospective students, direct faculty contact both on and off campus, active involvement by student groups, private scholarship development, and efforts to work with undergraduate institutions to develop and 

encourage participation in pre-law curriculums. See Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, “Effects of Hopwood,” appendix F. 

114 As with the UT School of Law data, it must be noted that since the number of Native American/Alaska Native 

enrolled students is comparatively small, any change in percentages is also comparatively minor. 

115 This is the difference in the respective numbers of African American and Hispanic enrollments in 1996–97 compared with 2000–01 (i.e., African American 2.4 percent and Hispanic 2.1 percent) and for both groups in those academic years (i.e., 2.4 percent less 2.1 percent). 
Draft Staff Report 47

Table 2.11 

Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, UT Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine, 

1996–97 through 2000–01 

1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 

Total enrollment 821 829 820 810 823 

White 411 380 375 390 404 

50.1% 45.8% 45.7% 48.1% 49.1% 

Black 97 99 94 79 77 

11.8% 11.9% 11.5% 9.8% 9.4% 

Hispanic 183 199 203 177 166 

22.3% 24.0% 24.8% 21.9% 20.2% 

Asian Pacific American 124 147 145 152 154 

15.1% 17.7% 17.7% 18.8% 18.7% 

Native American/AK Native 6 3 0 2 1 

0.7% 0.4% -- 0.2% 0.1% 

Unknown/Not reported 0 0 1 9 17 

-- -- 0.1% 1.1% 2.1% 

All minorities 410 448 442 410 398 

49.9% 54.0% 53.9% 50.6% 48.4% 

Source: The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 

Education Data Center.

Finally, overall white enrollment dipped by 4.3 percent between 1996–97 and 1997–98 and had 

rebounded by 2000–01. Specifically, in 2000–01 white enrollment was 49.1 percent, compared 

with 50.1 percent in the final pre-Hopwood year, 1996–97. The overall white enrollment was 1.0 

percent less in 2000–01 than in 1996–97. Furthermore, after an initial dip in 1997–98 and 1998–

99, white enrollment began rising in 1999–2000 while African American and Hispanic enrollments commenced a downward trend (see table 2.11). The only group to have experienced a 

steady increase in enrollment over the five-year period is Asian Pacific Americans. The general 

trend foretells a further reduction in minority enrollments in the coming years.116

Admissions at Four Public Texas Medical Schools

Minority medical school enrollments only reveal a portion of the effect Hopwood has had in 

Texas. Admission rates are crucial for a fuller understanding of how minority medical school 

applicants have faired in Texas since Hopwood. Much like enrollment numbers, minority admission rates at the University of Texas Medical Branch, except those of Native American/Alaska 

Natives, have fluctuated over the five-year period, 1996–97 through 2000–01. For example, although African American admission rates were relatively stable from 1996–97 through 1999–

2000, in 2000–01 they declined to 4.8 percent, a drop of 4.3 percent from 1997–98 and 4.1 percent from 1999–2000, respectively. Similarly, Hispanic admission rates stayed relatively stable 

from 1996–97 through 1998–99 but began declining in 1999–2000. Asian Pacific Americans 

admission rates also fluctuated but had returned to the same level (19.6 percent) in 2000–01 that 

 

116 This premise will naturally require future data analysis. 
Draft Staff Report 48

they were in 1996–97, also 19.6 percent. Comparatively, white admission rates, although declining in the first post-Hopwood year of 1997–98 (41.1 percent), have rebounded since then with a 

highpoint of 56.9 percent in 1999–2000 (see figures 2.11 through 2.15). 

The three other medical schools examined reveal varying admission rates for minority applicants 

over this five-year period. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Medical 

School (UT-H), University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School of Medicine 

(UT-SA), and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine (TTMC) had 

very low admission rates for African American applicants in the final pre-Hopwood year of 

1996–97. These were, respectively, 1.1 percent, 1.1 percent, and 0.3 percent (see figure 2.11). In 

light of this, the possibility that more African American students would gain admission was very 

high. Still, rates did not increase significantly until 2000–01, the year in which there was a significant decline in African American admission rates at the University of Texas Medical Branch 

(see figures 2.12 through 2.15). Comparatively, however, only UT-H experienced a substantial 

increase, to 6.8 percent, relative to earlier years, while UT-SA had a rate (2.4 percent) barely 

above that of 1998–99 (2.3 percent), and TTMC (1.3 percent) was below those of 1998–99 (2.7 

percent) and 1999–2000 (2.6 percent). Figures 2.11 through 2.15 also reveal fluctuating admission rates for other minority applicants to these medical schools over this five-year period. 

White admission rates have remained relatively stable over this period, with UTMB (56.2 percent) and UT-SA (68.4 percent) showing an increase in 2000–01 compared with 1996–97, 51.3 

and 58.4 percent, respectively. Conversely, UT-H and TTMC both display a decrease from 

1996–97 (69.5 and 69.7 percent) to 2000–01 (63.3 and 66.7 percent). Still, relative to minority 

groups, white admission rates have stayed substantially strong at the four medical schools and 

the rates of decline at one school have been offset by increased rates at another (see figures 2.11 

through 2.15). Furthermore, in 1999–2000 and 2000–01, admission rates to UTMB were roughly 

5 percent higher than in 1996–97. 
Draft Staff Report 49

Figure 2.11 

Admission Offers at Four Public Texas Medical Schools, 1996–97 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

51.3% 69.5% 58.4% 69.7%

9.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.3%

18.9% 15.6% 13.9% 6.7%

19.6% 11.1% 21.7% 22.5%

Native American/Alaska Native 0 1.1% 2.2% 0.8%

UTMB UT-H UT-SA TTMC

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 

Figure 2.12 

Admission Offers at Four Public Texas Medical Schools, 1997–98 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

41.1% 69.2% 64.3% 71.2%

9.5% 4.7% 1.4% 0.9%

25.1% 10.4% 7.0% 6.3%

22.8% 14.0% 22.7% 21.6%

Native American/Alaska Native 0 1.1% 0.3% 0

UTMB UT-H UT-SA TTMC

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 
Draft Staff Report 50

Figure 2.13 

Admission Offers at Four Public Texas Medical Schools, 1998–99 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

50.4% 70.8% 67.2% 62.8%

8.9% 1.9% 2.3% 2.7%

21.0% 10.1% 16.4% 12.2%

18.5% 15.2% 9.7% 21.7%

Native American/Alaska Native 0 0.4% 0.8% 0.6%

UTMB UT-H UT-SA TTMC

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center.

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Figure 2.14 

Admission Offers at Four Public Texas Medical Schools, 1999–2000 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

56.9% 76.1% 63.2% 66.0%

8.9% 2.0% 0.8% 2.6%

14.9% 8.9% 16.3% 9.2%

16.0% 12.1% 17.8% 19.0%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.7% 0 0 0

UTMB UT-H UT-SA TTMC

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 
Draft Staff Report 51

Figure 2.15 

Admission Offers at Four Public Texas Medical Schools, 2000–01 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

56.2% 63.3% 68.4% 66.7%

4.8% 6.8% 2.4% 1.3%

13.6% 18.2% 13.8% 10.0%

19.6% 7.2% 14.2% 18.0%

Native American/Alaska Native 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0

UTMB UT-H UT-SA TTMC

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Source: Compiled from data provided by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, Education Data Center. 

Conclusion 

Outlawing race-conscious affirmative action programs in higher education in Texas had a negative impact on minority enrollment at the University of Texas-Austin. Between 1996, the year 

that the courts handed down the Hopwood decision, and 1997 minority enrollment at UT-Austin 

declined for both blacks and Hispanics. After HB 588 was enacted in 1998 and for several years 

thereafter, minority enrollment for both blacks and Hispanics continued to increase. By 2000, the 

number of black students being admitted to UT-Austin under the 10 percent plan reached 291, 

and 1,012 Hispanic students were admitted. As the program reached its fourth year, although the 

number of both black and Hispanic students declined, the decline was greatest among blacks. 

This decline may be an indication that initial efforts to encourage minority students to attend UTAustin have now been minimized or eliminated. It is clear that efforts such as recruitment, financial and academic support, and multicultural programs attract and retain minorities. 

Like undergraduate enrollments, minority enrollment at UT School of Law and the University of 

Texas Medical Branch has fluctuated to some extent since the Hopwood decision. However, 

unlike undergraduate programs, HB 588 does not bind professional programs in Texas. The result has been mixed for minority postgraduate enrollments. African American, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native117 enrollments in 2000–01 were almost exclusively less than those 

of 1996–97, although African American enrollments were the only ones to decline each year. 

Conversely, Asian Pacific Americans are the only minority group to have generally experienced 

an increase in enrollment over this period. Finally, minority admission rates over this period 

 

117 Again, it must be noted that since the number of Native American/Alaska Native enrolled students is comparatively small, any change in percentages is also comparatively minor. 
Draft Staff Report 52

show a similar pattern, although Asian Pacific American admission rates do not show the general 

increase that enrollment rates show. Thus, while gaining at some schools, minority admission 

rates have predominantly declined at the premier Texas law and medical schools. 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

Overview 

The Florida State University System 

Florida’s State University System (SUS) consists of 11 public institutions: the University of 

Florida, Florida A&M University, Florida State University, University of South Florida, Florida 

Atlantic University, University of West Florida, University of Central Florida, Florida International University, University of North Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University, and New College 

of Florida (until recently part of the University of South Florida). The University of Florida (the 

SUS flagship campus), Florida State University, and University of South Florida are research 

institutions, while Florida A&M University is a historically black institution.118 

All SUS institutions, with the exception of Florida Gulf Coast University and the New College of 

Florida, offer courses of study leading to a graduate degree. There are four law schools in SUS: 

the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law, Florida State University College of 

Law, Florida A&M Law School, and Florida International University College of Law.119 The 

latter two were created by legislation, Senate Bill 68, four months after Governor Bush signed 

Executive Order 99-281 in November 1999, which banned the use of race in university admissions.120 Senate Bill 68 was intended to increase the number of minority lawyers without the use 

of affirmative action. Factors considered in admissions decisions to the new law schools, which 

enrolled the first class of students in September 2002, included commitment to public service 

and whether the applicant is the first in his or her family to attend college.121 SUS has three colleges of medicine: the University of Florida College of Medicine, University of South Florida 

College of Medicine, and Florida State University College of Medicine. The Florida legislature 

created the Florida State University College of Medicine only in June 2000, and the institution 

enrolled the first class of medical students in fall 2001. 

 

118 Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges & Universities, “Florida’s Public University,” n.d., 

<http://www.borfl.org/univ_info/unitour.asp>; New College of Florida, “About NFC,” n.d., <http://www. 

ncf.edu/Documents/FactSheet.html>; “Governor Bush’s Equity in Education Plan,” <http://www.myflorida. 

com/myflorida/governement/governmentinitiative.one.florida/documents/educationPlan.edu>, November 1999 

(hereafter cited as Equity in Education Plan); University of Florida, “UF Facts and Rankings,” n.d., <http://www. 

ufl.edu/facts.html>. 

119 Note that Florida A&M University once housed a small law school at the Tallahassee campus. In 1968, Florida 

closed the law school and merged it with the mostly new law school at Florida State University. See Lewin Tamar, 

“Florida Tests Diversity at 2 Law Schools,” New York Times, Feb. 15, 2002, p. A16 (hereafter cited as Tamar, “Florida Tests Diversity”). 

120 FLA STAT. CH. 1004.39–1004.40 (2002); USCCR, Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans, p. 1. Note that 

the ban affected state contracting as well. MyFlorida.com, “Education,” <http://www.oneflorida.org/myflorida/ 

government/governorinitiatives/one_florida/education.html>. 

121 See Tamar, “Florida Tests Diversity,” p. A16. Note that currently, the Florida bar is about 2 percent black and 6 

percent Hispanic.
Draft Staff Report 53

This study focuses on the flagship institution, the University of Florida, and the selective Florida 

State University to determine access to high-status universities by minority first-time students. 

Affirmative action advocates are concerned that minority students are being shunted to lesser 

institutions and denied the education and social advantages associated with being graduates of 

selective schools. Comparable analysis on first-time graduate, law, and medical students again 

concentrates on the selective and key professional institutions. Thus, the University of Florida 

Graduate School, the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law, Florida State University College of Law, the University of Florida College of Medicine, and the University of 

South Florida College of Medicine are examined. Table 2.12 summarizes the above discussion. 

Table 2.12 

The Florida State University System 

Institutions in the Florida State University System 

Florida A&M University University of Florida 

Florida Atlantic University University of North Florida 

Florida Gulf Coast University Florida State University 

Florida International University University of South Florida 

New College of Florida University of West Florida 

University of Central Florida 

 

Institutions to Which the Talented 20 Program Applies 

All the institutions in the Florida State University System 

 

Institutions in This Analysis 

University of Florida, including the Graduate School, Frederic G. Levin 

 College of Law, College of Medicine 

Florida State University, including the College of Law 

University of South Florida College of Medicine 

 

Reason for Inclusion in the Study 

Flagship status 

Selective status 

Key professional institutions 

Source: Compiled from various sources. 

One Florida Equity in Education Initiative 

Three Pathways to SUS 

The Talented 20 Program 

The One Florida Equity in Education Initiative (Education Initiative) has two components (see 

figure 2.16). The first component consists of the three pathways to enrollment in SUS. The first 

pathway is the Talented 20 Program (T20 Program) and its mechanics are shown in table 2.13. 

The program replaced affirmative action and was designed to ensure that Executive Order 99-

281 “does not negatively impact the diversity of the state universities.”122 Implemented in fall 

 

122 Monica Hayes, Florida director, Office of Equity and Access, Florida Board of Education, e-mail to Sock-Foon 

MacDougall, social scientist, USCCR, July 9, 2002 (hereafter cited as Hayes e-mail, July 9, 2002). 
Draft Staff Report 54

2000 (academic year 2000–01), the T20 Program guarantees admission to one of Florida’s 11 

public institutions for any Florida resident who graduated in the top 20 percent of his or her public high school class and completed a prescribed 19-unit academic high school curriculum. The 

19 academic units are: English language arts (4), mathematics (3), natural science (3), social science (3), foreign languages (2), and electives (4). In addition, Talented 20 (T20) high school 

graduates must take the SAT or ACT, but the results of the tests are not used to make admissions 

decisions, only to determine if students would need assistance with college-level work.123 In addition, T20 high school graduates receive preference in need-based financial aid. Governor Bush 

had recommended a $20 million increase for the Florida Student Assistance Grant for 2000–

01.124 

Figure 2.16 

Components of the One Florida Equity in Education Initiative

Three pathways to SUS: Goals:

1. Talented 20 Program Improvement in public schools

2. Traditional criteria Improve middle and high schools

3. Profile assessment by 8 measures

One Florida Equity in Education Initiative

Source: Compiled from e-mail from Monica Hayes, director, Office of Equity and Access, Florida Board of Education, July 9, 2002; 

Governor Bush’s Equity in Education Plan, November 1999, <http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/governement/government 

initiative.one.florida/documents/educationPlan.edu>. 

Traditional Admissions Criteria 

The second pathway to enrollment in SUS is through the use of traditional admissions criteria, 

such as high school grade point average and SAT or the American College Testing Assessment 

Test (ACT) scores. This pathway is available to all high school graduates. Each Florida institution has its own criteria, while the Board of Regents sets up the systemwide threshold requirements.

 

123 Hayes e-mail, July 9, 2002. See also American Council on American Issue Brief, “Percentage Plans for College

Admissions,” January 2001, <http://www.acenet.edu/resources/reports/percentage-plans.pdf>. Note that the SAT 

test was originally called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, was later renamed the Scholastic Assessment Test, and now 

is simply called the SAT. See FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, “The SAT: Questions and 

Answers,” n.d., <http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm>; the College Board, “History of the SAT,” n.d., 

<http://www.collegeboard.com/abut/newsat/history.html>. 124 Hayes, telephone interview, Aug. 26, 2002. 
Draft Staff Report 55

Table 2.13 

Mechanics of the Talented 20 Program

Eligibility for the Talented 20 Program: 

Florida resident 

Graduated in the top 20 percent as determined by cumulative grade point average from a Florida public high school 

 

Completed 19 academic units 

English/Language Arts (4) 

Mathematics (3) 

Natural Science (3) 

Social Science (3) 

Foreign Languages (2) 

Units of Electives (4) 

Taken SAT or ACT (scores used to determine if a student needs assistance with college preparation) 

 

The Process: 

Students apply to universities in the fall of their senior year 

Students who are eligible for Talented 20 who are denied admission may: 

approach universities that denied them to request reconsideration under Talented 20 or 

apply to another university specifically for admission under Talented 20 eligibility 

A student denied by three universities may request a complimentary review of his or her academic records 

by the university admissions office before submitting application materials. 

If the review is positive, the student submits a completed application. 

If the review is negative, the student’s application materials are reviewed again and he or she 

repeats the process with another university. 

Source: Compiled from e-mail from Monica Hayes, director, Office of Access and Equity, Florida Board of Education, July 9, 2002.

Profile Assessment 

The third pathway is profile assessment, where a college admissions decision is arrived at 

through a weighing of weak high school academic performance, first-generation college participation, socioeconomic status, inner-city or rural residence, and special talents, such as athletic 

ability. Admission through profile assessment is capped at 10 percent, although in practice, less 

than 3 percent of first-time students are admitted through this pathway.125 

Improvement in Public Education 

The second component of the Education Initiative (see figure 2.16) emphasizes equalizing opportunities for low-performing schools. Access to educational opportunities in elementary and 

secondary schools has a direct bearing on access to higher education later on.126 At the present 

time, by the very nature of the T20 Program and the compelling reality that Florida public high 

schools are not yet equal in resources and academic curricula, a proportion of the high school 

 

125 Hayes, e-mail, Aug. 12, 2002; George Perkins, director, research and policy analysis, Florida Board of Education, 

telephone interview, Aug. 9, 2002. 

126 Gerald Torres and Penda D. Hair, “The Texas Test Case: Integrating America’s Colleges,” Chronicle of Higher 

Education, Oct. 4, 200, p. B20. 
Draft Staff Report 56

graduates eligible as T20 students are likely to be academically underprepared for college-level 

work. Thus, in the long term, it is only through the effective realization of this component, particularly the eight elements that pertain to middle and high school students, that this unfortunate 

situation may be ameliorated or, preferably, eliminated entirely. These elements may be described as coordinated outreach efforts127 and include: 

 Adopting an A+ plan designed to improve low-performing schools serving low-income 

and minority students. 

 Making available funding to permit every 10th grader to take the preliminary SAT 

(PSAT). 

 Partnering with the College Board to assist students and teachers in low-performing 

schools. 

 Expanding advanced placement course opportunities in high school. 

 Expanding access to college preparatory courses through the Florida Online High School. 

 Adopting low-performing middle and high schools by public and private universities and 

community colleges though alliances. 

 Focusing the statewide mentoring initiative in low-performing schools. 

 Evaluating inequities in opportunity between schools by a task force.128 

The independent One Florida Accountability Commission created by Governor Bush in May 

2001 to review progress and make recommendations regarding the achievement of diversity issued its report in June 2002. In its conclusion, the One Florida Accountability Commission states 

“This report documents many improvements in our efforts at the state and local levels to expand 

opportunity and diversity among students succeeding at all levels of education in Florida.” It has 

developed 27 recommendations related to education.129 

It is instructive to review the affirmative action policies that were in place prior to Executive Order 99-281. Race and ethnicity entered into university admissions at three levels. The first level, 

or alternative admission, allowed students who did not meet SUS’ minimum academic admissions criteria to be eligible for admission. The alternative admissions criteria included race, diversity, and artistic and athletic abilities. The second level allowed Florida’s most selective 

institutions, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State University, to admit minority 

and other students who did not meet their higher threshold academic criteria. The third level 

permitted the most selective universities to use race or ethnicity to choose among equally qualified students who met the SUS as well as more stringent institutional academic criteria.130 The 

first level improved the chance for minority students to gain admission to SUS, while the second 

and third offered opportunities for admission to SUS’ selective institutions. 

 

127 Hayes, telephone interview, Sept. 26, 2002. 

128 Equity in Education Plan, pp. 7–10. 

129 MyFlorida.com, “Executive Summary,” n.d., <http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/otherinfo/ 

accountability.html>. 

