Recent coverage in the Tufts Daily ("University's admissions policy leads to under-representation of Asian-Americans," March 3) seriously misrepresented Tufts' admissions policies and the impact of the University's "need- sensitive" admission practices on our diversity efforts. We write to correct the public record.
Everyone in the Tufts community would agree on the importance of achieving a "need-blind" admissions policy - the ability to evaluate applicants without any consideration as to their ability to shoulder the cost of a Tufts education. Achieving that goal requires substantial funding - resources that cannot be raised overnight or even in the course of a year or two. We are hard at work on that goal. In fact, at last Wednesday's faculty meeting in Arts, Science & Engineering we announced an anonymous gift to the University of $10 million, $4 million of which will provide endowment resources for undergraduate financial aid. This is an important and exciting gift, and more like it will follow in the months and years ahead.
In the meantime, Tufts maintains a "need-sensitive" admission policy, as has been the case for many years. It is our clear goal to enroll the very best students we can, and our recent admission outcomes and selectivity reflect our success. Applications for the Class of 2009 are at an all-time high of 15,540, a 5.5 percent increase over last year's record pool and the University's fifth record pool in the last six years. Of equal note, Tufts meets 100 percent of the demonstrated need of each student offered admission to the University. That is a critical and essential element of our admissions and financial aid practices as well as our clear commitment to access for students from all economic backgrounds.
The facts of our financial aid budget support this objective. Tufts provided nearly $33 million for undergraduate financial aid during the current fiscal year, a five percent increase over the previous year. Nearly $8 million was awarded to our first-year class. There is no "funding crisis" in financial aid, and this level of funding does not represent "a new low," as was reported in the March 3 article; it is consistent with previous levels. Nor was $10 million "the usual" level of funding. The $10 million mentioned in this week's faculty meeting reflects the approximate amount of grant aid required for the Class of '08 if Tufts had been need-blind this year. That figure was introduced at the faculty meeting as a way of documenting the fundraising challenge before us. The March 3 article cites our Admission Office's "inability to make the leap from need-sensitive to need-blind admissions." Such a "leap" was never planned or feasible at this moment.
Of special concern to us is the assertion that our need-sensitive admission practices discriminated against specific groups of students. The article incorrectly alleged that Asian-Americans "bore the brunt" of last year's need-sensitive decision-making. This is simply untrue. Contrary to what was reported, 59 percent of the aid "pullbacks" (potential acceptances whose financial need was deemed "too high" during the budget balancing exercise) were, in fact, Caucasian applicants. Asian-Americans represented 24 percent of last year's need-sensitive admission decisions and the remaining 17 percent were African-American or Hispanic. Since Caucasian applicants represent the largest applicant group, they represent the clear majority of need sensitive cases. Asian-Americans are the second largest racial group in Tufts' applicant pool and sustained the second-highest level of pullbacks.
These difficult decisions are made each year and do not reflect a lack of sensitivity to or support for socio-economically disadvantaged Caucasian and Asian-American candidates. Clearly, many first-year students from these racial and ethnic backgrounds enrolled at Tufts this year with significant support in financial aid. Unfortunately, our aid resources did not allow us to enroll as many of them as we would have liked. The presentation at the recent faculty meeting illustrated that fact to document the opportunity cost of need sensitive admissions and the opportunity we will have when need blind practices are implemented.
In addition, the article incorrectly reported that Asian-Americans demonstrated "significantly more financial need than the neediest of other minorities." That is also a false assertion. As we worked to balance financial aid expenditures for the freshman class, all students with significant financial need, regardless of race, were reevaluated. Those students removed from the class under our need sensitive admission practices had comparable levels of need, usually at the high end of the aid spectrum. No one group can fairly be classified as "needier."
It is correct that Asian-American enrollment in the freshman class declined last year - from 178 in the Class of 2007 to 121 in the Class of '08. This was an unexpected downward shift, and the Office of Undergraduate Admissions has taken appropriate steps to address it as we recruit and enroll our next class. The decline represents enrollment decisions by an unusually high-powered accepted student group and a drop in Asian-American yield (the number of students who accept our offer of admission) from 28 to 22 percent.
A secondary cause was, as reported, the removal of the 46 "high-need" Asian-Americans from last year's accepted student cohort. To suggest that need-sensitive admissions policies alone created this situation overstates the impact of need-sensitive decision-making and ignores the aforementioned enrollment decisions. Assuming a yield of 40 percent (aid recipients have a higher yield than non-aid recipients) on the 46 pullbacks, the class would have included an additional 18 Asian-American students. Clearly, this would have been a welcome outcome but these 18 students do not represent the full extent of our decline in Asian-American enrollment. Given the unexpectedly low yield rate, the number of Asian-Americans in the incoming freshman class would have declined even if we had not removed any Asian-Americans due to financial constraints.
It is also important to note that the University does not use, nor can we legally use, a quota system for accepting and enrolling students by race. In the 2003 case regarding admission practices at the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited such a practice. Accordingly, the exact number of freshmen of color at Tufts, in each racial category, will shift from year to year. The admissions staff works to maintain a comparable enrollment from class to class but that outcome is never a guarantee. Admission officers are committed to the ideals of an academically talented and socio-economically diverse class of students of all races. Our recruitment and selection practices advance that goal.
It went unreported that Tufts received a record number of applications to the Class of 2009 from students of color - including a five percent increase in Asian-American applications. This pool is deep and accomplished. Early Decision (ED) outcomes for next year's class are also promising: 18 percent of the class is made up of students of color. This figure is up from 14 percent of last year's ED class and 12 percent two years ago. Specifically, Asian-Americans represent 11 percent of the ED class as opposed to eight percent last year and six percent for the Class of '07. The admissions staff is vigorously addressing the University's diversity goals and these outcomes reflect that commitment.
Clearly, Tufts' commitment to access and equity is a key tenet of our institutional values as well as our admissions practices. A need-blind admission policy will enhance those values and practices, and we are committed to accomplishing this important objective.
Lee Coffin is the Dean of Undergraduate Admissions and Lawrence Bacow is the President of the University. Susan Ernst, Dean of Arts and Sciences, and Linda Abriola, Dean of Engineering, also endorse this Viewpoint.
