Those involved in the debate about the University of Michigan's undergraduate-admissions policy have failed to mention graduation rates when examining the practical aspects of the policy that gave 20 points on a 150-point scale to applicants from certain ethnic or racial backgrounds ("In Reactions to the Michigan Rulings, Diversity Abounds," The Review, July 4). The extra points allowed students with substantially lower levels of academic preparation to be admitted. Because the university is so competitive, the students who were admitted with lower standards cannot be thought of as unqualified, but they would not be predicted to succeed at the university because of its high standards, and their graduation rates are lower than average. ...

Instead of investing the time, energy, and manpower to seek out minority students who would meet the normal admissions criteria, the university took the low road and lowered its standards. Minority students who did not meet the normal academic standards would not have been denied an opportunity to enroll in college but would instead have gone to another college, graduated, started promising careers, and been in a far better position to provide a solid educational experience for their children than the students whom the University of Michigan has turned into failures.

I would hope that all scholars, policy makers, and college administrators would believe that having a diverse group of college graduates is a more worthy goal than lowering standards to a point that puts disadvantaged students in academic peril. While most people engaged in this argument are caught up in debating whether or not these policies are unconstitutional, it is important to determine if they actually work, which in the case of the University of Michigan's undergraduate-admissions policy is clearly not the case.

Robert L. Ciervo
Director
Center for Learning and Instruction
Drexel University
Philadelphia