130 Equity in Education Plan. 
Draft Staff Report 57

In the following sections, racial/ethnic application, admission, and enrollment data are examined 

for first-time students and first-time graduate, law, and medical students. The analysis covers 

1999–2000, the year before the race ban, through 2001–02, the second year of the race ban and 

most current year for which data are available. In nearly all instances, the analysis begins at the 

SUS level to provide a systemwide perspective and then moves on to the institutional level. The 

overarching question that guides the assessment is: What effect does Executive Order 99-281 

have on equal access to educational opportunity in public higher and professional education in 

Florida? 

What Has Talented 20 Wrought? 

Assessment of the T20 Program’s effect on diversity and opportunity to participate in higher 

education begins with a baseline comparison of racial/ethnic distribution among high school 

graduates identified as T20 students with a comparable distribution of all Florida high school 

graduates. Figure 2.17 presents this information for the T20 students from the graduating classes 

of 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02, and for Florida high school graduates from the graduating 

class of 1999–2000.131 It is striking that the proportion of each racial/ethnic group differed only 

slightly across the three classes of T20 students.132 

 

In a perfectly equal society, the racial/ethnic composition of T20 students would approximate 

that of the high school graduates. Figure 2.17 shows that empirical reality is otherwise. The use 

of class ranks in university admissions decisions results in underrepresentation of blacks among 

T20 students, largely a consequence of their weaker high school academic performance relative 

to that of other groups. Specifically, while more than 20 percent of the 1999–2000 high school 

graduates were black, just 12.5 percent of the 1999–2000 T20 students were black. Thus, blacks 

are disadvantaged at the very beginning of the admissions process. Among the other groups, Hispanic students were slightly underrepresented while Asian Pacific Americans and whites were 

overrepresented among the 1999–2000 T20 high school graduates. Although present statistical 

analysis shows that Asian Pacific Americans are overrepresented, it is important to bear in mind 

that there is educational and economic diversity within the group. Some of the more recent Asian 

Pacific American immigrants to the United States are not as educationally and economically 

successful as others of their group who have a longer history in this country. Thus, the finding of 

overrepresentation may not apply to all the groups in the Asian Pacific American category. 

Where appropriate this caveat appeals throughout the discussion. 

 

131 The 1999–2000 high school class is the most current class for which graduation data are available. See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Common Core of Data, “Table by State” (Aug. 5, 

2002) (hereafter cited as NCES, “Table by State”). Note that the 1999–2000 T20 students would enroll in fall 2000, 

the 2000-01 cohort in fall 2001, and the 2001–02 cohort in fall 2003. 

132 These are Florida residents since only state residents are eligible to participate in the Talented 20 Program. Admission and enrollment data presented in subsequent figures and tables focus on Florida residents only. 
Draft Staff Report 58

Figure 2.17 

Racial/Ethnic Comparison of Talented 20 High School Graduates, Classes of 1999–2000 through 

2001–02, and Florida High School Graduates, Class of 1999–2000 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native

American

White All minorities

HS1999-00 T1999-00

T2000-01 T2001-02

Source: Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “Comparison of Gender 

and Race/Ethnicity Mix of Talented 20 Students, 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02”; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Table by State,” n.d. 

Opportunity to participate in higher education may also be examined from the perspective of enrollment.133 The illustrative case is the 2001–02 T20 first-time students, the most current group 

for which data are available. T20 first-time students made up 39.5 percent of all SUS first-time

students. At the SUS level, figure 2.18 shows that among Asian Pacific American first-time students, 48.3 percent were T20 students, compared with 40.8 percent for Native Americans, 35.9 

percent for Hispanics, and only 29.7 percent for blacks. Among white first-time students, T20 

students made up 42.3 percent. Once again, because of their weaker high school academic performance relative to that of the other groups, the T20 Program did not serve blacks well. 

 

133 Analysis not shown in this report shows that for both SUS and University of Florida, at least 86.7 percent of the 

T20 applicants are admitted. The high rate of admission applied to all groups of applicants. The enrollment rates are 

considerably lower and for minorities are 65.6 percent at the SUS level and 63.3 percent at the University of Florida. 
Draft Staff Report 59

Figure 2.18 

Talented 20 First-Time Students as a Percentage of all First-Time Students by Race, 

State University System and University of Florida, 2001–02 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native

American

White All minorities

SUS U of F

Source: Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State University System, 

Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollment, Talented 20 Students, 2001–02,” Aug. 13, 2002; “State University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 2002. 

At the University of Florida, the SUS flagship campus, T20 first-time students made up 61.5 percent of all first-time students. This higher figure, compared with 39.5 percent at SUS, is expectable since the University of Florida is highly selective. Figure 2.18 shows that among Asian 

Pacific American first-time students, 65.9 percent were T20 students, compared with 56.4 percent for Hispanics, 50.8 percent for blacks, and only 45 percent for Native Americans. Among 

whites, the comparable figure is 63 percent. The situation for blacks, compared with SUS, is 

relatively better, because the flagship institution likely enrolled the academically stronger T20 

black first-time students. In fact, it is clear from figure 2.18 that this is the case for all other 

groups as well. 

However, the findings on minorities for the University of Florida take on a different cast when 

the racial/ethnic composition of T20 first-time students at SUS is compared with that of the institution.134 Figure 2.19 shows that among the minority T20 first-time students in SUS, Hispanics 

composed the largest group, 13.9 percent, followed by blacks at 11.9 percent, Asian Pacific 

Americans at 6.4 percent, and Native Americans at 0.4 percent.135 At the University of Florida, 

Hispanics again formed the largest group among minority T20 first-time students but at 10.1 percent, followed by Asian Pacific Americans at 8.2 percent, and blacks at just 5.7 percent, and Native Americans at 0.2 percent. Hispanic, Native American, and especially black T20 students are 

underrepresented at the selective University of Florida relative to their presence in SUS and in 

comparison with their groups’ percentage among high school graduates. 

 

134 Racial/ethnic composition among all first-time students at SUS and the University of Florida is discussed later. 135 The numbers do not add to 100 percent because a small number of first-time students either did not report their 

racial/ethnic status or were classified as “other.” This applies to the University of Florida as well. 
Draft Staff Report 60

Figure 2.19 

Talented 20 First-Time Students by Race, State University System and University of Florida, 2001–02

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native

American

White All minorities

SUS U of F

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollment, Talented 20 Students, 2001–02,” Aug. 13, 2002.

Summing up, blacks are starkly underrepresented among T20 high school students. Further, they 

have the smallest proportion of T20 first-time students. Hispanic, Native American, and especially black T20 students are underrepresented at the University of Florida. 

Undergraduate Application, Admission, and Enrollment 

Minority Application and Admission 

Application and admissions data for first-time students are examined to determine if the three 

admissions pathways to SUS (see figure 2.16), in effect in 2000–01 and 2001–02, resulted in (1) 

a larger number of minority admittees and if (2) there are differences in admission rates among 

different minority groups. Figure 2.20 shows that the number of admissions grew from 1999–

2000 in the two years that the three pathways were used for admission to SUS, 11.2 percent in 

2000–01 and 4.5 percent in 2001–02. The 11.2 percent growth is attributable to an increase in the 

number of admittees for every minority group. On the other hand, the 4.5 percent growth in 

2001–02 resulted because only black and Hispanic admittees continued to grow, while the number of Asian Pacific American and Native American admittees declined. By 2001–02, the second 

year of the race ban, the number of admittees from every minority group is higher than in 1999–

2000. Thus, the total number of minority admittees went from 13,095 in 1999–2000 to 14,550 

and 15,208 in the next two years. On the other hand, the number of white admittees grew 9.7 

percent in 2000–01 and declined by a few cases in 2001–02. 
Draft Staff Report 61

Figure 2.20 

State University System Admittees by Race, 1999 through 2001–02 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native

American

White All minorities

Pre-race ban 1999-00 Year 1 of race ban 2000-01

Year 2 of race ban 2001-02

 

Source: Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State University System 

Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollment, Talented 20 Students, 2001–02,” Aug. 13, 2002; “State University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 through 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 2002. 

 

As shown in figure 2.21, the overall minority admissions rate at the SUS level is slightly more 

than 75 percent, compared with more than 80 percent for whites. The year-to-year percentage 

change in admission rates is generally minimal for all groups. Thus, the three pathways did not 

alter the overall admissions rate of minorities to SUS. Analysis of admission rates among individual minority groups adds depth to the picture. Black applicants are admitted, relatively, at the 

lowest rate, between 69.8 and 72.2 percent, while Asian Pacific American applicants are admitted at the highest, between 87 and 88 percent, followed by Hispanic applicants, between 80 and 

81 percent, and Native American applicants, between 76.2 and 80.8 percent. Once again, blacks 

do not fare as well relative to the other groups. 

 

It is notable that among minorities, between 56.7 and 58.2 percent of applicants actually become

enrolled in SUS in the period under consideration, contrasted with between 62.4 and 65.4 percent 

for whites (see figure 2.22). Hispanics and Americans showed a slightly declining trend, while 

Asian Pacific Americans and blacks held steady across the years. Relative to other groups, a 

lower percentage of black and Native American applicants eventually enrolled in SUS. 
Draft Staff Report 62

Figure 2.21 

State University System Admission Rates for First-Time Students, 1999–2000 through 2001–02

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native American White All minorities

Pre-race ban 1999-00

Year 2 of race ban 2001-02

Source: Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State University System, 

Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 through 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 

2002.

Figure 2.22 

Percentage of Applicants Who Enrolled as First-Time Students in the State University System by

Race, 1999–2000 through 2001–02

Year 1 of race ban 2000-01

Year 1 of race ban 2000-01

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native

American

White All minorities

Pre-race ban year 1999-00

Year 2 of race ban 2001-02

Source: Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State University System, 

Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 through 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 

2002.

 
Draft Staff Report 63

Summing up, the three pathways increased the number of admittees to SUS for all groups. 

Blacks evidenced the lowest admission rates, and a lower percentage of black and Native American applicants eventually become enrolled in SUS. 

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Enrolled First-Time Students 

In this section, racial/ethnic information of first-time students is examined at the SUS level to 

provide a systemwide overview. Comparable data are examined for the two selective institutions, 

University of Florida and Florida State University, to determine the accessibility of minority students to prestigious institutions. 

Panel A of table 2.14 presents racial/ethnic information in SUS for first-time students enrolled in 

1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02. Actual total first-time student enrollment in SUS showed a 

10.8 percent increase in 2000–01 and just an increase of 1.8 percent in 2001–02. In fall 1999 

(academic year 1999–2000), SUS enrolled 26,679 first-time students. Of these, minority firsttime students made up 36.9 percent, while white first-time students constituted 62.2 percent. 

Among the minorities, black and Hispanic first-time students each made up 15.8 percent, followed by Asian Pacific American, 5 percent, and Native American, 0.4 percent. 

In the first and second years of the implementation of the three pathways, the number of minorities increased, from 9,848 in 1999–2000 to 10,925 in 2000–01 and 11,096 in 2001–02, exhibiting 

growth rates of 10.9 and 1.6 percent, respectively. This reflects the overall pattern noted earlier. 

Despite these absolute increases, the proportion of minorities as a group did not change, staying 

around 37 percent.136 This is the result of a comparable increase in white first-time students, 10.9 

percent in 2000–01 and 1.3 percent in 2001–02. 

Thus, while the numbers of minority and white first-time students increased in 2000–01 and 

2001–02 and SUS was able to accommodate the growth, the present analysis shows that the three 

pathways did not increase the proportion of minority first-time students. In this regard, the combined pathways did not perform any better than affirmative action programs in place in 1999–

2000. In fact, minority first-time students were already underrepresented in SUS in the pre-race 

ban year. Minorities stood at 36.9 percent, while the comparable figure was 39.4 percent for the 

1999–2000 high school class.137 

Among the individual minority groups, Hispanic first-time students increased at similar rates in 

the two years after Executive Order 99-281, between 4.5 and 4.6 percent. Black first-time students registered a 12.7 percent rate increase in 2000–01 and a very minor rate increase the following year. Finally, Asian Pacific American and Native American first-time students showed 

promising absolute increases in 2000–01 but declines in 2001–02. 

 

136 Enrollment data for 2002–2003 showed the same conclusion. Vincent Kiernan, “Minority Enrollment in Florida 

Remains Unchanged,” Chronicle for Higher Education, Sept. 20, 2002, p. A25. 137 See NCES, “Table by State.” 
Draft Staff Report 64

Table 2.14 

First-Time Students by Race, State University System and University, 1999–2000 though 2001–02

Panel A: State University System

Pre-race Year 1 Year 2 Pre-race Year 1 Year 2 (2000-01) (2001-02)

ban of race ban of race ban ban of race ban of race ban compared compared

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 to 1999-00 to 2000-01

Asian Pacific American 1,325 1,602 1,574 5.0% 5.4% 5.2% 20.9% -1.7%

Black 4,204 4,740 4,784 15.8% 16.0% 15.9% 12.7% 0.9%

Hispanic 4,216 4,408 4,608 15.8% 14.9% 15.3% 4.6% 4.5%

Native American 103 175 130 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 69.9% -25.7%

White 16,604 18,406 18,650 62.2% 62.3% 61.9% 10.9% 1.3%

Other 12 0 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ** **

Not reported 215 229 345 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% 6.5% 50.7%

Total 26,679 29,560 30,106 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 10.8% 1.8%

All minorities 9,848 10,925 11,096 36.9% 37.0% 36.9% 10.9% 1.6%

Panel B: University of Florida

Asian Pacific American 412 515 457 7.0% 7.7% 7.7% 25.0% -11.3%

Black 565 770 413 9.6% 11.6% 6.9% 36.3% -46.4%

Hispanic 664 798 658 11.3% 12.0% 11.1% 20.2% -17.5%

Native American 33 78 20 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 136.4% -74.4%

White 4,156 4,421 4,332 70.7% 66.5% 72.8% 6.4% -2.0%

Other 0 0 0 -- -- -- --

Not reported 51 67 72 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 31.4% 7.5%

Total 5,881 6,649 5,952 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13.1% -10.5%

--

All minorities 1,674 2,161 1,548 28.5% 32.5% 26.0% 29.1% -28.4%

Panel C: Florida State University

Asian Pacific American 126 161 135 2.9% 3.2% 2.8% 27.8% -16.1%

Black 445 538 568 10.2% 10.7% 11.8% 20.9% 5.6%

Hispanic 419 504 514 9.6% 10.0% 10.7% 20.3% 2.0%

Native American 16 15 18 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% -6.3% 20.0%

White 3,341 3,785 3,546 76.9% 75.2% 73.6% 13.3% -6.3%

Other 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --

Not reported 0 27 35 -- 0.5% 0.7% -- 29.6%

Total 4,347 5,030 4,816 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15.7% -4.3%

All minorities 1,006 1,218 1,235 23.1% 24.2% 25.6% 21.1% 1.4%

(Enrollment in numbers) (Each group as proportion of total) (Yr-to-yr change)

Note: (1) The “all minorities” category consists of Asian Pacific Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. “Other” refers 

to a small number of individuals who are charged in-state tuition even though they are nonresidents. Florida determines resident 

status by whether a person qualifies for in-state tuition and fees. (2) ** indicates that percentage change is not calculated because 

the base numbers are small.

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 through 

2001–02,” Aug. 2, 2002.

Overall, the proportion of each minority group in the first-time student population differed 

minimally between the pre-race ban and post-race ban years. This finding is particularly disheartening for blacks, who made up between 15.8 and 16 percent in SUS but 21.2 percent in the 

1999–2000 high school class.138 Conversely, the same comparison shows that Hispanics were 

adequately represented in SUS. The Hispanic group includes Cuban Americans, Mexican 

Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, and other groups from Central and South America. In addition to diversity in national origin, there are educational and economic differences. With respect 

to years of education and mean earnings, Cuban Americans rank near the top when compared 

with other Hispanic groups. Sixty-three percent of the Cuban American population resides in 

 

138 See ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 65

Florida.139 Enrollment data provided by the Florida Board of Education do not break down the 

Hispanic population. However, it is reasonable to assume that the Cuban American population in 

SUS is not insignificant. Thus, the finding of adequate representation may be a result of Cuban 

American influence, that is, it may not apply to all the Hispanic groups. Where appropriate, this 

caveat applies throughout this discussion. The situation of Cuban American influence is not as 

relevant in California and Texas with their smaller Cuban American population.

 

Cognizant that affirmative action has not brought nearly enough minorities into higher education, 

it is alarming that its replacement in Florida, the Talented 20 Program, operating along with traditional admissions criteria and profile assessment, is unable to do any better. This strongly argues for going beyond the existing version of the percentage plan. In this connection, it is 

significant that the University of Florida plans to go beyond the Talented 20 Program to improve 

diversity.140 The university announced in spring 2002 that it will automatically admit the top 5 

percent of each high school graduating class. 

 

Panel B of table 2.14 presents racial/ethnic information on first-time students enrolled at the 

University of Florida. In 2000–01, the first year of the three pathways, every group showed large 

absolute numerical increases, bringing the total number of first-time students to 6,649, a 13.1 

percent increase over 1999–2000. The substantial increase in 2000–01 resulted in part from the 

university’s basketball team having reached the finals of the spring 2000 NCAA basketball 

championship. However, by the second year, the effect had largely dissipated.141 Thus, in 2001–

02, every group had decreased, thereby lowering the number of enrolled first-time students to 

5,952, a 10.5 percent decrease. As a group, minorities showed a similar pattern, except that the 

percentage increase in academic year 2000–01 was 29.1 percent and the percentage decline in 

2001–02 was nearly as large, 28.4 percent. Thus, in 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02, minority 

enrollment went from 1,674 to 2,161 to 1,548; correspondingly, as a group, minorities constituted 28.5, 32.5, and 26 percent at the flagship. It is disturbing that these proportions are lower 

than comparable ones at SUS. Equally disturbing, they are lower than those for the 1999–2000 

high school class, which stood at 39.4 percent. Clearly, minorities are underrepresented at the 

flagship campus. 

139 Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, University of Albany, “The New Latinos,” n.d., <http://www.hccwpa.org/Census_and Data/HCC_New_Lation2.htm>; U.S. Census Bureau, “Quick Tables-Florida, n.d.,<http://factfinder.census/_lang= en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP3_geo_id=4000US12. 

htm>, and U.S. Census Bureau, “Quick Tables-United States, n.d., <http://factfinder.census/_lang=en_vt_ 

name=DEC_ 2000_SF1_U_ QTP3_ geo_id=1000US12.htm>. 

140 Bill Kolb, director of admission, telephone interview, Aug. 9, 2002. See also “U. of Florida to Open Doors to 

Top 5% of Each High-School Graduating Class,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Mar. 22, 2002, 

<http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i28a02203.htm>. Note that the University of Florida has outreach programs that 

target students in failing schools. The Alliance Program, for example, has collaborative relationships with five urban 

schools, with a sixth to be added shortly. Admissions office staff visit the schools and work with the guidance counselors. In addition, the provost’s office administers a scholarship program that awards five scholarships to each of 

the Alliance schools. The university’s summer program serves Alliance students who must meet eligibility requirements including, single-parent household, low-income family, and first-generation college participation. Kolb interview, Sept. 17, 2002. 

141 Bill Kolb, director of admission, telephone interview, Aug. 9, 2002. 
Draft Staff Report 66

Among individual minority groups (excluding the small number of Native Americans), black 

first-time students suffered the greatest percentage decrease in 2001–02, 46.4 percent, followed 

by Hispanics, 17.5 percent. White students also declined, but just by 2 percent. By the second 

year of the race ban, black and Hispanic students made up 6.9 and 11.1 percent, respectively, of 

total enrollment compared with higher proportions in the previous two years. More importantly, 

not once did the proportions of blacks and Hispanics come close to comparable figures for the 

1999–2000 high school class, 21.2 and 15.1 percent, respectively. The concern expressed by affirmative action advocates that minority students are being shut out of selective institutions is 

borne out to a large extent in the case of these two groups. 

Panel C of table 2.14 presents racial/ethnic information for first-time students enrolled at Florida 

State University. Total first-time students enrollment showed a 15.7 percent increase in 2000–01, 

raising the total to 5,030 from 4,347 in 1999–2000. By 2001–02, total enrollment fell to 4,816, or 

4.3 percent, largely the result of a decline in white first-time students. On the other hand, total 

minority enrollment increased 21.2 percent in 2000–01 and 1.4 percent in 2001–02. Correspondingly, minority enrollment went from 23.1 percent of all first-time students in 1999–2000 to 24.2 

and 25.6 percent in the next two academic years. Alarmingly, the proportions of minorities at 

Florida State University are lower than those for SUS and the University of Florida for the period 

under consideration. 

Among individual minority groups, the number of Asian Pacific American first-time students fell 

to 135 in 2001–02 from 161 in the previous year, while black and Hispanic enrollment grew over 

both time periods. By the second year of the race ban, black and Hispanic students made up 11.8 

and 10.7 percent, respectively, of total enrollment, compared with slightly lower proportions in 

the previous two years. Still, these percentages are much lower than comparable figures for the 

1999–2000 high school class. This finding clearly reinforces the need to modify the current percentage plan.142

Summing up, in SUS, the proportion of each minority group differed minimally between the prerace ban and post-race ban years. The proportion of blacks in SUS, the University of Florida, and 

Florida State University are consistently lower than those of the 1999–2000 high school class. 

This underrepresentation already prevails in the pre-race ban year. In SUS, Hispanics are adequately represented, but not at the more prestigious University of Florida and Florida State University. 

Graduate and Professional Enrollment 

As stated earlier, no provision was made to replace affirmative action in admission to graduate 

and law and medical professional schools, although legislation was enacted to create two new 

law schools to increase minority presence. This section reviews admission and enrollment data 

 

142 Like the University of Florida, Florida State also operates a summer program, the CARE Summer Bridge Program. The university currently has a College Reach-Out Program (CROP) that is part of a statewide initiative funded 

by the state. CROP targets students between the grades of sixth and 12th and who meet the state’s educational and 

economic criteria. Finally, the federal TRIO program (discussed in detail in chap. 5) is an important piece of Florida 

State University’s outreach efforts. See Florida State University, “The Summer Bridge Program,” n.d., 

<http://fsu.edu/~care/sbp.html>; <http://fsu.edu/~care/crop.html>; and <http://fsu.edu/~care/SSP.html>. 
Draft Staff Report 67

for first-time graduate, first-time law, and first-time medical students at the SUS and institutional 

levels. 

Racial/Ethnic Composition Among First-Time Graduate Students 

Graduate school admission rates for 1999–2000 through 2001–02 at the SUS level are reviewed 

to see if differences existed among groups. Figure 2.23 shows that overall admission rates for 

first-time minority graduate students hovered between 61.9 and 62.7 percent during the period 

under discussion, 1999–2000 through 2001–02. White admission rates, in contrast, showed small 

increases, from 74.6 percent in 1999–2000 to 77.3 percent in 2001–02, respectively. In the postrace ban years, admission rates increased slightly for Hispanics, more dramatically for Native 

Americans, held steady for Asian Pacific Americans, and decreased somewhat for blacks. The 

more salient points are that over this period, admission rates for blacks are almost always lower 

than other minority groups and admission rates for whites are substantively and consistently 

higher than those for minorities. 

Figure 2.23 

State University System Graduate School Admissions Rate by Race, 1999–2000 through 2001–02 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic Native

American

White All minorities

Pre-race ban 1999-00

Year 2 of race ban 2001-02

Year 1 of race ban 2000-01

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 

2002.

At SUS, first-time minority graduate enrollment showed 1.1 percent growth in 2000–01, to 3,268 

from 3,234 in 1999–2000, as shown in table 2.15. This was the result of small increases in the 

number of Asian Pacific Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Total minority graduate 

enrollment grew 18.9 percent between 2000–01 and 2001–02. In this instance, almost every minority group showed sizeable increase. By the second year of the race ban, minorities made up 

30.6 percent of all graduate students, a result of significant increase in Asian Pacific Americans, 

blacks, and particularly Hispanics. Comparable figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were 27.8 

and 28.3 percent, respectively. 

 
Draft Staff Report 68

At the University of Florida, the percentage of first-time minority graduate students decreased 

slightly, from 19.7 percent in 1999–2000 to 18.3 percent in 2001–02, despite a small absolute 

increase in 2001–02. It is discouraging that the overall percentage of minorities in the flagship is 

substantively lower than in SUS. Among the individual minority groups, Asian Pacific American 

and Hispanic enrollment fluctuated while blacks increased by a handful of students. Compared 

with their presence in SUS, blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in the University of Florida. 

Table 2.15 

First-Time Graduate Students by Race, State University System and University, 1999–2000 

through 2001–02 

Panel A: State University System

Pre-race Year 1 of Year 2 of Pre-race Year 1 of Year 2 of Year 1 Year 2

ban race ban race ban ban race ban race ban compared to compared to

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01

(Each group as a proportion of total)

Asian Pacific American 410 421 532 3.5% 3.6% 4.2% 2.7% 26.4%

Black 1,342 1,324 1,489 11.5% 11.5% 11.7% -1.3% 12.5%

Hispanic 1,451 1,479 1,812 12.5% 12.8% 14.3% 1.9% 22.5%

Native American 31 44 53 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 41.9% 20.5%

White 8,328 8,117 8,645 71.5% 70.3% 68.1% -2.5% 6.5%

Other 9 1 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%  

Not reported 83 166 162 0.7% 1.4% 1.3% 100.0% -2.4%

Total 11,654 11,552 12,700 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -0.9% 9.9%

All minorities 3,234 3,268 3,886 27.8% 28.3% 30.6% 1.1% 18.9%

Panel B: University of Florida 

Asian Pacific American 95 94 103 5.3% 5.1% 5.2% -1.1% 9.6%

Black 85 88 95 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 3.5% 8.0%

Hispanic 167 151 162 9.3% 8.3% 8.1% -9.6% 7.3%

NativeAmerican 5 7 6 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% **  **

White 1,422 1,467 1,611 79.4% 80.2% 80.6% 3.2% 9.8%

Other -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Not reported 17 22 23 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% 29.4% 4.5%

Total 1,791 1,829 2,000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2.1% 9.3%

All minorities 352 340 366 19.7% 18.6% 18.3% -3.4% 7.6%

(Enrollment in numbers) (Yr.-to-yr. change)

Note: (1) The “all minorities” category consists of Asian Pacific Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. (2) ** indicates 

that percentage change is not calculated because the base numbers are small. 

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 

2002.

Summing up, black first-time graduate students are admitted at a lower rate relative to other 

groups. Although overall minority enrollment grew and at a higher rate in 2001–02, blacks and 

Hispanics remain underrepresented in the University of Florida relative to their enrollment in 

SUS. Not unexpectedly, the overall proportion of minorities at the flagship campus is much 

lower than that in SUS. 

Racial/Ethnic Composition Among First-Time Law Students 

This section begins with a review of law school admission rates in SUS from 1999–2000 through 

2001–02. As shown in figure 2.24, SUS law school admission rates for all groups increased in 

2000–01 but fell in 2001–02 to below the level in 1999–2000. For minorities as a group, admission rates ranged between 45.2 and 52.9 percent contrasted with higher white admission rates 
Draft Staff Report 69

(see figure 2.24). Among the minorities, Asian Pacific Americans were admitted at the highest 

rate, followed by Hispanics, and then blacks.143

Figure 2.24 

State University System Law School Admissions Rate by Race, 1999–2000 through 2001–02 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic White All minorities

Pre-race ban year 1999-00

Year 2 of race ban 2001-02

Year 1 of race ban 2000-01

Note: Admission rates were not compiled for Native Americans because the numbers were very small. 

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 2001–02,” Aug. 2, 

2002.”

Panel A of table 2.16 displays systemwide data on enrollment for first-time law students. Firsttime law students increased 6.7 percent in the first year that the use of race was banned, to 604 

from 566 in 1999–2000, but declined 9.6 percent in the second year, to 546. Total minority enrollment broadly reflected this trend, except that the percentage increase in 2000–01 was minimal, just 1.9 percent, while the percentage decline the following year was 17.3 percent. 

In fall 1999, Hispanic law students, the largest of the minority groups, composed 14 percent of 

all first-time law students, followed by black law students at 9.9 percent, while Asian Pacific 

American and Native American law students made up 3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively. As 

a group, minority law students were 28.1 percent, or 159, of the total, while white law students 

made up 71.7 percent. In the first year of the race ban, 2000–01, minority law students fell to 

26.8 percent even though the total number actually went up by a few cases, to 162.144 While 

Asian Pacific Americans and blacks displayed some year-to-year percentage increases, the comparable figure for Hispanics fell slightly. In contrast, white enrollment grew 8.4 percent.

 

143 Admission rates are not compiled for Native Americans because their numbers are so small. 144 This is due to a higher rate of increase in white enrollment, 8.4 percent. 
Draft Staff Report 70

Table 2.16 

First-Time Law Students by Race, State University System and University, 1999–2000 through 2001–02

Panel A: State University System

Pre-race Year 1 of Year 2 of Pre-race Year 1 of Year 2 of Year 1 Year 2

ban race ban race ban ban race ban race ban compared to compared to

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01

(Each group as a proportion of total)

Asian Pacific American 17 20 20 3.0% 3.3% 3.7% 17.6% 0.0%

Black 56 63 51 9.9% 10.4% 9.3% 12.5% -19.0%

Hispanic 79 76 59 14.0% 12.6% 10.8% -3.8% -22.4%

Native American 7 3 4 1.2% 0.5% 0.7%  

White 406 440 400 71.7% 72.8% 73.3% 8.4% -9.1%

Not reported 1 2 12 0.2% 0.3% 2.2% **  **

Total 566 604 546 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6.7% -9.6%

All minorities 159 162 134 28.1% 26.8% 24.5% 1.9% -17.3%

Panel B: University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law

Asian Pacific American 10 12 17 2.9% 3.1% 4.4% 20.0% 41.7%

Black 37 45 33 10.6% 11.6% 8.6% 21.6% -26.7%

Hispanic 66 50 36 18.9% 12.9% 9.4% -24.2% -28.0%

Native American 5 2 2 1.4% 0.5% 0.5%  

White 230 278 284 65.9% 71.5% 74.0% 20.9% 2.2%

Not reported 1 2 12 0.3% 0.5% 3.1% **  **

Total 349 389 384 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.5% -1.3%

All minorities 118 109 88 33.8% 28.0% 22.9% -7.6% -19.3%

Panel C: Florida State University College of Law

Asian Pacific American 7 8 3 3.2% 3.7% 1.9%  

Black 19 18 18 8.8% 8.3% 11.1% -5.3% 0.0%

Hispanic 13 26 23 6.0% 12.0% 14.2% 100.0% -11.5%

Native American 2 1 2 0.9% 0.5% 1.2% **  **

White 176 163 116 81.1% 75.5% 71.6% -7.4% -28.8%

Not reported 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --

Total 217 216 162 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -0.5% -25.0%

All minorities 41 53 46 18.9% 24.5% 28.4% 29.3% -13.2%

(Enrollment in numbers) (Yr.-to-yr. change)

Note: (1) The “all minorities” category consists of Asian Pacific Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. (2) ** indicates 

that percentage change is not calculated because the base numbers are small.

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 through 

2001–02,” Aug. 2, 2002.

In 2001–02, the proportion of minorities declined further, to 24.5 percent, again a result of yearto-year decreases in black and Hispanic enrollment. At the same time, white enrollment also fell 

by 9.1 percent. By the second year of the race ban, total minority enrollment was lower than 

what it was in 1999–2000 with black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment reflecting the 

same pattern. This is particularly disheartening since the Florida bar is currently about 2 percent 

black and just 6 percent Hispanic.145 

Panels B and C of table 2.16 present first-time law student enrollment data at the University of 

Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law and the Florida State University College of Law. In the 

Fredric G. Levin College of Law, minority law students decreased steadily, from 33.8 percent in 

1999–2000 to 28 and 22.9 percent in 2000–01 and 2001–02, respectively. In 2000–01, a 24.2 

 

145 Tamar, “Florida Tests Diversity,” p. A16. 
Draft Staff Report 71

percent drop in Hispanic enrollment caused the decline, while in 2001–02, 26.7 and 28 percent 

declines in black and Hispanic enrollment, respectively, had that effect. 

At the Florida State University College of Law, the smaller of the two law schools, enrollment 

fluctuated. The proportion of minority students went from 18.9 percent in 1999–2000 to 24.5 

percent in 2000–01. However, by 2001–02, the absolute number of minorities had fallen to 46 

even though the proportion increased to 28.4 percent.146 

Summing up, total first-time minority law students in SUS evidenced a small absolute increase in 

2000–01, a larger absolute decrease in 2001–02, and a steady decline in percentage of all firsttime law students. Total minority enrollment at the University of Florida Frederic G. Levin College of Law fell steadily and fluctuated at the Florida State University College of Law. 

Racial/Ethnic Composition Among First-Time Medical Students 

As in the sections on graduate and law students, this section begins with a review of medical 

school admission rates. Medical school admission rates at the SUS level for 1999–2000 through 

2001–02 are presented in figure 2.25.147 Admission rates for all minority groups are clearly 

higher in 2000–01 and 2001–02 than in 1999–2000. This said, it remains true that the overall 

admission rates for minorities are lower than those for whites, between 16.3 to 19 percent and 

23.1 and 25.1 percent, respectively. Asian Pacific American admission rates easily surpassed 

those of blacks and Hispanics for the period under consideration. The latter two groups evidenced fairly similar rates.148 

 

146 This is a result of a 28.8 percent decrease in white enrollment. Note that analysis of each individual minority 

group is not attempted because the numbers are small. 

147 Note that SUS admissions data for 2001–02 include the new Florida State University College of Medicine, which 

admitted the first class of students in fall 2001. 

148 Admission rates are not compiled for Native Americans because the numbers are so small. 
Draft Staff Report 72

Figure 2.25 

State University System Medical School Admissions Rate by Race, 1999–2000 through 2001–02 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Asian Pacific

American

Black Hispanic White All minorities

Pre-race ban year 1999-00

Year 2 of race ban 2001-02

Year 1 of race ban 2000-01

Note: Admission rates were not compiled for Native Americans because the numbers were very small. 

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 and 

2000–01,” Aug. 13, 2002; “State University System Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 2001–02,” Sept. 17, 2002. 

Panel A of table 2.17 displays systemwide data on first-time medical student enrollment. Firsttime medical students increased 4.5 percent in the first year of the race ban, from 198 in 1999–

2000 to 207, and 28 percent in the second, to 265. Total minority enrollment also reflected increases, 11.9 and 21.3 percent in 2000–01 and 2001–02, respectively. 

In fall 1999, Asian Pacific American medical students, the largest of the minority groups, composed 18.7 percent of all first-time medical students, followed by Hispanic students at 7.6 percent, black students at 6.6 percent, and Native American students at 1 percent. Minority medical 

students made up 33.8 percent, or 67, while white medical students constituted 64.1 percent. In 

the first year of the race ban, 2000–01, the proportion of minority medical students increased to 

36.2 percent, or 75. With the exception of Asian Pacific American students, every minority 

group grew slightly. The increase in white enrollment was similarly small. 

In 2001–02, total minority enrollment again showed absolute increase, from 75 to 91 because of 

growth in Asian Pacific American, black, and Hispanic first-time medical students. But because 

white enrollment grew at a relatively higher rate, 28 percent, the proportion of minorities fell to 

34.3 percent in the second year of the race ban. 

 
Draft Staff Report 73

Table 2.17 

First-Time Medical Students by Race, State University System and University, 1999–2000 through 

2001–02

Panel A: State University System

Pre-race Year 1 ofYear 2 of Pre-race Year 1 of Year 2 of Year 1 Year 2

ban race ban race ban ban race ban race ban compared to compared to

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01

(Each group as a proportion of total)

Asian Pacific American 37 35 40 18.7% 16.9% 15.1% -5.4% 14.3%

Black 13 15 17 6.6% 7.2% 6.4% 15.4% 13.3%

Hispanic 15 22 32 7.6% 10.6% 12.1% 46.7% 45.5%

Native American 2 3 2 1.0% 1.4% 0.8%  

White 127 132 170 64.1% 63.8% 64.2% 3.9% 28.8%

Not reported 4 0 4 2.0% 0.0% 1.5% **  **

Total 198 207 265 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4.5% 28.0%

All minorities 67 75 91 33.8% 36.2% 34.3% 11.9% 21.3%

Panel B: University of Florida College of Medicine

Asian Pacific American 26 26 28 24.3% 23.4% 20.6% 0.0% 7.7%

Black 9 9 12 8.4% 8.1% 8.8% 0.0% 33.3%

Hispanic 8 16 13 7.5% 14.4% 9.6%  

Native American 0 1 2 0.0% 0.9% 1.5% **  **

White 63 59 80 58.9% 53.2% 58.8% -6.3% 35.6%

Not reported 1 0 1 0.9% -- 0.7% -100.0% --

Total 107 111 136 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3.7% 22.5%

All minorities 43 52 55 40.2% 46.8% 40.4% 20.9% 5.8%

Panel C: University of South Florida College of Medicine

Asian Pacific American 11 9 9 12.1% 9.4% 9.1%  

Black 4 6 3 4.4% 6.3% 3.0% **  **

Hispanic 7 6 15 7.7% 6.3% 15.2%  

Native American 2 2 0 2.2% 2.1% 0.0% **  **

White 64 73 70 70.3% 76.0% 70.7% 14.1% -4.1%

Not reported 3 0 2 3.3% 0.0% 2.0%  

Total 91 96 99 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 5.5% 3.1%

All minorities 24 23 27 26.4% 24.0% 27.3% -4.2% 17.4%

(Enrollment in numbers) (Yr.-to-yr. change)

Note: (1) The “all minorities” category consists of Asian Pacific Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. (2) **  indicates 

that percentage change is not calculated because the base numbers are small.

Source: Compiled from Florida Board of Education, Division of Colleges and Universities, Research and Policy Analysis, “State 

University System, Florida Resident Applicants-Admitted-Enrolled Within Student Type/Race, Admissions Data, 1999–2000 through 

2001–02,” Aug. 2, 2002.

Panels B and C of table 2.17 display medical student enrollment at the University of Florida College of Medicine and the University of South Florida College of Medicine. In the University of 

Florida College of Medicine, minorities increased from 40.2 percent in 1999–2000 to 46.8 in 

2000–01, but fell to 40.4 percent in 2001–02, although there is a small absolute increase each 

year. It is encouraging that the percentage of minorities at the established University of Florida 

College of Medicine is higher than in SUS. 

In the University of South Florida College of Medicine, the smaller of the two medical schools, 

the total number of first-time medical students increased by a few cases between 1999–2000 and 

2001–02, from 91 to 96 to 99. The total number of minority medical students enrolled in 1999–

2000 was 24, and in the two years that race was banned minority enrollment was 23 and 27. 
Draft Staff Report 74

Summing up, total first-time minority medical students in SUS evidenced small absolute increases but the proportions fluctuated. The University of Florida College of Medicine has a 

higher percentage of minorities than SUS. 

Conclusion 

Does the Talented 20 Program foster the goal of equal access to educational opportunity required 

by civil rights laws? This analysis finds that the use of class ranks in admissions decisions particularly hurts blacks. For instance, a smaller percentage of blacks are identified as T20 high 

school graduates. Thus, they are disadvantaged at the very beginning of the admissions process. 

Not surprisingly, blacks have the lowest proportion of T20 first-time students. Finally, with the 

exception of Asian Pacific Americans, Hispanic, Native American, and especially black T20 students are underrepresented at the flagship campus, the University of Florida. 

More generally, how has the race ban affected diversity among first-time students? The three 

pathways to SUS increased minority and nonminority first-time students, but failed to change the 

proportions of the different minority groups in SUS. Further, blacks are admitted at a lower rate 

to SUS. More poignantly, in SUS, the University of Florida, and Florida State University, the 

percentages of black first-time students are consistently lower than those of the 1999–2000 high 

school class. This underrepresentation prevails even in the pre-race ban year of 1999–2000. 

Minority graduate enrollment increased substantively in SUS in 2001–02 as a result of increases 

in the number of Asian, black, and Hispanic students. However, black graduate admission rates 

are almost always lower than those of other minority groups. Further, black and Hispanic graduate students are underrepresented at the University of Florida. In the law schools, the number of 

first-time minority law students fluctuated in SUS and declined steadily in the University of Florida Frederic G. Levin College of Law. Furthermore, black and Hispanic law students were a

mitted at lower rates when compared with other groups. In the medical schools, first-time 

minority medical students grew slightly. And, as in the case of the law schools, medical school 

admission rates are lower for blacks and Hispanics. 

d-
Draft Staff Report 75

CHAPTER 3 

Admissions Standards and Success Predictors 

Access to higher education is predicated on numerous factors, some of which are socioeconomic 

background, educational opportunities, alumni parents, athletic ability, and individual aptitude. 

The latter is the focus of this study, as widespread concern has emerged about how aptitude is 

measured. Amid the debate surrounding percentage plans and the backlash against affirmative 

action have arisen new questions about the utility and fairness of college admissions measures, 

including standardized tests, student grade point averages, high school curriculum requirements, 

and college entrance exams. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the emphasis on merit was more often viewed as at odds with 

programs designed to undo lingering effects of past discriminatory admissions practices.1

 Today, 

with the implementation of percentage plans in three states, there is reason for concern that college admissions will regress to an era when merit was based solely on high school ranking and 

test scores at the expense of other predictors of aptitude and success. 

A survey of the admissions requirements of colleges and universities reveals that high school 

grade point average is consistently the most important factor in admissions decisions, followed 

closely by standardized test scores.2

 Today, more than 80 percent of all public and private colleges and universities rely on test scores as a component of the admissions process.3

 The SAT is 

the most widely used standardized examination. During the 2000–01 school year, approximately 

2.1 million students were administered the SAT.4 The second most widely used test is the 

American College Testing Assessment Test (ACT), which is used mostly in the Midwest, and is 

taken by approximately 1 million students each year.5

 

1

 Rodger Doyle, “Minorities and Bachelor’s Degrees in the U.S.,” Scientific American, Mar. 21, 2000. 2

 Hunter Breland, James Maxey, Renee Gernand, Tammie Cumming, and Catherine Trapani, Trends in College Admission 2000, A Report of a Survey of Undergraduate Admissions Policies, Practices, and Procedures, sponsored by 

ACT, Inc., Association for Institutional Research, the College Board, Educational Testing Service, and the National 

Association for College Admission Counseling, p. ix (hereafter cited as Breland, et al., Trends in College Admission, 

2000). 3

 The College Board, “SAT Facts,” <http://www.collegeboard.com/about/newsat/satfacts.html>. 4

 The College Board, “History of the SAT,” <http://www.collegeboard.com/about/newsat/history.html>. Note that 

the test was originally called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, was later renamed the Scholastic Assessment Test, and 

now is simply called the SAT. See FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, “The SAT: Questions 

and Answers,” <http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm>. 

5

 FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, “The ACT: Biased, Inaccurate, Coachable, and Misused,” <http://www.fairtest.org/facts/act.htm>. 
Draft Staff Report 76

Supporters of the use of the SAT argue that the test is an appropriate “yardstick,” which compensates for differences in grading techniques, curriculum standards, and course availability.6

 Advocates of the SAT also contend that eliminating standardized testing would result in grade 

inflation and lower admissions standards.7

 In recent years, however, the SAT and ACT have 

come under fire by some educators who claim that the tests do not reflect the true abilities of students, or take into account the differences in quality of education provided to students. Many argue that because scores on these tests can be improved through practice and preparation—

usually through high-cost coaches and prep courses—they are not a true indicator of critical 

thinking ability, nor are higher scores accessible to those who cannot afford the preparation. 

Further, there are significant disparities in the test scores of different racial and ethnic groups, a 

fact that may be linked to differences in educational opportunities, overrepresentation in lowperforming schools, and in some cases the difficulties presented for students whose primary language is not English. Thus, these tests may not be appropriate predictors of ability or achievement potential. Table 3.1 illustrates the differences in SAT and ACT scores for each major racial 

and ethnic group. 

Table 3.1 

Scores of SAT and ACT Test Takers by Race/Ethnicity, 1999

 SAT Verbal + Math Score Range 

 Overall Less than 

1000 1000 to 1090 1100 to 1190 1200 and above 

N Mean Percent Percent Percent Percent 

African American 113,377 852 79.0 11.2 6.0 3.9 

Asian American 60,878 1077 36.8 16.6 15.6 31.0 

Hispanic 81,632 921 66.0 15.6 9.8 8.5 

Native American 8,225 964 57.1 18.0 12.6 12.4 

White 707,851 1054 38.6 20.6 17.6 23.2 

All SAT takers* 1,095,708 1017 46.2 18.5 15.2 20.1 

* Includes test takers classified as “other citizen” (30,756) and “non-citizen” (92,989). A perfect score on the SAT is 1600. 

 ACT Score Range 

 Overall Less than 

22 22–23 24–26 27 and above 

N Mean Percent Percent Percent Percent 

African American 100,282 17.1 87.6 6.2 4.5 1.7 

Asian American 24,357 22.4 45.1 14.5 18.6 21.8 

Hispanic 46,361 19.1 72.8 10.9 10.4 5.9 

Native American 10,612 19.0 72.8 10.9 9.8 6.4 

White 718,498 21.8 50.4 15.5 18.3 15.8 

All ACT takers* 951,507 21.0 56.3 14.0 16.1 13.6 

* Includes test takers classified as “other citizen” (22,870) and “non-citizen” (28,527). A perfect score on the ACT is 36. 

Source: Michael T. Nettles and Catherine Millet, “Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels

of American Educational Meritocracy,” chap. 6 in The Right Thing To Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health 

Professions (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 156–57. Compiled from the College Board and Educational 

Testing Service data, 1999.

 

6

 Holly Stepp, “Top Educators Question Merit of SAT Exam,” Miami Herald, Mar. 11, 2001, p. 1B, quoting Gaston 

Caperton, president, the College Board. 

7

 Karen Brandon, “Standardized Tests for College Under Fire in Diversity Debate,” Chicago Tribune, Sept. 28, 

1997, quoting Ward Connerly, University of California regent. 
Draft Staff Report 77

Although each racial/ethnic group has seen an increase in average test scores over the last decade, the gap in test scores has widened. Average SAT scores of African American, American Indian, and Hispanic students trail those of white students by a larger margin today than 10 years 

ago. The difference in average scores between black and white students in 1990–91 was 185 

points; in 2000–01 the difference in scores was 201 points (see table 3.2). Likewise, the difference in average scores between Hispanic and white students increased from 111 points to 135 

points in the same 10-year period.8

 A similar trend can be seen with ACT scores.9 The gap between white and black students widened to nearly 5 points (out of a possible 36 points), from 4.6 

points five years ago. The difference in scores of Mexican American and white students has also 

increased in the last five years from 3.2 points to 3.5 points.10 

Table 3.2 

Changes in SAT Averages by Race/Ethnicity

 Average SAT Score 

1990–91 2000–01 Net Change 

White 1031 1060 29 

Black 846 859 13 

Hispanic 920 925 5 

Asian American 1033 1067 34 

American Indian 938 960 22 

Other 978 1015 37 

Source: College Entrance Examination Board, National Report on College-Bound Seniors, various 

years, <http://nces.ed.gov/edstats/link1to4.asp>. 

A series of nationwide studies beginning in 1979 reveals that over the years, selectivity at fouryear institutions has increased, with higher standards required of potential students. At the same 

time, recruitment efforts targeting specific groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, have 

decreased in the last decade.11 According to one educator, the college admissions process has 

become big business, with schools competing for the “best and brightest” students who bring 

prestige. As a result, acceptance rates at both Ivy League schools and prestigious state schools 

have dropped significantly over the last 20 years. Low-income and minority students have also 

been left out of the recruitment process, as administrators of postsecondary institutions have 

spent more resources attracting students who are already likely to have the means to attend college. As a result, inequalities in educational attainment and socioeconomic status are made 

worse.12 

Stricter admissions requirements and more competitive enrollment processes render schools less 

likely to attract diverse students and make evident the need for proactive recruitment programs 

 

8

 College Entrance Examination Board, National Report on College-Bound Seniors, various years, <http://nces.ed. 

gov/edstats/link1to4.asp>, table 134. 

9

 CNN.com, “Schools Blamed for Racial Gap in SAT Scores,” Aug. 28, 2001. 

10 June Kronholz, “Fall in Test Scores for ACT Reflects Curricula Choices,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 21, 2002, p. 

B2; “Changes by Illinois, Colorado Cited for Drop in ACT Scores,” Washington Times, Aug. 21, 2002, p. A9. 

11 Breland, et al., Trends in College Admission, 2000, p. 6. 

12 Robert B. Reich, “How Selective Colleges Heighten Inequality,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 15, 2000, 

<http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i03/03b00701.htm>. 
Draft Staff Report 78

and nontraditional admissions requirements.13 As research has demonstrated, “when merit is primarily determined in terms of a test score, universities create cut-off scores that have a very serious racial impact.”14 Instead, it is suggested that students be evaluated based on other factors, 

including high school grades, personal background and goals, work experience, extracurricular 

activities, and other success predictors less prone to bias. 

EVOLVING ADMISSIONS CRITERIA

While selectivity has increased overall, some schools are attempting to take a more holistic approach to admissions. Criteria in many cases are broader today than historically, taking into account specialized talents and extraordinary accomplishments. The University of California 

system, for example, adopted an admissions system in spring 2002 called a comprehensive review, which provides “bonus” points to applicants who have overcome extraordinary life challenges. The purpose of the new procedure, which was implemented in response to the state’s ban 

on racial preferences, as discussed earlier, is to equalize opportunity.15 The UC system, which is 

the largest higher education system in the country, also decided to do away with the SAT as an 

admissions criterion in 2001. 

Similar practices can be seen around the country. In Texas, students who qualify under the 

state’s percentage plan program are not required to take either the SAT or ACT. Columbia University in New York also now relies on a combination of indicators, including a personal essay, 

extracurricular activities, references, grade point averages, and SAT scores for admissions.16

Nearly 300 other institutions have made the SAT optional, relying instead on student portfolios, 

essays, interviews, grades, and class ranks.17

 

One study compared two admissions strategies—one relying on students’ high school records 

alone and the other using both high school records and SAT scores. While the outcomes of admissions decisions were largely the same under each approach, the SAT-based strategy resulted 

in a greater number of rejections of otherwise qualified minority and low-income applicants.18

This finding supports the argument that using race as one of many factors in admissions is the 

only way colleges can offset biases in standardized tests.19

According to the president of the College Board, the group that administers the SAT, when it 

comes to racial and ethnic differences in test scores, the test itself is not the problem. Rather, the 

 

13 The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, “Civil Rights Alert, The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open,” 

n.d., <http://www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/alerts/access.html> (hereafter cited as the Civil Rights Project, “The 

Struggle to Keep College Doors Open”). 

14 The Civil Rights Project, “The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open.” 

15 Daniel Golden, “Extra Credit: To Get Into UCLA, It Helps to Face ‘Life Challenges’,” Wall Street Journal, July 

12, 2002, p. A1. 

16 The Leadership Alliance, “All Things Being Equal: Minorities and the Merits of Standardized Tests,” Alliance 

Viewpoint, vol. 3, no. 1 (Spring 2001). 

17 Holly Stepp, “Top Educators Question Merit of SAT Exam,” Miami Herald, Mar. 11, 2001, p. 1B. 18 FairTest, The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, “The SAT: Questions and Answers,” <http://www. 

fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm>. 

19 Erik Lords, “Expert: Aptitude Tests Are Biased, He Says UM’s Policy Can Correct,” Detroit Free Press, Feb. 7, 

2001, p. 1B, quoting Martin Shapiro, professor, Emory University. 
Draft Staff Report 79

problem is an unfair educational system in the United States.20 However, according to another 

commentator, “the bottom line is that standardized testing can never be a fair measure of skill 

between the underprivileged and the privileged.”21 Another noted: 

Talent and potential come in all complexions and from within a rather broad range of SAT scores. 

Students with modest test scores often fare quite well on academically competitive campuses. Other 

attributes, like drive and lifelong learning, determine whether they become superstars in school and 

ultimately what they achieve in life. So we shouldn’t automatically presume, much less proclaim, that 

those who score the highest on standardized exams are ipso facto more qualified.22

It is also noteworthy that entrance exams such as the SAT and ACT not only determine college 

acceptance, but also often are used as a criterion for merit awards and scholarships. The fact that 

high-income and nonminority students tend to score higher on these tests results in an uneven 

distribution of resources to students who may not need them.23

In response to the increasing movement away from the SAT, and particularly the University of 

California’s decision to stop using it, the College Board voted in June 2002 to revamp the exam. 

The new SAT, which will begin in spring 2005, will include an essay portion and require higher 

levels of math preparation. Many admissions directors praise the changes, particularly the addition of the essay portion, as providing a better tool to assess students’ true abilities. Others, however, are concerned that students from schools with less rigorous academic programs will be 

unfairly penalized and that test score gaps will increase.24 

There has been movement away from reliance on standardized tests and toward comprehensive 

reviews in graduate school admissions as well. In June 2001, Texas passed a law prohibiting 

medical and graduate schools in the state from using test scores as the sole or primary factor in 

admissions. The law requires the consideration of 11 additional factors, including an applicant’s 

hometown and poverty status.25 Prior to the new law, there were no formal attempts to diversify 

graduate schools as there were for undergraduate programs (e.g., the percentage plan described 

earlier). Statewide, in 2000, 4 percent of students in doctoral programs were black, 6 percent 

were Hispanic, 55 percent were white, and 30 percent were from abroad.26 The comprehensive 

review provides economically disadvantaged students a better chance of gaining admittance to 

graduate and professional programs. Proponents of the law see it as a remedy to the Hopwood 

 

20 CNN.com, “Schools Blamed for Racial Gap in SAT Scores,” Aug. 28, 2001, quoting Gaston Caperton, president, 

College Board. 

21 Andrea Forker, “Do We Value the SAT Too Much?” Cornell Daily Sun, Jan. 21, 2002, <http://www.cornelldaily 

sun.com/articles/4260/>. 

22 Hugh B. Price, president, National Urban League, “The Assault on Affirmative Action: Counting the Casualties,” 

statement, April 2000, <http://www.cgi.nul.org/assaultaffirmative.html>. 

23 Reich, “How Selective Colleges Heighten Inequality.” 

24 Tamar Lewin, “New SAT Writing Test Planned,” New York Times, June 23, 2002, <http://www.nytimes.com>. 

25 Linda K. Wertheimer, “Grad Schools Put to the Test; New State Law Promotes Diversity, Complicates Decisions 

on Who Gets in,” Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 2002, p. 1A. 26 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 80

decision, which banned race-based admissions, and argue that this holistic approach to admissions is more sophisticated than the 10 percent plan used in undergraduate admissions.27

DIVERSIFYING THE POOL OF APPLICANTS AND PROMOTING SUCCESS

Going beyond modifications to the admissions process itself and recognizing the need to cultivate a more diverse pool of potential applicants, many colleges and universities have made attempts to better prepare students for postsecondary study. Following are some examples of 

initiatives designed to recruit students from underrepresented groups and improve their chances 

for academic success at the college level: 

 The University of Vermont has “adopted” a public high school in the Bronx, New York, 

from which it recruits Hispanic and black students. The university works with high 

school students to ensure that they have the skills necessary to compete with other applicants. Other rural institutions, including Colgate University, Skidmore College, and St. 

Michael’s College, have similarly partnered with urban feeder schools in New York and 

Boston.28

 A groundbreaking summer school program in Boston pairs students from a local charter 

school with student tutors from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The high 

school students spend four hours a day, four days a week on campus receiving one-onone instruction in basic math, reading, and English skills to prepare them for future studies. The MIT tutors are supported through the federally funded work-study program. 

 Several foundations, spearheaded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have come 

together to support the creation of 70 “early college” high schools that will award both 

diplomas and associate degrees by working with nearby universities and community colleges. The high schools are designed to keep students from dropping out and will target 

students from low-income families.29 

 For nearly 10 years, a program called Target Hope in Chicago has attempted to improve 

minority student achievement in elementary and secondary school to prepare them for 

college. Promising students from Chicago’s public schools are placed in Saturday workshops taught by college professors for 42 weeks a year for four years.30 

 Many colleges and universities around the country, including Notre Dame, the University 

of Illinois, and the University of Chicago, have also stepped up their recruitment of minority high school students by offering free campus visits, development seminars and 

workshops, and hefty financial aid packages.31 

 

27 Ibid., quoting Robert Nelsen, chair, faculty advisory council, University of Texas System. 28 Jacques Steinberg, “University of Vermont Build Pool of Recruits in the Bronx,” New York Times, Dec. 26, 2001, 

p. 1A. 

29 Audrey Y. Williams, “Gates Foundation to Bankroll Creation of 70 ‘Early College’ High Schools,” Chronicle of 

Higher Education, Mar. 19, 2002, <http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2002/03/2002031901n.htm>. 

30 Meg McSherry Breslin and Robert Becker, “Colleges Start Early to Recruit Minorities; Schools Cultivate Best at 

Young Age,” Chicago Tribune, June 9, 2002, p. 1C. 31 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 81

 Finally, in response to the backlash against affirmative action, and in an effort to diversify the workforce of the future, several major corporations have partnered with universities to create the Business-Higher Education Forum. The group advocates percentage 

plans, “whole person” approaches to college admissions that go beyond test scores and 

grades, increases in available financial aid packages, and third-party outreach, which 

pools the resources of nonprofit organizations that assist minority groups.32

CONCLUSION

The nation’s courts, states, and postsecondary institutions are engaged in a struggle to strike a 

balance between inclusive admissions criteria and unfair standards, and between proactive recruitment and race-neutral policies. Research has demonstrated that standardized tests such as 

the SAT and ACT may not be appropriate predictors of ability or achievement potential. Data 

demonstrate consistently lower performance of minority students on standardized tests, resulting 

in disproportionate rejection of minority students in colleges and universities where this criterion 

is heavily weighted. 

As affirmative action-motivated recruitment efforts are decreasing, selectivity at four-year institutions is increasing. Unless proactive efforts are made to attract and retain minority students in 

prestigious colleges and universities, inequalities in educational attainment and socioeconomic 

status will be made worse. A more holistic approach to admissions decisions is necessary to offset 

unequal educational opportunities and preserve much sought-after diversity on college campuses.

 

32 Jennifer Merritt, “Wanted: A Campus that Looks Like America,” Business Week, Mar. 11, 2002. 
Draft Staff Report 82

CHAPTER 4 

National Trends in College Enrollment 

In each of the three states reviewed for this report, percentage plans failed to significantly increase enrollment for all minority groups, particularly at the most prestigious state institutions. 

Moreover, national data reveal that these three states are not an anomaly, minority enrollment 

indeed is leveling off. Fear exists among many students and educators that programs that give 

minorities and low-income students equal access to higher education will be eliminated and that 

gains minority students have made will be reversed as more states move away from affirmative 

action. 

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ENROLLMENT 

As figure 4.1 demonstrates, prior to the bans on race-based admissions, there was a steady increase in overall minority enrollment in undergraduate programs over a 25-year period, particularly in the 1980s and early 1990s. In keeping with population trends, non-Hispanic white 

students make up the majority of college students, 67 percent. However, the gap between minorities and nonminorities has narrowed since 1976, when white students composed more than 80 

percent of college students. Today, black non-Hispanic students make up 12.2 percent, Hispanic 

students make up 11.5 percent, and Asian Pacific American students make up 5.2 percent of college enrollments (see figure 4.2). 

Figure 4.1 

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Postsecondary Enrollment, 1976–99 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1976 1980 1990 1995 1999

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

Total minority

Note: The numbers of American Indian/Alaska Native students are too small to show on the graph. In 1976 they made up 0.7 percent of 

student enrollment, and in 1999 they made up 1 percent. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, ch.3, table 207.
Draft Staff Report 83

Figure 4.2 

Percentage Distribution of Undergraduates by Race/Ethnicity, 1999–2000

Black, nonHispanic

12.2%

Hispanic, any race

11.5%

Asian

5.2%

Other

4.5%

White, nonHispanic

66.6%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary 

Educational Institutions: 1999–2000, Statistical Analysis Report, July 2002, p. iv. 

Only 2 percent of postsecondary students are visiting noncitizen students, and another 5 percent 

are noncitizen permanent residents of the United States. Ten percent of students are citizen children of foreign-born parents. Approximately 13 percent of undergraduate students speak a language other than English at home, the largest proportion of whom speaks Spanish (43 percent).1

Enrollment also varies within racial and ethnic groups. For example, among Hispanic students, 

more than half (55 percent) reported being Mexican American or Chicano, 15 percent reported 

being Puerto Rican, 4 percent Cuban, and the remaining 27 percent of other Hispanic ethnic 

identity. Among Asian American students, the breakdown is as follows: 25.1 percent Chinese, 

13.1 percent Korean, 12.8 percent Vietnamese, 11.2 percent Japanese, 11.0 percent Asian Indian, 

10.5 percent Filipino, 2.9 percent Thai, and 13.1 percent of other ethnicity.

2

 This distinction reflects the need for targeted outreach and recruitment, and illustrates that the notion of the “overrepresented” Asian American student is not true for all subgroups. 

Among postsecondary students, most racial and ethnic groups are roughly at parity with representation in the general population, with the exception of Asian Pacific Americans who are 

slightly overrepresented, depending on subgroup. Differences appear, however, when refining 

the analysis to traditional college-age students (ages 18–23). As table 4.1 illustrates, nonHispanic white students are overrepresented among undergraduate students, while black and 

Hispanic students are underrepresented. Data indicate that white students are more likely than 

other racial/ethnic groups to be enrolled in postsecondary education at the traditional age of enrollment. Minority students are less likely to enter college right after high school; employment or 

 

1

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Educational Institutions: 1999–2000, Statistical Analysis Report, July 2002, pp. 11–12. 2 Ibid., pp. 10–11. 
Draft Staff Report 84

other factors that limit full-time attendance may account for a more protracted period of educational pursuit. The average age of African American and American Indian students is higher than 

the average age of all undergraduate students.3

 

Table 4.1 

Comparison of Undergraduate Enrollment and U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity, 

Persons of Traditional College Age 

Percent of 

undergraduates, 

ages 19–23 

Percent of 

U.S. population, 

ages 18–24 

White, non-Hispanic 68.5 61.6 

Black or African American 10.6 14.0 

American Indian or Alaska Native 0.7 1.1 

Asian American 5.3 4.2 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.8 0.2 

Hispanic or Latino, any race 11.1 17.5 

Other 4.5 8.5 

Note: Totals do not add up to 100 percent because individuals may be counted as both Hispanic and by a race category. 

These numbers reflect only those individuals who selected a single race category on the census. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Educational Institutions: 1999–2000, Statistical Analysis Report, July 2002, p. 14; Population figures compiled from 

data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, <http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=467063 02748>.

Table 4.2 

Percentage of Postsecondary Students by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group, 1999–2000

23 years old or 

younger 

24 to 39 

years old 

White, non-Hispanic 58.8 28.6 

Black or African American 49.4 37.8 

American Indian or Alaska Native 45.2 40.1 

Asian American 58.1 33.3 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 56.6 38.1 

Hispanic or Latino, any race 55.9 34.6 

Other 62.5 30.5 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. 

Postsecondary Educational Institutions: 1999–2000, Statistical Analysis Report, July 2002, p. 8.

Table 4.3 illustrates that white and Asian American students are more likely than any other group 

of students to attend a four-year institution. African American, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska 

Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students are more likely to attend public two-year 

institutions or private commercial institutions, the majority of which offer programs that are two 

years or less, such as vocational certificates. For the 1999 academic year, minorities composed 

 

3

 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 
Draft Staff Report 85

24.8 percent of all students enrolled in four-year institutions and 33.4 percent of those enrolled in 

two-year institutions.4

Table 4.3 

Percentage of 1999–2000 Undergraduates Attending Selected Types of Institutions 

by Race/Ethnicity

Institution Attended 

4-Year Institutions 

Public 

Private 

not-forprofit Total 

Public 

2-year 

Private forprofit* Other 

White, non-Hispanic 32.9 14.6 47.5 41.3 3.8 7.4 

Black, non-Hispanic 27.8 11.5 39.3 44.4 7.8 8.5 

Hispanic, any race 25.3 14.6 39.9 44.7 8.5 6.9 

Asian American 36.4 11.9 48.3 39.0 4.3 8.5 

American Indian/Alaska 

Native 22.2 13.0 35.2 53.4 2.9 8.6 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander 27.4 12.3 39.7 46.9 5.6 7.9 

Other 28.0 14.2 42.2 40.4 4.5 13.0 

Total 31.3 14.0 45.3 42.1 4.9 7.6 

* Most private-for-profit institutions (75 percent) offer programs that are two years or less. 

The column “Other” includes students who attend more than one institution and private not-for-profit institutions that offer less than 

four-year programs. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary 

Educational Institutions: 1999–2000, Statistical Analysis Report, July 2002, p. 22.

Institutional selectivity also has an effect on educational outcomes. Researchers have noted that 

attending a selective program can influence future career aspirations, pursuit of graduate education, earning potential, and other success measures.5

 A study of full-time, first-year students at 

four-year colleges and universities found that black students are more than three times as likely 

to be enrolled in the least competitive institutions compared with the most competitive.6 Conversely, Asian American students are more than six times as likely to be enrolled in the most 

competitive institutions as in those that have noncompetitive admissions policies. White students 

tend to be most represented among institutions classified as highly competitive, very competitive, and competitive (see table 4.4). This finding validates the concerns expressed by some 

scholars that the more selective institutions become, the less likely they are to recruit and admit 

minority students and those from lower socioeconomic classes.7

 Further, from these data it can 

 

4

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System, “Fall Enrollment” surveys, prepared April 2001. 

5

 The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, “Civil Rights Alert, The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open,” 

n.d., <http://www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/alerts/access.html>. 6

 Note that in this section the term “first-year” is used rather that “first-time.” This reflects the terminology used in 

the data cited and includes students who are in their first year of college, regardless of whether they have previously 

attended. 

7 See discussion on admissions standards in chap. 3. 
Draft Staff Report 86

be surmised that disparities in access have led to a form of “ ‘educational segregation’—the differential clustering of students in institutions by race, gender, or socio-economic status.”8

Table 4.4 

Percentage of Full-Time First-Year Students Attending Four-Year Colleges and 

Universities (N=1394) by Selectivity of Institution, 1997 

African 

American Hispanic White Asian 

American 

Total enrollment 11.3 6.0 73.8 6.1 

Most competitive (49) 6.6 6.0 69.1 13.3 

Highly competitive (70) 5.2 5.3 76.9 9.9 

Very competitive (224) 6.0 6.7 75.5 9.0 

Competitive (652) 10.4 5.3 77.0 4.5 

Less competitive (288) 21.4 7.0 64.9 4.1 

Non-competitive (111) 22.6 6.7 66.1 2.1 

Source: Michael T. Nettles, professor of education, University of Michigan, “The Challenge of Diversity in College Admissions,” Feb. 18, 2000, <www.nettles.org/presentation_events/UVA_presentation.pdf>. 

GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT

Similar patterns of minority enrollment exist at the graduate and professional levels. As figure 

4.3 illustrates, there has been an overall increase in the enrollment of students of color in graduate schools over the last 25 years. In 1976, minority students made up 10.8 percent of the graduate students enrolled in institutions of higher education. By 1999, the percentage had nearly 

doubled to 21.3 percent.9

 Yet, minorities remain more underrepresented in the graduate student 

population than among undergraduates. In 1999, the demographic composition of graduate students was as follows: 78.7 percent white, non-Hispanic; 9.3 percent black, non-Hispanic; 5.7 

percent Hispanic; 5.6 percent Asian Pacific American; and 0.6 percent American Indian/Alaska 

Native.10 These numbers reflect a significant underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic graduate students in particular, as compared with their representation in the national population. 

 

8

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Reconceptualizing Access in Postsecondary Education, Report of the Policy Panel on Access, August 1998, p. 1 (hereafter cited as NCES, Reconceptualizing 

Access in Postsecondary Education). 

9

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, table 

208, p. 243. 

10 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 87

Figure 4.3 

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Graduate Students, 1976–99 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White, nonHispanicBlack, nonHispanicHispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

Total minority

1976 1990 1999

Note: The numbers of American Indian/Alaska Native students are too small to show on the graph. In 1976 they made up 0.4 percent of graduate student enrollment, and in 1999 they made up 0.6 percent. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, table 208, pp. 

242–43, compiled from Higher Education General Information Survey, “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” and Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System, “Fall Enrollment” surveys.

Similar underrepresentation exists in law schools, where in the 1999–2000 academic year minority students made up 21.6 percent of the law student population (see figure 4.4). Minority students are better represented in the field of medicine, making up 31.5 percent of the students 

enrolled in medical schools in 1999–2000, largely due to the high representation of Asian Pacific 

American students (17.3 percent). Hispanic and black students are both significantly underrepresented in the fields of law and medicine compared with their representation in the general population. 

While blacks compose 12.3 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 7.3 and 7.2 percent of 

law and medical students, respectively. Hispanics compose 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, 

but only 5.7 percent of law students and 5.4 percent of medical students.11 Particularly in the 

field of medicine, where cultural and linguistic competency is critical, there is reason to be 

alarmed by the striking absence of minority students, and further research examining the reasons 

behind such disparities is critical.

 

11 Ibid., table 278; U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, 

“Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000,” issued May 2001. 
Draft Staff Report 88

Figure 4.4 

Professional Degree Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 1999–2000 Percent

2.2 1.6

6.5 17.3

5.7 5.4

7.3 7.2

78.4 68.5

Law Medicine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Other

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic

The category of “Other” includes American Indian/Alaska Native and nonresident alien students. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, table 278, 

compiled from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, “Completions” survey.

CONCLUSION

As the data demonstrate, national trends in postsecondary education reveal continued disparities 

in higher education, despite the improvement made as a result of affirmative action programs. 

While the numbers of college students of color increased significantly in the 1990s, minority 

students remain underrepresented in the most selective undergraduate institutions, those that offer four-year degrees, and in graduate and professional schools. Significant enrollment disparities 

among population subgroups persist. 

National postsecondary education data demonstrate alarming trends. It is clear that equal access 

to education has not yet been achieved. Moreover, recent challenges to longstanding affirmative 

action policies, which allow such factors as race and ethnicity to be considered in the admissions 

process, may cause “doors leading to certain higher education institutions . . . to close altogether 

for some students.”12 

 

12 NCES, Reconceptualizing Access in Postsecondary Education, p. 1. 
Draft Staff Report 89

CHAPTER 5 

Facilitating Academic and Financial Access to 

Higher Education 

Access to higher education is not only dependent on a fair and flexible admissions process, as 

has been the focus of this paper thus far, but can also be limited by inadequate academic preparation and financial constraints. Only when all three components are present—admissions, academic, and financial support—can affirmative access to higher education truly be achieved. 

Academic support and financial aid are vital measures to level the opportunities for higher e

cation, and the federal government’s role is therefore critical. 

du-

 

Because race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are so clearly linked in the United States, with 

people of color more often making up the ranks of the poor, these are the students most likely to 

require academic and financial supports. With recent attention drawn to America’s “failing 

schools,” perhaps more than ever, federal intervention in the form of outreach, counseling, and 

supplemental academic instruction is paramount. Further, research has shown that increases in 

tuition rates and relative decreases in financial aid have had a significant effect on college enrollments for minority and lower-income students, limiting the opportunities for those who cannot afford the high costs of college.1

 Financial access not only has implications for the choices in 

institutions students have, but also their ability to complete a course of study, both of which have 

long-term socioeconomic consequences. 

Over the last 40 years, many federal and state programs have been implemented to meet the 

needs of low-income students. These include the federal TRIO programs to assist disadvantaged 

and low-income students in preparing for higher education and financial aid to assist lower- and 

middle-income students with college tuition and expenses. Following is a detailed assessment of 

how these federal initiatives, when used in conjunction with proactive recruitment and admissions efforts, can contribute to the goal of increasing diversity on college campuses across the 

country. 

1 See, e.g., Michael S. McPherson and Morton O. Schapiro, Reinforcing Stratification in American Higher Education: Some Disturbing Trends, National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University, 1999, pp. 14–

15; Thomas G. Mortenson, The Impact of Financial Aid on College Retention for Minority Students, submission to 

the Summit on College and University Retention (Clinton, NJ: Merck & Company, November 1999); the Institute 

for Higher Education Policy, The Policy of Choice: Expanding Student Options in Higher Education, August 2002. 
Draft Staff Report 90

THE TRIO PROGRAMS

TRIO refers to a set of federal programs designed to assist and encourage economically disadvantaged students to pursue and complete postsecondary education.2

 Congress initially established the first three programs in the 1960s: Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support 

Services. By the 1980s, TRIO expanded to include three additional programs: the Educational 

Opportunity Centers, the Training Program for TRIO staff,3 and the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program. In 1990, the Department of Education created the Upward Bound 

Math/Science Program, and in 1998, the TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program began.4

TRIO designates money to help students overcome class, social, academic, and cultural barriers 

to higher education. TRIO funds are provided by the Department of Education and are distributed to institutions of higher education, businesses, private organizations, and individuals 

through competitive grants. More than 1,200 colleges, universities, community colleges, and 

agencies sponsor TRIO programs. 

TRIO—How It Works 

The mission of the TRIO programs is to “maximize educational opportunities for low-income 

and potential first-generation college students through direct services that provide access to education and encourage retention through the education pipeline.” The goal is “to help students 

succeed in attaining postsecondary education and graduating from degree programs.”5

 TRIO 

programs are designed to identify promising students for college (Talent Search), prepare them 

to do college-level work (Upward Bound), provide tutoring and support services to ensure college retention and graduation (Student Support Services), and encourage low-income and minority undergraduates to consider doctoral studies (Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program). By offering such services as tutoring, academic instruction, and projects 

to improve students’ study skills, the grantees strive to meet TRIO’s mission and goals. It is the 

responsibility of the grantees to find and place eligible students in the programs and provide the 

resources necessary to carry out the services offered. To help identify and recruit eligible elementary, middle, and high school students, many of the TRIO grantees establish long-term rela-

 

2

 U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service, Satisfaction with 

TRIO Programs, Final Report, 1999, p. 1 (hereafter cited as DOEd, Satisfaction with TRIO). 

3

 The Educational Opportunity Centers provide grants to institutions for counseling and college admissions information to qualified adults, the majority of whom are displaced or underemployed workers. The grants help them to enter or continue postsecondary education. The purpose of the TRIO training program is to enhance the skills and 

expertise of staff employed in TRIO programs. See DOEd, Satisfaction with TRIO, pp. 2–3. See Lisa Ross, “Upward 

Bound; SUNO (Southern University, New Orleans) Lauds College Prep Program,” Times-Picayune, East New Orleans, Mar. 5, 2000, p. C1 (hereafter cited as Ross, “Upward Bound; SUNO”). 4

 The three original programs were funded under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Part A 

(20 U.S.C. §§ 1070a-11 and 1070a-13); DOEd, Satisfaction with TRIO, pp. ix, 1–2. In October 1998, the TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program was authorized, with its first grants awarded in September 1999. The program is 

designed to encourage grantees to share their best practices with non-TRIO educational program operators. Cheryl 

D. Fields, “Going Head-to-Head or Hand-in-Hand?” Black Issues in Higher Education, Dec. 6, 2001, p. 29. This 

section focuses on the four student TRIO programs: Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and 

the Robert E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Program. 

5

 U.S. Department of Education, Office of TRIO Programs, “A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program: 1998–99,” April 2002, p. 2, <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/mcnair.html> (hereafter cited as DOEd, “A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Program”). 
Draft Staff Report 91

tionships with schools in nearby communities. They usually network with the schools’ guidance 

counselors to help find students for the programs.6

 The in-college programs are advertised on 

campuses and eligible students may apply directly if they meet the requirements. 

For a grantee to receive TRIO funds, two-thirds of the participating students must come from a 

low-income family in which neither parent graduated from college.7

 Income eligibility is based 

on the size of the family unit and the family’s income level, as determined by the Department of 

Education.8

 For example, in 2002, a student is eligible to participate in TRIO if the family’s income is less than $27,150 for a family of four.9

Currently, 1,750 TRIO programs serve nearly 700,000 low-income Americans. Forty-two percent of TRIO students are white; 35 percent are African American; 15 percent are Hispanic; 4 

percent are Asian Pacific American; and 16,000 are disabled.10

 

6

 In the grant applications, grantees are required to describe the need for the project and submit a plan of operation, 

including the criteria for the selection of students. The plan identifies the target (geographic) area and/or schools that 

they have contacted for eligible students. Eligibility is based on family income, and recruitment or selection sites 

may be based on various factors, including the number of students eligible for free lunch or the number of students 

at a school who participate in other programs for economically disadvantaged children. Frances Bergeron, team 

leader, Office of TRIO Programs, U.S. Department of Education, telephone interview, Sept. 5, 2002 (hereafter cited 

as Bergeron telephone interview, Sept. 5, 2002). 

7

 The Robert E. McNair Program may include certain minority undergraduates who are considered to be underrepresented in graduate education. 

8

 For TRIO eligibility, the term “low-income individual” means an individual (student) whose family’s taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount. There are two versions of the 

federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds and the poverty guidelines. The poverty thresholds are the original 

version of the federal poverty measure. The poverty thresholds are updated each year by the Census Bureau and are 

used mainly for preparing estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each year. The poverty thresholds are 

the official poverty population figures. The poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure. 

They are issued each year in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds and are used for determining the financial eligibility of 

certain federal programs. The poverty level is the same for 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, and is 

slightly higher for Alaska and Hawaii. The Department of Education uses a variation of the two federal poverty 

measures in computing the income eligibility criteria for TRIO. The department adjusts the family income levels 

established by the Census Bureau by increasing the amounts of the poverty income by 150 percent based on the size 

of the family unit. For example, in 2002, the poverty level amount for a family of four is $18,100. When adjusted by 

150 percent, the poverty income level for the same size family is $27,150. The poverty level income is adjusted for 

each size of the family unit. See U.S. Department of Education, “Federal TRIO Programs 2002 Annual Low Income 

Levels,” Feb. 22, 2002, <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/incomelevels.html>. 9

 It should be noted that unlike the Census Bureau, HHS does not report the ages of the family members in its poverty guidelines or in its TRIO income formula. Thus, it is difficult to know exactly how many children are eligible 

for the TRIO programs based on the department’s income eligibility criteria. Frances Bergeron, team leader, office 

of Federal TRIO Programs, U.S. Department of Education, telephone interview, Sept. 9, 2002. 

10 The National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations (NCEOA), “Real Educational Opportunity for 

Low-Income Americans,” pp. 1–6, <http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwsss/trio.html> (hereafter cited as NCEOA, “Real 

Educational Opportunity”). NCEOA is a nonprofit organization that represents institutions of higher education 

committed to advancing equal educational opportunity for disadvantaged youth. Its principal concern is sustaining 

and improving educational program services, the majority of which are TRIO programs. Since 1965, more than 10.5 

million Americans, 67 percent from poor and working families, have benefited from TRIO. Of that number, 39 percent are white, 36 percent are African American, 16 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are American Indian, and 4 percent are Asian Pacific Americans. Ross, “Upward Bound; SUNO,” p. C1. 
Draft Staff Report 92

Talent Search (TS) is a pre-college program that identifies and assists economically disadvantaged youth in elementary, middle, and senior high schools who have the potential to succeed in 

higher education. The program provides academic, career, and financial aid counseling, tutoring, 

exposure to college campuses, and assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 

in completing college admission applications.11 The goal of the program is to increase the number of economically disadvantaged youth who graduate from high school and continue on to a 

postsecondary institution of their choice. In 1999, Talent Search served 323,541 students, the 

majority of whom were in middle school; 74 percent were low-income and first-generation college students, and 68 percent of the participants were minorities.12 

The goal of Upward Bound (UB) is to increase the rates of economically disadvantaged middle 

and high school students and adults completing secondary education and enrolling in higher education institutions. Most of the students—about 90 percent—enter UB in the ninth or 10th grade, 

and about 35 percent remain with the program through high school graduation.13 In 1999, UB 

served 52,960 students, the majority of whom were African American. The program provides 

grants to institutions for fundamental support in participants’ preparation for college through participation in pre-college academic programs. Participants receive instruction in literature, foreign 

languages, and other subjects they will likely encounter on college campuses.14 

The Upward Bound Math and Science (UBMS) program offers grants to institutions to 

strengthen the math and science skills of participating low-income, first-generation college students. The goal of the math and science component of UB is to help high school students recognize and develop their potential to excel in math and science and to encourage them to pursue 

postsecondary degrees in those fields.15 In 1999, 6,200 participated in the UBMS program. 

The Student Support Services (SSS) program focuses on improving college retention and graduation rates of disadvantaged college students. The in-college program provides participants with 

academic and nonacademic supplemental services that include tutoring, career and personal 

counseling, remedial assistance, and cultural enrichment activities. Seven hundred SSS projects 

currently serve 165,000 college students. The program is targeted to serve students from lowincome families, students with disabilities, or those for whom neither parent has graduated from 

 

11 DOEd, Satisfaction with TRIO, pp. 2–3. U.S. Department of Education, “A Study of the Talent Search Program,” 

1995 <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/talent.html>; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal 

TRIO Programs, “A Profile of the Talent Search Program: 1998–99,” May 2002 (hereafter citied as DOEd, “A Profile of the Talent Search Program, 1998–99”). 

12 DOEd, “A Profile of the Talent Search Program 1998–99,” p. ix. 

13 U.S. Department of Education, “The National Evaluation of Upward Bound: Summary of First-Year Impacts and 

Program Operations,” 1997, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/upward3.html> (hereafter cited as DOEd, 

“The National Evaluation of Upward Bound,” 1997); U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, 

Planning and Evaluation Service, “The Impacts of Upward Bound: Final Report For Phase I of the National Evaluation Analysis and Highlights,” <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/upward.html> (hereafter cited as 

DOEd, “Impacts of Upward Bound: Phase I, 1999). 

14 DOEd, Satisfaction with TRIO, p. 3; NCEOA, “Real Educational Opportunity,” p. 2. 15 DOE, Satisfaction with TRIO, p. 3. 
Draft Staff Report 93

college. SSS students are more likely to be economically disadvantaged and minority, and have 

poor academic preparation for college.16

The Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program17 prepares lowincome, first-generation college students and individuals who are underrepresented in graduate 

education (African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and Native Americans) for doctoral studies. 

The McNair program awards grants to institutions of higher education for projects designed to 

prepare participants for doctoral studies through involvement in research and other scholarly activities. The program offers the following services: mentoring, summer internships, tutoring, 

seminars, and counseling. The goal is to increase graduate degree attainment of eligible students.18 In 1999, 3,641 undergraduates participated in the McNair program. Seventy-two percent 

were classified as low-income and first-generation students, and 75 percent were classified as 

members of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.19 In fiscal year 2001, $35.8 million was 

awarded in 156 grants to higher education institutions to serve an estimated 3,774 students.20 The 

program offers participants the following services: mentoring, summer internships, tutoring, academic counseling, seminars and other scholarly activities, assistance in securing admission and 

financial aid for enrollment in graduate programs, and research opportunities for participants 

who have completed their sophomore year of college.21 

Federal Appropriations for TRIO 

Over the years, there has been strong congressional support for the TRIO program. Appropriations for TRIO were $600 million for fiscal year 1999,22 and nearly $700 million in fiscal year 

2001.23 In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Bush administration recommended $800 mil-

 

16 U.S. Department of Education, “National Study of Student Support Services: Third Year Longitudinal Study Results, Analysis and Highlights,” 1997, <http:www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/sssyr3.html>; U.S. Department 

of Education, “Interim Report; National Study of Student Support Services: Third Year Longitudinal Study Results,” 1997, Executive Summary, <http:www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/sss3.html>. 

17 The program is named in honor of the African American astronaut who died in the 1986 space shuttle explosion. 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Office of Minority Student Affairs, “What Is TRIO?” 

<http://www.omsa.uiuc.edu/webstar/html/ilaeopp/whats_trio.html>. 18 In 1999, 75 percent of the McNair grantees were public institutions. Historically black colleges and universities 

made up 10 percent of grantees, and Hispanic-serving institutions accounted for 11 percent of the grantees. DOEd, 

“A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Program,” pp. viii, xi, 2. 19 DOEd, “A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Program,” p. xii. 

20 U.S. Department of Education, “Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program,” and “McNair 

Program List of Funded Projects for 2001–2002, <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/Hep/trio/mcnair.html>. 21 DOEd, “A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Program,” p. 2. 

22 DOEd, Satisfaction with TRIO, p. 2. Through the years, the TRIO programs have received congressional support. 

For example, supporters of TRIO have worked to bypass spending caps established by the 1997 Balanced Budget 

Act in order to increase the funding. In 1999, Congress decided to increase the funding at a higher level than the 

Clinton administration’s funding proposal for the program. One of the strongest supporters of TRIO is Rep. Henry 

Bonilla, who participated in the Talent Search program as a youth. He says that the program “made a huge difference” in his life. He further states that “TRIO programs help a lot of kids do a lot of great things they might not be 

able to do otherwise. That is why Upward Bound and TRIO have a lot of support in Congress.” Brian Boney, “TRIO 

Helps Low-Income Students; Programs Find Friends in High Places,” Dallas Morning News, Aug. 3, 1999, p. 16A. 

23 Cheryl D. Fields, “Can TRIO and GEAR UP Continue to Coexist?” Black Issues in Higher Education, Dec. 6, 

2001, pp. 28–29. 
Draft Staff Report 94

lion for the TRIO program.24 Table 5.1 shows the TRIO funding for 1967 through 1999. Overall, 

TRIO finding reflects a generally upward trend with occasional decreases, which have applied to 

TS, UB, and SSS. 

Table 5.1 

TRIO Funding Levels in Constant 1999 Dollars (Millions), 1967–99 

Year TS UB UBMS SSS McNair Total 

1967 $12.4 $139.7 N/A N/A N/A $152.1 

1970 $21.5 $127.1 N/A $42.9 N/A $191.5 

1975 $18.6 $118.6 N/A $71.2 N/A $218.4 

1980 $30.9 $126.4 N/A $121.3 N/A $378.6 

1985 $32.1 $114.0 N/A $108.5 N/A $256.6 

1990 $24.5 $128.2 $4.3 $115.9 $3.8 $276.7 

1995 $85.7 $208.3 $20.8 $156.9 $20.9 $512.6 

1999 $98.5 $220.5 $29.3 $178.9 $32.1 $559.3 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, A Profile of the Talent Search Program: 1998–99, May 

2002, p. 2. 

One educational organization, the Council for Opportunity in Education, reports that nearly 9.6 

million low-income students from middle school to college are currently eligible to participate in 

the TRIO programs. Although TRIO has received increases in appropriations through the years, 

current funding allows less than 7 percent of the eligible population to be served. To expand the 

services, the Council for Opportunity in Education recommends a $200 million increase (over 

the proposed $800 million in 2002) for the program in 2003, for a total funding of $1 billion.25

Minority Participation in TRIO 

Table 5.2 shows TRIO funding, number of grants awarded, number served, average grant award 

and average number served, and the number and percentage of minorities served in 1999 in each 

program. Approximately 54 percent of the TRIO participants are minorities. 

 

24 See National Council of LaRaza, “Analysis of President’s FY 2003 Budget Plan,” March 2002, p. 6. The Bush 

budget proposal labeled one of the major TRIO programs, Upward Bound, as being ineffective. However, supporters 

of the program maintain that the conclusion is based on limited data randomly assigned to Upward Bound programs 

nationwide. The random sample included students who had not completed high school and were not ready to enroll 

in college. In support of TRIO, Sen. Russell Feingold introduced legislation to broaden access to TRIO programs 

among two-year colleges. See Charles Dervarics, “Budget, Evaluations Pose Challenges for TRIO,” Black Issues in 

Higher Education, June 6, 2002, pp. 8–9. 

25 Charles Dervarics, “Budget, Evaluations Pose Challenges for TRIO,” Black Issues in Higher Education, June 6, 

2002, p. 8. 
Draft Staff Report 95

Table 5.2 

Selected Characteristics of TRIO Programs, 1999 

Minority participation No. of 

grants No. served Avg. grant award 

Amt. per 

person 

served 

Avg. no. 

served per 

program Number Percent 

TS 361 323,541 $272,717 $304 896 220,008 68 

UB 772 52,960 $285,623 $4,164 69 42,368* 80 

UBMS 124 6,200 $236,000 $4,722 50 * 

SSS 796 178,099 $224,770 $1,005 224 96,173 54** 

McNair 156 3,641 $205,859 $8,600 24 2,731 75 

* UB minority participation is for 1997, the most current published data, and includes UBMS. 

** SSS minority participation is for 1997–98, the most current aggregated data. The 2000–01 UB and SSS performance reports have

not been published. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, A Profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement Program: 1998–99, April 2002, p. 12; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, A Profile of the 

Talent Search Program: 1988–1999, May 2002, p. 8.

Table 5.3 shows the participation of whites and minorities in TRIO. Minorities are well represented in the TRIO programs, particularly in the UB and McNair programs, 80 and 76 percent, 

respectively. Relative to the other programs, minority participation is lowest in the SSS program, 

just 52 percent. 

Table 5.3 

Participation of Whites and Minorities in Pre- and In-College TRIO Programs, 1997–99 

White Total 

minority 

African 

American/ 

Black

Hispanic/ 

Latino

Asian 

American/ 

Pacific 

Islander

Native 

American/ 

Alaska 

Native

Other

TS 1998–1999 32% 65% 35% 22% 4% 4% 2%

UB 1997 20% 80% 53% 20% 7%* ** N/A

SSS 1996–1997 46% 52% 28% 16% 5% 3% 2%

McNair 1998–1999 23% 76% 40% 26% 6% 4% 2%

* Includes Asian American/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans in UB. 

** Included in total for Asian American/Pacific Islanders. 

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Category of “Other” is not counted in total minority column. 

Except for UB, the racial/ethnic data for the programs are reported in the TRIO performance reports. The 2000–01 reports have not 

been published by DOEd. UB data are from a study on the program that was funded by DOEd. The TRIO clearinghouse, which 

provided the data, is also funded by DOEd. The clearinghouse collects and disseminates information, program materials, and research related to TRIO programs. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Program Performance Report Profiles, e-mail submission from Jennie Simpson, program 

assistant, National TRIO Clearinghouse, Aug. 8, 2002.

Students who are eligible to participate in TRIO are not being served because TRIO programs are 

concentrated in limited areas. According to the TRIO team leader at the Department of Education, 

many of the TRIO grantees are “repeaters” (participating in the programs for multiple years), and 

have networked with the same communities and schools, and in communities that are in close 

proximity of the funding institution, to recruit eligible students.26 The department does not require 

 

26 Bergeron telephone interview, Sept. 5, 2002. The team leader explained that in the past, the department believed 

that the same grantees (or repeaters) brought “experience and stability” to the TRIO programs. These grantees were 

almost assured to have their grant applications renewed each year. 
Draft Staff Report 96

that certain school districts or schools be served, but only that the students meet the eligibility 

requirements stated in the law.27 

In 1998, the College Board, in association with the Education Resources Institute and the National TRIO Clearinghouse, conducted a national survey of college and pre-college outreach 

programs, including TS and UB. The survey reported that about one-half of the outreach programs were limited to a particular school or school district, and one-fourth of the servers targeted 

a particular community.28 The survey data also showed that of the 12 groups of student populations targeted for the outreach programs, the three most targeted student populations included 

low-income, minority, and first-generation students (first-time college student in the household). 

Students who speak English as a second language (ESL) ranked last among the targeted 

groups.29 The targeting of the same schools, communities, and school districts, as well as the low 

ranking of ESL students as a target group may lead to the underservicing of eligible students. For 

example, Latinos, who make up the largest immigrant population in the United States, are widely 

dispersed, with more than half living in areas that are not served by TRIO programs.30 

The TRIO team leader at the Department of Education said that the agency is aware of new 

groups who may be eligible for the programs and that grantees now get “extra points” in their 

grant applications for identifying new target areas with higher needs for the TRIO programs. In 

the future, she said, the department will take note if more applicants are broadening their target 

areas.31 However, she stressed that targeting new geographic areas for students is not required, 

and if it is done grantees will still identify students based on their economic status and not the 

race or ethnicity of the student population in the area. Expanding target areas may not necessarily 

guarantee a significant increase in the participation of minorities in the programs.32

 

27 Bergeron telephone interview, Sept. 5, 2002. 

28 Watson Scott Swail, “Engaging a Nation: Expanding the Role of TRIO and other Outreach Programs,” reprinted 

from Opportunity Outlook, the journal of the Council for Opportunity in Education, November 2002, p. 3. 29 Swail, “Engaging a Nation,” pp. 1–6. The survey reported that outreach programs generally focus on helping 

“educationally or economically” disadvantaged students. The three most targeted student populations represented 

high areas of most concern for policymakers and educators. Other target groups included middle and high school 

students, students of various academic abilities, and other segments of society (e.g., women). 

30 See Lynette Clemetson, “Latino Population Growth Is Widespread, Study Says,” New York Times, July 31, 2002, 

p. A17. Large numbers of low-income and poor immigrants with limited English language skills are settling in nontraditional areas such as Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These states are facing challenges integrating immigrants into society, including the school system. See also “Across the USA,” USA Today, Aug. 12, 2002, p. 4A. 

Large numbers of Latino immigrants, mainly from Mexico, are settling in what are called colonias. There are about 

1,800 of these communities that are conglomerations of shacks and trailers, and are some of the poorest communities in the nation. According to the Census Bureau, nine of the 10 poorest communities of 1,000 households or more 

are colonias near the Mexican border. One of these communities in Texas has the lowest per capita income ($4,103) 

and barely one person in five has a high school diploma. Many of these children are probably missing out in educational opportunities despite meeting the criteria for TRIO. See Lee Hockstader, “Immigrants From Mexico Take 

Steps Toward Hope,” Washington Post, Aug. 25, 2002, pp. A3, A15. 

31 Bergeron telephone interview, Sept. 5, 2002. She also noted that over the years, the number of Hispanic institutions requesting grants has increased. 

32 Bergeron telephone interview, Sept. 5, 2002. 
Draft Staff Report 97

TRIO—Is It Working? 

There is strong support for the TRIO programs from lawmakers, educators, grantees, and educational institutions and organizations. In many ways, the TRIO programs meet their objectives 

and mission. For example, the National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations reports 

that: 

 Students in the UB program are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree 

than students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO. 

 Students in TRIO’s SSS program are twice as likely to remain in college than those from 

similar backgrounds who did not participate in the program. 

 TRIO high school participants predominantly attend four-year colleges and are less likely 

to attend proprietary or two-year schools.33

As part of its effort to assess the effectiveness of TRIO, the Department of Education requires 

annual performance reports prepared by the grantees on their initiatives, recipients, and services.34 The latest published evaluations of TS and McNair cover 1998–1999. UB and SS were 

evaluated in longitudinal studies funded by the department. The department’s TRIO performance 

reports focus on the number of participants served by each program, the services provided, and 

how well they performed in the program. The department does not require or analyze racial/ethnic data on TRIO participants’ college admissions, enrollment, retention, and graduation 

rates. For example, the department does not aggregate the data on the race or ethnicity of the participants who complete UB and continue to college, or the percentage of minorities who complete SSS and continue to graduate school.35 The department collects and reports information on 

the McNair participants by race/ethnicity, but not data on how many complete doctoral programs. The TRIO team leader and a program analyst at the department said that much of the data 

are not available because it is difficult to track students throughout the programs since they do 

not participate in all TRIO programs, or may not complete a program or enroll in the college or 

 

33 NCEOA, “Real Educational Opportunity,” pp. 1, 5. 

34 The department does not require grantees to report TRIO participants by race or ethnicity, but almost all grantees 

do. The numbers or percentages do not change significantly from year to year. The reports break down the racial/ethnic information according to the racial classifications designated by the Office of Management and Budget. 

The data from the individual institutions are aggregated by the department in final profile reports, and some racial/ethnic data, while reported, may not be published. Racial/ethnic data are available for all programs except UB. 

Demographic data on UB participants will be published in evaluation reports beginning in 2002. Frances Bergeron, 

team leader, Program Management Development, Office of Federal TRIO Program, U.S. Department of Education, 

telephone interview, Aug. 15, 2002 (hereafter cited as Bergeron telephone interview, Aug. 15, 2002). 35 For example, in the SSS program, a program analyst at the Department of Education explained that it would be 

difficult to track students in SSS who go to graduate school, since it is estimated that it takes six years (on average) 

to graduate from undergraduate school and enter graduate studies. To explain, many students transfer as undergraduates, may work before entering graduate school, or leave the SSS program before their four years in undergraduate school are completed. Further, most SSS participants are freshmen. He also said that the focus of SSS is to 

promote the students’ success in undergraduate school and not to move them into graduate school. If the focus of the 

program changes, there may be more information on tracking the students after the program. Michael Fong, program 

analyst, U.S. Department of Education, telephone interview, Aug. 15, 2002 (hereafter cited as Fong telephone interview). With respect to UB, the department plans to publish, for the first time, racial/ethnic data in its 2001–2002 

report, which will be released during the fall of 2002. Bergeron telephone interview, Aug. 15, 2002. 
Draft Staff Report 98

university where the program was conducted, or that the information, particularly the racial/ethnic 

information, is not required by law or the department.36 

The 1998–99 evaluation of TS reported that of the 307,451 students participating, 98 percent of 

the middle school participants and 96 percent of the high school participants remained in school. 

Seventy-one percent of “college ready” participants were admitted to, or enrolled in, a program 

of postsecondary education.37 A 1997 evaluation of the UB program reported that 45,000 students across the United States participated. The evaluation concluded that UB offers benefits to 

students by exposing them to academically challenging courses and college experience.38 The 

study also found that Hispanic students, as a group, have benefited from the program.39 

The 1997 evaluation of SSS showed a “small but positive and statistically significant” impact of 

the program on student outcomes. The longer a student stayed in SSS, the more significant the 

impact and effectiveness. Among its findings, those students who participated in SSS for three 

years had increased grade point averages (GPAs) and earned more semester credits, and tended 

to have higher retention rates at the same institution than those with similar backgrounds who did 

not participate in the program.40 To illustrate, for SSS participants, retention at the same institution to the second year increased by 7 percent, and to the third year, by 9 percent. In the third 

year after participants were freshmen, 58 percent who began at a two-year institution were still 

there or at some other college; 78 percent of those who began at a four-year institution and 83 

percent of those who began a doctoral program were enrolled at the same institution.41 

McNair project staff may track student participants from their enrollment in the program through 

their completion of a doctoral degree or withdrawal from the program. However, tracking the 

students throughout their college career may be difficult to do. To explain, depending on the undergraduate year in which a student enters the McNair program, the student may take from six to 

10 years to complete his or her doctorate. Thus, institutions tend to report more “intermediate” 

outcomes to assess the success of the McNair program, such as the number and percentage of the 

McNair students enrolled in an undergraduate program, or those participants enrolled in a graduate degree program, or those who graduated from either a graduate or undergraduate degree program, or those who were dismissed or withdrew from either a graduate degree or undergraduate 

degree program. Although the 1998–99 report covers three years of data, it acknowledges that 

 

36 Bergeron telephone interview, Aug. 15, 2002; Fong telephone interview. 

37 DOEd, “A Profile of the Talent Search Program 1998–99,” p. x. 

38 The national evaluation of UB is a six-year, longitudinal study commissioned by the Planning and Evaluation 

Service of the Department of Education that began in 1992. See DOEd, “The National Evaluation of Upward 

Bound,” 1997; DOEd, “Impacts of Upward Bound: Phase I,” 1999. The study did not focus on Upward Bound students who entered college, their completion rates, their fields of study, or postgraduate studies. The study focuses on 

the impact of UB on students’ achievement during high school. 39 The study reports that several groups of students benefited substantially in UB. They included students with lower 

educational expectations, academically high-risk students, and Hispanic and white students who were low-income 

and first-generation students. DOEd, “Impacts of Upward Bound: Phase I,” 1999, p. 3. 

40 U.S. Department of Education, “Interim Report; National Study of Student Support Services: Third Year Longitudinal Study Results,” 1997, pp. 1–5 <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/higher/sss3.html> (hereafter cited as 

DOEd, “National Study of Student Support Services”). 

41 DOEd, “National Study of Student Support Services,” p. 3. 
Draft Staff Report 99

the data are not consistent and there are different variables for analysis. The most consistent data 

that could be aggregated showed that of the 9,090 McNair students who graduated from an undergraduate program, an estimated 47 percent were attending a graduate program in 1998–99.42 

Conclusion 

In summary, the TRIO programs have received funding support from Congress and presidential 

administrations, and are viewed by educators and educational organizations as effective in affording educational opportunity beyond high school for many youth who would not have the opportunity to participate in higher education. However, there is a paucity of aggregated data to 

assess the extent of TRIO’s influence on college enrollment and graduation of its participants, 

particularly minorities. 

In addition, while many of the grantees advertise the programs on their Web site, they tend to 

network with the same communities and schools to recruit students. Thus, new communities 

where large immigrant populations reside may not be serviced by the TRIO programs. Moreover, 

it is probable that many of the economically disadvantaged children lack computers to access the 

Internet. Further, ESL students are not a high priority for outreach that minimizes their participation in the programs. 

The importance of TRIO programs is unquestionable. Budget constraints at most college and 

universities have eliminated or minimized most of their transition and outreach programs that 

serve economically disadvantaged students. Without these programs, many of these students 

would not have the opportunity to attend college. It is the responsibility of the federal government to provide such programs at a time when the federal focus is on education and on strategies 

to promote education and include all children in the secondary and postsecondary educational 

system. 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID

Since 1965, the United States has invested in student aid to give students who could not afford to 

attend college the financial resources to enroll and pursue degrees. Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, established federal financial aid programs for students attending 

postsecondary institutions.43 The majority of the federal financial assistance programs fall into 

three categories: grants, loans, and tax incentives. This section describes types of federal financial aid and assesses whether such programs are meeting the needs of the students they were developed to assist. Financial student aid is an approximated $12 billion investment that assists 

more than 8 million students (see table 5.4).44

 

42 However, the report only gives the percentage and not the numbers, and acknowledges that interpreting the data is 

difficult because those included in the percentages were not enrolled in a degree program. The percentage of the 

McNair participants reported is not the same or comparable to the percentage who actually completed a degree. 

DOEd, “A Profile of the Robert E. McNair Program,” pp. xii, 21–22. 43 Frank B. Morgan, “Fall Enrollment in Title IV Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 1998,” Education 

Statistics Quarterly, National Center for Education Statistics, n.d., <http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/ 

spring/q4-1.asp>. 

44 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office, “Overview,” n.d., <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/budget.html>. 
Draft Staff Report 100

Table 5.4 

Federal Student Financial Assistance Appropriations, Fiscal Years 1998–2003

 Millions of Dollars 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 

Pell grants $6,678 $6,044 $10,730 $8,756 $10,314 $10,863 

Supplemental Educational 

Opportunity grants $621 $619 $636 $691 $725 $725 

Work-study programs $838 $876 $944 $1,011 $1,011 $1,011 

Perkins loans $136 $102 $104 $100 $100 $100 

* President’s Request. 

Source: White House, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years 2000–02, 

Appendix; U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 President’s Budget, <www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget03/ 

Summary/App2/osfap1.html>.

Funding for financial aid has increased at the rate of inflation but has not been increasing at the 

rate of tuition, thus the purchasing power of financial assistance programs has been reduced 

dramatically. Proposed budget funding for fiscal year 2003 for Pell grants is only $133 million 

more than fiscal year 2000 appropriations. Funding for some of the programs has not been increased in more than two years. Programs that show slight budget increases are growing only at 

the rate of inflation, not necessarily tuition costs (see table 5.4). Tuition at many institutions has 

risen at double the rate of inflation, and greatly increased the need for financial assistance at universities. The lack of funding for financial assistance affects a large percentage of minority and 

low-income students whose families earn less than $25,000 per year (see table 5.5). Institutions 

are increasingly unable to support the unmet needs of minority and low-income students resulting from the lack of funding in financial aid programs.45 

Any student can apply for financial aid by completing the standard federal application for financial aid, “Free Application for Federal Student Aid” (FAFSA). After submitting the FAFSA 

form, applicants receive a Student Aid report that contains the expected family contribution toward college cost. The schools that accept the student create the financial aid award package, 

which states the amount of grants, scholarships, or loans available to the student.46

Criteria for Receiving Federal Financial Aid 

Students who receive federal financial aid must meet the following eligibility requirements: 

 Demonstrated financial need for the majority of the academic programs offered. 

 High school diploma or General Education Development certificate. 

 Enrollment or acceptance as a regular student working toward a degree or certificate in an 

eligible program. 

 U.S. citizenship or noncitizen eligibility. 

 Valid social security number. 

 Demonstrated academic progress. 

 

45 Gail Russell Chaddock, “More Ready for College, Fewer Able to Pay,” Christian Science Monitor, June 27, 2002, p. 2. 46 MSN.com, “Financial Aid 101,” n.d., <http://www.encarta.msn.com/collegeArticles/FinancialAid101.asp>. 
Draft Staff Report 101

Table 5.5 

Percentage of Families With Incomes Less than $75,000 by Race and Hispanic Origin 

Low-income 

(under $24,999) 

Middle-income 

($25,000–$74,999) 

White 20.2 50.6 

Black 39.7 44.7 

Asian and Pacific Islander 20.4 42.4 

Hispanic Origin 38.6 48.5 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, table 668, “Income Expenditures, and 

Wealth.” 

Students demonstrate a need for federal financial aid based on family income. According to the 

2000 Census, a higher proportion of black families, 84.4 percent, and Hispanic families, 87.1 

percent, are in the low- and middle-income bracket compared with white families, 70.8 percent, 

and Asian Pacific American families, 62.8 percent. The middle-income bracket shows moderate 

differences between racial and ethnic groups, while the low-income bracket shows more pronounced differences (see table 5.5). Financial aid programs geared toward low- and middleincome families allow students to attend institutions participating in Title IV programs and thus 

the funding of such programs have a major financial impact on disadvantaged minority students. 

Approximately 14.9 million students in 1998 were enrolled at institutions that participate in Title 

IV financial aid programs. Of those students, an estimated 98.3 percent attended degree-granting 

institutions. About 70.2 percent of the students were white, 10.9 percent black, 8.7 percent Hispanic, 6.2 percent Asian Pacific Islander, 1 percent American Indian, and 3.1 percent nonresident 

alien (see table 5.6). 

Table 5.6 

Total Enrollment in Title IV Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, 

by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 1998 

Number Percent 

White, non-Hispanic 10,195,494 70.2 

Black, non-Hispanic 1,584,902 10.9 

Hispanic 1,259,586 8.7 

Asian Pacific Islander 901,896 6.2 

American Indian 144,554 1.0 

Nonresident Alien 443,604 3.1 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Statistics Quarterly, table A, 

“Fall Enrollment in Title IV Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 1998,” <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/ 

spring/q4-1.asp>. 

Types of Federal Financial Aid 

Federal financial aid is distributed in a number of ways, through loans, grants, scholarships, and 

institution-sponsored funding or campus-based programs (see table 5.7). Many types of financial 

aid are awarded based solely on students’ financial need, while others may be based on other criteria such as academic merit. Scholarships are often given to students who have demonstrated or 

shown potential for excellence in a certain area or discipline, irrespective of financial need. 

Grants based on financial need are awarded from federal and state governments, institutions, or 
Draft Staff Report 102

private organizations. The most common federal grant is the Pell grant. The following section 

describes some of the main federal financial aid programs. 

Table 5.7 

Primary Types of Federal Financial Aid

Categories Types 

Pell grants Grants 

Scholarships 

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants 

Federal work-study Campus-based programs and/ 

or school-sponsored funding 

Federal Perkins loans 

Stafford loans (unsubsidized and subsidized) Loans 

Federal PLUS loans 

Source: MSN.com, “Financial Aid 101,” <http://encarta.msn.com/collegeArticles/FinancialAid101.asp>. 

Federal Pell Grants 

In 1972, the Basic Educational Grant created Pell grants as a way to make higher education 

available to all students.47 They are awarded only to undergraduate students who have not previously earned a bachelor’s or professional degree. Students are eligible to receive one Pell grant 

award per year.48 Other forms of financial aid may be used in conjunction with the Pell grant.49

The U.S. Department of Education uses a standard formula to determine eligibility and “expected family contribution” (EFC) to cover the additional expenses not met by the grant. In general, the Pell grant provides awards between $400 and $3,000 for low-income students, most of 

whom are from families with annual incomes less than $20,000. In fiscal year 1998, the program 

was funded at $6.7 billion, with $1,876 being the average amount awarded.50 In fiscal year 2001, 

an estimated 4.3 million students were recipients of Pell grants, with an estimated average award 

of $2,299.51 For fiscal year 2003, the Bush administration is requesting $10.9 billon, with awards 

ranging between $400 and $4,000 per student (see table 5.4). The fiscal year 2003 request should 

provide 4.5 million students with Pell grants, an increase of 55,000 students from fiscal year 

2002.52 

 

 

47 Wilson, “Financial Aid Needs to Match Rising Tuition.” 

48 U.S. Department of Education, “Student Guide Financial Aid, Federal Pell Grants 1998–1999,” n.d., 

<http://www.ed.gov/prog_info/SFA/StudentGuide/1998–9/fws.html> (hereafter cited as DOEd, “Student Guide Financial Aid, 1998–99”). 

49 DOEd, “Student Guide Financial Aid, 1998–99 Federal Pell Grants.” 

50 Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), “Straight Talk About College Costs and Prices,” n.d., 

<http://www.eriche.org/government/price.html> (hereafter cited as ERIC, “Straight Talk About College Costs”). 51 White House, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, p. 364 (hereafter cited as OMB, U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix). 

52 House Education and the Workforce Committee, “Existing Programs Seek to Expand Access to Higher Education 

for All Students,” fact sheet, July 15, 2002 (hereafter cited as House Education and the Workforce Committee, “Existing Programs”); OMB, U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, p. 363. 
Draft Staff Report 103

Campus-Based Programs 

Campus-based programs, such as the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

(FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and Federal Perkins loan programs, are administered by 

educational institutions. Not all institutions that participate in campus-based programs offer all 

three programs. Colleges that do participate receive an annual allotment from the federal government for each of the programs in which the school participates. Campus-based programs provide aid administrators with flexibility in packaging financial aid awards to meet student needs.53 

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG) 

The FSEOG is designed for undergraduates with exceptional financial need and gives priority to 

students who receive Pell grants. FSEOG is dependent on the availability of campus-based funding.54 In fiscal year 1998, the program was funded at $621 million, and for fiscal year 2003, the 

President is requesting $725 million (see table 5.4).55 This level of funding would provide approximately 1.2 million students aid, with an average $748 award to students.56 During the 

2002–03 school year, FSEOG awards range from $100 to $4,000 per student based on need. 

Federal Work-Study (FWS) 

The FWS program began in 1965. It provides jobs for undergraduate and graduate students who 

have financial need, allows students to earn money for educational expenses, and supplements 

their discretionary income.57 The program encourages work related to community service and to 

the student’s course of study. Students earn at least the federal minimum wage, depending on the 

type of work and the skills required. The amount of work-study awarded depends on when applications are received, level of need, and the funding capacity of the school.58 The FWS funds are 

awarded by a formula to qualifying institutions, which develop and provide part-time jobs for 

eligible undergraduate and graduate students. In fiscal year 2000, the federal government provided more than $900 million through the FWS program to assist 1 million postsecondary students.59 The Bush administration proposes $1 billion in funding for 2003, the same as the 2002 

appropriation, which will provide aid to nearly 1 million students (see table 5.4).60 

Perkins Loans

Perkins loans are low-interest loans available to undergraduate and graduate students who have 

exceptional financial need.61 Students receive the loan from the institution. The loan is made 

 

53 OMB, U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, pp. 363–64. 54 DOEd, “Student Guide Financial Aid, 1998–99,” Campus Based Programs. Students who receive federal Pell 

grants are not guaranteed a federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity grant. 

55 ERIC, “Straight Talk About College Costs”; House Education and the Workforce Committee, “Existing Programs.” 

56 OMB, U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, pp. 363–64. 57 Citibank, Studentloan.com, “Financial Aid Options,” n.d., <http://studentloan.citibank.com/slcsite/finan/ 

f_option.htm > (hereafter cited as Citibank, “Financial Aid Options”). 

58 DOEd, “Student Guide Financial Aid, 1998–99,” Federal Work-Study; Citibank, “Financial Aid Options.” 59 U.S. Department of Education, “The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study Program,” 

Analysis and Highlights, pp. 1–3, n.d., <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/finaid/fws_ah.html>. 

60 OMB, U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, p. 364. 61 Citibank, “Financial Aid Options.” 
Draft Staff Report 104

available through a combination of government funds, school contributions, and student repayments on outstanding loans. The amount a student can borrow depends on several factors, such 

as when they apply, need, and funding level of the school. Undergraduates may receive up to 

$3,000 annually; the total amount of the loan may not exceed $15,000. Graduate students may 

borrow $5,000 annually, with a maximum of $30,000 total amount borrowed. This amount includes any monies owed on federal Perkins loans from undergraduate education. For fiscal year 

2003, the administration proposes $100 million in new budget authority, the same as the 2002 

level. The funding would provide aid to approximately 715,000 needy undergraduate and graduate students in the 2003–2004 award year.62 

 

Loans 

Federal Stafford Loans 

Federal Stafford loans are not part of the campus-based programs. Instead, the federal government regulates them.63 There are two types of Stafford loans available to students, “subsidized” 

and “unsubsidized.” Both are long-term, low-interest loans designed to provide students with 

funds for higher education purposes. Subsidized federal Stafford loans are those for which the 

interest is paid by the government while a student is in school, and during periods of grace and 

deferment. An unsubsidized federal Stafford loan is non-need based and designed to provide undergraduate and graduate students with additional funds for higher education.64

Federal PLUS Loans 

The remaining cost of education, after federal student financial assistance, may be covered by a 

federal student loan, Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), which is made to the parent(s) of the student. The PLUS loan is a low-interest loan that allows parents to borrow up to the 

full cost of tuition, less other financial aid received.65 This loan has a variable interest rate 

capped at 9 percent and may only be borrowed by a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen who is a 

natural or legally recognized parent of the student. Repayment starts 45 days after disbursement 

to the school and terms may extend for up to 10 years. Parents are held accountable for this loan 

even if a student agrees but fails to make payments.66 

Assessment of Financial Assistance 

Americans generally view higher education as a necessity for successful careers. Research shows 

that black and Hispanic parents stress the importance of higher education to their children more 

than white parents.67 However, parents of all economic levels think that inflated tuition costs 

threaten to make higher education inaccessible.68 Many families are still unable to afford college 

tuition, even after receiving aid.69 In assessing financial assistance it is important to evaluate ex-

 

62 OMB, U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, pp. 363–64. 63 Citibank, “Financial Aid Options.” 

64 Citibank, Studentloan.com, “Loan Products,” <http://www.studentloan.com/htm>. 

65 PR Newswire, “Attention Parents: PLUS Loans Offer a Solution to Meeting the Cost of College,” July 9, 2002. 66 StudentLoan.net, “PLUS Loan Information,” n.d., <http://www.studentloan.net/loaninfo/plusloan.html>. 67 John Immarwahr, “The Affordability of Higher Education: A Review of Recent Survey Research,” National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, May 2002, p. 3. 68 Immarwahr, “The Affordability of Higher Education,” p. 5. 
Draft Staff Report 105

pected family contributions, unmet needs, and merit-based programs for how they affect disadvantage students. 

Expected Family Contribution 

In 1992, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act made a number of changes in the needanalysis formulas used in awarding Title VI financial aid.70 The changes in the need-analysis 

rules affected the majority of student aid applicants with more students losing than gaining eligibility. In both the 1992–93 and 1993–94 school years, expected family contribution (EFC) 

changed. Forty percent of the students faced higher EFCs, while 32 percent of students had lower 

EFCs. During the same time period, independent students were the most adversely affected by 

the change. More than half of the applicants had an increase in EFC caused by the rule change. 

The average EFC increase was $1,300.71 

The combination of the lower purchasing power of financial aid and increase in EFC makes it 

extremely difficult for students from lower-income families to attend college. As a result, students and families work longer hours, incur more debt, and devote larger portions of their incomes to cover the higher EFCs and college costs. Fearing high debt, many minorities and lowincome families are thought to be hesitant to take out loans to meet the EFC. Often families of 

minorities and low-income students are unable to assist in loan repayment, thereby making it 

more difficult for students to afford college.72

Over the past decade, state spending on merit and other non-need programs soared by 206 percent while need-based spending rose 41 percent during the same period.73 Consequently, more 

low- and middle-income families are now relying on student loans to cover the unmet needs of 

education expenses. In fall 2001, a record $74 billion in financial aid was available to students. 

Unfortunately, loans accounted for 58 percent of that amount. Comparatively, in the 1980s, loans 

accounted for only 41 percent of student financial aid packages.74

Unmet Needs of Financial Aid 

While the amount of funding allocated for Pell grants has kept up with inflation, it has not been 

nearly enough to keep up with the cost of college tuition.75 The cost of tuition at public universities and colleges increased by 107 percent between 1980 and 2000.76 Tuition costs at postsec-

 69 PR Newswire, “Attention Parents.” 

70 U.S. Department of Education, “The Effects of the 1992 Higher Education Amendments: Evidence From Pell 

Grant Program Data and a Survey of Pell Grant Recipients (1997),” Introduction, Sept. 21, 1998, <http://www.ed. 

gov/offices/OUS/PES/finaid/pell.html>, pp. 1–3 (hereafter cited as DOEd, “The Effects of the 1992 Higher Education Amendments”). 

71 DOEd, “The Effects of the 1992 Higher Education Amendments,” Introduction, pp. 1–3. 

72 The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the 

Affordability of American Higher Education, 2002, p. 7. 

73 Michael Fletcher, “College Aid’s Middle-Class Shift; Critics Say States’ Scholarship Programs Shortchange Poor 

and Minorities,” Washington Post, June 4, 2002, p. A3. 

74 Ibid. 

75 Tracey Wong Briggs, “Do the Math: High Cost Locks Kids Out of College,” USA Today, June 27, 2002, p. 11D. 76 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Losing Ground, p. 9. 
Draft Staff Report 106

ondary institutions is the only sector of the economy increasing at twice the rate of inflation.77 As 

a result, the purchasing power of financial aid has decreased over the years. The following captures some examples of unmet needs: 

 In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered 84 percent of the cost of going to a public fouryear institution.78 In 1985, the maximum Pell grant of $2,100 covered 57 percent of the 

tuition costs; by 2001, the maximum Pell grant of $3,300 covered only 39 percent of tuition costs.79

 In 1980, it took 13 percent of the income of a low-income family to put a student through 

a four-year college; but in 2000, the amount increased to 25 percent.80 In 2000, financially independent students earning less than $20,000 a year had an average debt of 

$18,400, a 150 percent increase from 1993; dependent students from families earning less 

than $30,000 had a median debt of $14,200, double the amount from 1993.81 A qualified 

student from a family earning less than $25,000 annually still has an unmet need of 

$3,800 each year after taking into account loans, grants, and work-study employment.82 

 From 1989 to 1999, average cumulative debt by seniors at public colleges and universities increased for all income groups. As a result, low-income students’ debt grew from 

$7,629 to $12,888.83 

 In 1981, 91 percent of student financial assistance was allocated based entirely or partially on need; but by 1999, only 78 percent considered need as a factor.84 

 In 1981, grants constituted 52 percent of federal financial aid with loans constituting 45 

percent, while in 2000 grants made up 41 percent and loans 58 percent.85 

Loans are increasingly becoming the primary source of financial aid, thereby making it more difficult for low-income students to attend college. Further, loans are a high-risk investment because of the uncertainty of graduation and subsequent employment in high-paying jobs.86

Unfortunately, over the next 10 years, 4.4 million qualified students will not be able to afford a 

four-year college, and 2 million will not be able to afford any college.87 

 

77 Bill Maxwell, “Let’s Do More to Help the Poor Get a College Education,” St. Petersburg Times, June 30, 2002, p. 

1D. 

78 James M. O’Neill, “Bush Plan Could Hurt Students Who Hold Loans; The Administration Proposal Would Close 

a Budget Gap by Ending a Chance to Refinance at Lower Rates,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 1, 2002, p. B2. 

79 Briggs, “Do the Math,” p. 11D; O’Neill, “Bush Plan Could Hurt Students Who Hold Loans,” p. B2. 80 “The New Luxury Item: College,” Chicago Tribune, June 22, 2002, p. 20. 81 James M. O’Neill, “With Less Aid, College Dreams Slip Away,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 9, 2002, p. A01. 

82 Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Empty Promises, June 2002, p. v. 83 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Losing Ground, p. 7. 84 “The New Luxury Item: College,” p. 20. 

85 Samuel Autman, “Higher Costs Seen for Higher Education; Tuition Hikes at Local Private Schools Continue 5-

Year Spiral,” San Diego Union-Tribune, May 28, 2002, p. A1. 

86 U.S. Congressional, Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Committee on Appropriations, and Committee on Education and Workforce, Slamming Shut the Doors to College, 2002. 87 Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Empty Promises, p. v. 
Draft Staff Report 107

During the 1999–2000 academic year, approximately 16.5 million undergraduates enrolled in 

postsecondary institutions for all or part of the year. Thirty-nine percent of undergraduates enrolled at a four-year institution full time, with an estimated 72 percent receiving aid of some

type. Students who received loans only accounted for 10 percent; 36 percent of undergraduates 

had loans and other forms of financial aid, and 27 percent had financial aid that included grants, 

work-study, or other aid, without loans (see figure 5.1). Only 28 percent of the student population covered tuition expenses without any financial aid or loans.88

Figure 5.1 

Percentage Distribution of Full-Time, Full-Year Undergraduates According to Aid Package 

Aid, no loans

27%

No aid

28%

Loans only

10%

Loans and other 

aid

35%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Student Financing of Undergraduate Education: 

1999–2000, p. iv. 

Students who attend private four-year colleges are much more likely than those who attend public four-year colleges to have higher expected family contributions or unmet needs (see figures 

5.2 and 5.3). Low- and middle-income students whose financial aid consisted of federal Pell 

grants only had higher unmet needs than students who received a combination of financial aid. 

For example, in 1998 students receiving Pell grants only had an unmet need of $1,610, while the 

unmet need for students receiving a combination of financial aid was only $650 (see figure 5.2). 

Between 1998 and 1999, the unmet need of students receiving Pell grants only and a combination of financial aid increased by 8 and 22 percent, respectively. By 2000, students receiving Pell 

grants only had an unmet need of $1,717, which was nearly a 1 percent decrease from the 1999 

level. 

 

88 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, “Student Financing of Undergraduate Education: 1999–2000,” p. iv. 
Draft Staff Report 108

Figure 5.2 

Unmet Needs Based on the Difference Between the Cost of Four-Year Public College Tuition and 

Financial Aid, 1998–2000 

1,610

1,732 1,717

650

796 808

$0

$250

$500

$750

$1,000

$1,250

$1,500

$1,750

1998 1999 2000 Pell grant only

Student financial assistance

* Student financial assistance includes average awards for Federal Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants, WorkStudy, Perkins loans, Direct loans, and Family Educational loans. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Education, tables 276, 278.

Students attending private four-year colleges had unmet needs as much as 20 times greater than 

that of students attending public colleges. For students attending four-year colleges, the difference in unmet needs between those receiving Pell grants only and those receiving a combination 

of financial aid was roughly $1,000 (see figure 5.3). For example, in 2000, students receiving 

Pell grants only had an unmet need of $17,255 while students receiving a combination of student 

financial assistance had a slightly lower unmet need of $16,346. Regardless of the type of financial aid students received, between 1998 and 2000, unmet needs increased an average of 6 percent per year for students attending private four-year colleges. Tuition costs have continued to 

increase, but financial aid has increased at a slower rate than tuition costs, rendering it more difficult for students in low- and middle-income families than those from affluent families to attend 

colleges without loans or experiencing a heavy financial burden. 
Draft Staff Report 109

Figure 5.3 

Unmet Needs Based on the Difference Between the Cost of Private Four-Year College

Tuition and Financial Aid, 1998–2000 

15,353 16,313 17,255

14,393 15,377 16,346

$0

$2,500

$5,000

$7,500

$10,000

$12,500

$15,000

$17,500

1998 1999 2000 Pell grant only

Student financial assistance

* Student financial assistance includes average awards for Federal Pell grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity

grants, Work-study, Perkins loans, Direct loans, and Family Educational loans. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Education, tables 276, 278. 

Merit-Based Scholarships 

Federal financial aid exists to make it easier for disadvantaged students to attend college, but 

nearly two-thirds of all scholarship and grant dollars comes from states and institutions, and 

more of that money is being channeled to affluent students.89 A growing number of states are 

seeking to attract top students to public universities and have launched programs that reward 

high-performing high school students scholarships regardless of financial need.90 Thus, needbased student financial aid has lost ground not only to tuition increases but also to programs for 

students who do not have financial need.91 

Merit scholarship programs raise serious concerns because “[i]n any academic ranking, the affluent tend to cluster near the top and the poor kids cluster at the bottom.”

92 Furthermore, large 

sums of public money are being used to subsidize the education of students who may already be 

college bound and able to afford college costs. Defenders of scholarship programs note that college costs are also burdensome for middle-class families. Moreover, these programs provide tangible rewards to students who work hard in school, thereby fueling aspirations to succeed.93 

Some states that have merit-based scholarship programs have noticed changes in the number of 

minorities attending state universities after these programs were implemented. For instance, in 

 

89 House Education and the Workforce Committee, “Existing Programs”; Stuart Silverstein, “Scholarships for 

Achievement, Not Need, Increase Rapidly,” Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2002, p. A1. 90 Fletcher, “College Aid’s Middle-Class Shift,” p. A3. 

91 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Losing Ground, p. 6. 92 Fletcher, “College Aid’s Middle-Class Shift,” p. A3. 93 Ibid. 
Draft Staff Report 110

1993 Georgia became the first state to institute a merit-based scholarship program, the Helping 

Outstanding Pupils Educationally (HOPE) program, awarding financial aid based on academic 

performance instead of financial need. During 2000–01, HOPE awarded approximately $300 

million in scholarships. A study by Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project found student enrollment from families with a median income higher than $50,000 annually increased, whereas 

enrollment of students from low-income families remained constant. The study also found that 

during 1993–97 white student attendance at Georgia’s colleges and universities increased 12.4 

percent faster than black student enrollment rates, which remained virtually unchanged. For example, at the University of Georgia, before the HOPE scholarship program, blacks accounted for 

6 percent of the student population, but after the program was implemented they accounted for 

5.7 percent.94 

In Michigan, in 1999, only 7 percent of black high school graduates qualified for the state scholarship, compared with 20 percent of Hispanics, 19 percent of Native Americans, and 34 percent 

of whites. As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit challenging the program.95

The lawsuit contends that Michigan’s standardized exam was designed to measure school performance not the academic fitness of the students.96 Civil rights advocates argue that by relying 

on an inappropriate test to award state scholarships, Michigan discriminated against students 

based on race, ethnicity, and educational disadvantages.97 They have requested that Michigan 

revise the selection criteria, thus allowing for a fair evaluation of grade point average and other 

measurements of achievement.98

Defenders of the Michigan Merit Award program state there is money available for low-income 

students, although less of it for students who are not academic achievers. In addition, college 

administrators state that merit programs enhance an institution’s ability to recruit academically 

strong students, which adds to campus intellectual vitality. However, administrators believe the 

primary barrier for low-income and minority students is weak academic preparation in high 

school.99 

Finally, in Florida the Bright Futures Scholarship Program was started in 1997. The program 

pays full and partial college tuition for students based on a combination of high school grades, 

and ACT or SAT scores. In 1998, whites made up 61 percent of the student population but 77 

percent received financial awards. Conversely, blacks made up 28 percent of the student popula-

 

94 Ibid. 

95 American Civil Liberties Union, “Civil Rights Coalition Sues Over Race Discrimination in Michigan Merit 

Scholarship Program,” June 27, 2000, <http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n062700a.html> (hereafter cited as ACLU, 

“Michigan Merit Scholarship Program”). 

96 The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, “Civil Rights Alert, The Struggle to Keep College Doors Open,” 

n.d., <http://law.harvard.edu/civilrights/alerts/access.html>. 97 Fletcher, “College Aid’s Middle-Class Shift,” p. A3. When universities define merit in terms of test scores by 

creating a cut-off test score it has a serious racial impact. The reliance on standardized tests in the admissions process hurts minority and low-income students, who traditionally do not perform as well. White and Asian Pacific 

American students typically outperform Hispanics and blacks, and students in wealthy, suburban districts consistently earn higher scores, thus claiming the bulk of the scholarship money. Ibid. 

98 ACLU, “Michigan Merit Scholarship Program.” 

99 Stuart Silverstein, “Scholarships for Achievement,” p. A1. 
Draft Staff Report 111

tion but only 8 percent received financial awards.100 The disproportionate amount of merit-based 

aid distributed to white students has raised civil rights concerns, and civil rights activists are contemplating filing a complaint with the Department of Education. One major problem with Florida’s program is that many minorities and low-income students attend substandard K–12 public 

schools that do not offer the courses required by the state university system.101

Conclusion 

Since 1965, financial aid has enabled millions of students to further their education at postsecondary institutions. Unfortunately, in recent years the purchasing power of financial aid has declined, causing many middle-class families to struggle with college costs and decreasing college 

attendance of children from low-income families. In addition to the widening gap between middle- and low-income students attending institutions of higher education, several states have implemented merit-based programs that award scholarships for academic performance. One 

disadvantage of merit-based programs is that they siphon already limited funds away from needbased programs and benefit students who already can afford college. These programs have raised 

concerns in the civil rights community because changes in how financial aid and merit-based 

scholarships are distributed have had a detrimental effect on minority and disadvantaged students. 

 

 

100 MSNBC News, “Gaps Reported in Merit Scholarships,” Aug. 28, 2002, <http://msnbc.com/news/799697.asp>. 101 Fletcher, “College Aid’s Middle Class Shift,” p. A3. 
Draft Staff Report 112

CHAPTER 6 

The Road to Diversity: Percentage Plans Plus 

In April 2000, the Commission reported it was “deeply concerned” about the effect of percentage 

plans on minority enrollment.1 Following this examination, concerns remain. Percentage plans 

have supplanted affirmative action admissions policies in Texas and Florida. In California, preexisting percentage plans have been modified as a result of a ban on race considerations in admissions. This study demonstrates that percentage plans as they are currently administered will not 

alone foster diversity in higher education or transcend the inequalities that exist in public education. Although a component of Florida’s education initiative addresses the need to improve public 

education, this movement has not gained adequate momentum. In fact, across all three states, percentage plans have failed to increase the proportions of minority students in higher education at the 

earliest stage of admissions (high school eligibility) and the latest (college enrollment). 

Percentage plans have emerged against a backdrop of resistance to affirmative action. Across the 

country affirmative action in higher education has been and continues to be legally challenged on 

many fronts. For example: 

 States affected by the Fifth Circuit court decision in Hopwood v. Texas (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) are prohibited from considering race in admissions, financial assistance, and retention programs. 

 The states of California, Florida, Washington, and Georgia have eliminated the c

eration of race in admissions policies, and in other jurisdictions scholarships targetin

minority groups have been abolished. 

onsidg 

 

 So-called soft affirmative action programs such as outreach, recruitment efforts, financial 

aid, and academic support, which play a significant role in making education accessible 

to minorities, are also coming under legal scrutiny. Thus, colleges are being forced to replace the methods by which they identify and offer admission to minority and women 

students so that they do not use race, gender, or ethnicity as criteria. 

Traditional affirmative action admissions policies have furthered the goal of equal access to education nationwide, but disparities in enrollment remain and will persist as states retreat from such 

policies. For example, black and Hispanic students are more likely to be accepted in two-year 

programs and second-tier four-year institutions. Minority students also tend to be older than 

other students, in part because of employment or other factors that prohibit full-time attendance. 

The underrepresentation of minorities in graduate and professional schools, particularly African 

Americans and Hispanics, has been a perennial problem in higher education that race-conscious 

1 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans in Higher Education: Are 

They Effective Substitutes for Affirmative Action? April 2000. 
Draft Staff Report 113

affirmative action had begun to address but had not yet resolved. Although progress had been 

made, affirmative action policies had not completely brought black and Hispanic students into 

undergraduate, graduate, or professional higher education programs in parity with their representation in society. Efforts to correct these problems should have been the concern of federal and 

state governments before further bans on affirmative action were considered. 

The three states, California, Texas, and Florida, that have implemented percentage plans automatically admit to state schools students who rank within an established percentage of their high 

school graduating class. Analysis of admissions in these states reveals that no significant improvement has been made in the rates of minority enrollment at the undergraduate or graduate/professional levels, and in many cases, rates have declined. Specifically: 

 California’s ban on the use of race in admissions decisions resulted in a decrease in the 

proportion of black, Hispanic, and Native American students enrolled in state research 

universities, at both the undergraduate and graduate/professional levels. While the implementation of a 4 percent plan in 2001 led to a small increase in minority enrollment, 

pre-ban rates have not been restored. Furthermore, in the year after affirmative action 

admissions practices were abolished, the University of California’s two premier campuses (UCLA and Berkeley) reported lower numbers of black and Hispanic students, despite that both campuses received more minority applications from students with stronger 

academic credentials than they had in previous years. 

 Immediately following the Hopwood v. State of Texas decision in 1996, black and Hispanic enrollment at the University of Texas-Austin decreased. While the state percentage 

plan resulted in an increase in minority enrollment in its initial years, this progress was 

short-lived. In the fourth year of the plan, the numbers of both black and Hispanic students decreased, with the reduction most pronounced among black students. The same 

trend is evident at the state’s premier law and medical schools. 

 When Florida implemented its 20 percent plan, an increase in minority enrollment in the 

state university system was anticipated. However, the heavy reliance on class ranks for 

college admission had a negative effect on African American students, who are disadvantaged from the beginning of the admissions process. In addition, black and Hispanic students remain underrepresented in two of Florida’s most selective universities compared 

with their proportions among high school graduates. Finally, while total minority graduate enrollment increased in the state university system (SUS), black and Hispanic graduate students are underrepresented at the state’s premier research institution, the University 

of Florida, relative to their presence in SUS. The number of new minority law school students also decreased. It is clear that efforts to close the gap between the proportions of racial/ethnic minorities among Florida high school graduates and first-time enrolled 

students must extend beyond the Talented 20 Program. 

It is too early to determine the long-term effects of percentage plans on diversity; however, when 

making assessments of their effectiveness, longitudinal analyses must be conducted that compare 

pre-race ban data with subsequent years, as this analysis has done. Comparisons that only analyze data during post-ban years are misleading and do not reveal the magnitude of the effect on 

minority enrollment. When evaluating the effect of the race ban in California in particular, comparing pre-ban enrollment data with ensuing years does not show the full effect on diversity. The 
Draft Staff Report 114

application and enrollment rates of underrepresented minorities began to decline from the point 

that the race ban was discussed and announced, years before it was implemented. Thus, minority 

students most likely will choose not to submit applications in an adverse environment of an affirmative action ban. 

This report reveals numerous other drawbacks to overreliance on percentage plans: 

 The plans themselves are formulaic and deny admissions officers the ability to select students who have potential that has been overlooked. 

 Arguably, students in the top percentages of their high school classes, particularly in 

high-performing schools, would have been admitted to colleges and universities on merit, 

without percentage plans. 

 Uneven distribution of high-achieving students and high-quality schools unfairly affects 

percentage plan admissions, unless factors other than class rank are also considered. 

High-performing students in competitive schools who do not qualify under percentage 

plans compete for a limited number of remaining seats. Similarly, high-achieving students who fail to fall within the percentage limits at one high school might easily have 

qualified at an inferior school across town or one that had fewer high-achieving students. 

Many such students would have been eligible for admission under former affirmative action programs or traditional admissions standards. 

 Percentage plans run the risk of admitting students who reach eligibility requirements, 

but do so in failing schools, and thus are not academically prepared for college. Therefore, states must provide academic support before and during enrollment. 

 Percentage plan programs deny admissions to students from low-performing schools who 

do not have college preparatory credentials or academic prerequisites. To be assessed 

fairly, these students require profile assessments or comprehensive reviews to determine 

potential. While the three states have alternative pathways for admission, they have not 

been successful at reaching such students. For instance, in Florida, while 10 percent of 

students can be admitted through profile assessment, in practice only 3 percent of students gain admission in this manner. 

If more states ignore the negative impact on minority students and adopt percentage plans, progress made as a result of decades of affirmative action will be undone, and minority enrollment 

will decline even further. To stop the erosion of minority enrollment brought about by such 

plans, if implemented, they must be supplemented with other programs. 

In each of the three states examined, institutions subject to percentage plans should increase the 

number of first-time students admitted through profile assessments, provide rigorous academic 

and counseling support, and track academic performance. Further, states should expand financial 

support to universities for outreach activities. Statewide initiatives must also be developed and 

implemented to improve the admission rates of the more vulnerable minority groups to graduate, 

law, and medical schools. States, university systems, and individual institutions must rigorously 

monitor minority admission rates and enrollment patterns in graduate and professional schools. 

Future reviews of the percentage plan must draw on the expertise of the higher education community. 
Draft Staff Report 115

Thus, this analysis reveals that percentage plans will only have a positive effect if affirmative 

action and other supplemental recruitment, admissions, and academic support programs remain in 

place. A model percentage plan would include the outreach innovations of the University of California system, the school choice built into Texas’ plan, and a focus on improving K–12 education, 

as is the case in the Florida initiative. This is perhaps the most critical element in the current era of 

education reform. The One Florida Equity in Education Initiative’s second component, improving 

public education, has the potential to play a pivotal role in reducing the admissions gap and is well 

worth emulating by other states. It is apparent that opportunities in elementary and secondary 

schools have important influence on access to college. 

Even in states that do not have percentage plans, the admissions process itself must be reevaluated and repaired where necessary. Traditional tools, such as the SAT and ACT, whose use as 

success predictors has long been questionable, are already being replaced at some institutions. 

Nonacademic criteria such as athletic ability and having alumni parents have historically been 

factors in admissions decisions and help faculty to evaluate more of what the student brings. 

More schools must move toward comprehensive admissions evaluations in which life experiences, academic opportunities, and extracurricular activities determine achievement potential. 

The federal government must continue its efforts to reach socially and economically disadvantaged students. Key initiatives such as TRIO programs and financial aid have helped low-income 

and disadvantaged students who otherwise would not have been able to attend or afford college. 

However, because of geographic and budget limitations, TRIO only serves less than 7 percent of 

eligible students. Minorities still tend to cluster in lower income levels, and thus the availability 

of financial aid is fundamental to access. Tuition increases, higher expectations for family contributions, stagnant need-based funding levels, and increased emphasis on merit-based programs 

are negatively affecting minority enrollment. The federal government must fortify TRIO funding 

and federal financial aid programs because many disadvantaged students continue to have unmet 

financial needs. 

Numerous model programs exist that help equal out disparities in education and afford disadvantaged students opportunities to gain admission to colleges and universities. More collaborative 

efforts must be made on the part of colleges and universities, school districts, educators, and local, state, and federal policymakers. 

Federal, state, and local governments must also establish partnerships with private organizations 

and fortify those that already exist. Private sector companies are realizing the economic necessity 

of a diverse workforce, yet the nation’s colleges and universities are failing to develop a future 

workforce that reflects changing demographics. According to one observer, “at stake . . . is 

America’s competitive edge in an increasingly global marketplace with a customer base that is 

increasingly nonwhite.”2

 Thus, diversifying higher education is not only a matter of fairness, but 

also a matter of economic self-interest—for the student, the institution, and the economy. Global 

economic, political, and social competitiveness depends on equal educational opportunity for all 

Americans. 

 

2

 Sara Terry, “Workplaces Diversify, Then Eye Corner Office,” Christian Science Monitor, June 3, 2002, p. 20.