Gratz v. Bollinger Joint Appendix

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download
By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at
Topic
- Education
Notable Person
- John Payton
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Matter
- Gratz v. Bollinger
Case
- Gratz v. Bollinger
U.S. state
- Michigan
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 19cecf0e-b49a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873
Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Gratz v. Bollinger Joint Appendix, 2002. 19cecf0e-b49a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/48afeda3-ec66-473c-8ed5-20717f69dc5e/gratz-v-bollinger-joint-appendix. Accessed July 01, 2025.

Copied!
    No. 02-516

5 n  C t j E

Supreme Court of tlje ®ntteb States

JEN N IFER GRATZ AND PATRICK HAMACHER,

Petitioners,
v.

LEE BOLLINGER. JAMES J. DUDERSTADT, AND THE BOARD 
OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,

Respondents,

and

EBONY PATTERSON, et al.,

Respondents.

--------------«--------------

On Writ Of Certiorari Before Judgment To The 
United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit

--------------♦--------------

JOINT APPENDIX 
----------- «------------

Counsel for Petitioners
David F. H err 

Counsel o f Record 
Kirk O. Kolbo 
R. Lawrence Purdy 
Michael C. M cCarthy 
Kai H. Richter 
Maslon Edelman B orman 

& B rand. LLP 
3300 W ells Fargo C enter 
90 South Seventh  S tree t 
M inneapolis, MN 55402 
(612) 672-8200

Counsel for Respondents
J ohn Payton 

Counsel o f Record 
J ohn H. P ickering 
B rigida B enitez 
Stuart F. D elery 
Craig Goldblatt 
An n e  Harkavy 
W ilmer, Cutler & Pickering 
2445 M S tree t N.W. 
W ashington, DC 20037 
(202) 663-6000

[Additional Counsel L isted On Inside Cover]

Petition for Certiorari Filed October 1, 2002 
Certiorari Granted December 2,2002

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 223-8964 
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831



Counsel for Petitioners cont.
Michael E. Rosman 
Hans Bader 
Center For Individual 

Rights 
Suite 300
1233 20th S tree t N.W. 
W ashington, DC 20036 
(202) 833-8400
Kerry L. M organ 
Pentiuk, Couvreur 

& Kobiljak, RC.
2915 Biddle Avenue 
Edelson Building 
Suite 200
W yandotte, MI 48192 
(734)281-7100

Counsel for Respondents 
Ebony Patterson, et al.

E laine R. J ones 
Director Counsel 

Theodore M. Shaw 
Counsel of Record 

N orman J. Chachkin 
James L. Cott 
Melissa S. Woods 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

E ducational Fund , Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th FI. 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 965-2200

Counsel for Respondents cont.
Marvin Krislov 
J onathan Alger 
U niversity Of Michigan 
Office of the Vice President 

and General Counsel 
4010 Fleming Admin. Bldg. 
503 Thompson S treet 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Evan Caminker 
U niversity Of Michigan 

Law S chool 
625 South S tate S treet 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Philip J. Kessler 
Leonard M. N iehoff 
B utzel Long
350 South M ain, Suite 300 
Ann Arbor, Ml 48104

Maureen E. Mahoney 
J. Scott Ballenger 
Latham & Watkins 
555 Eleventh S tree t N.W. 
Suite 1000
W ashington, DC 20004 
(202) 637-2200



Counsel for Respondents 
Ebony Patterson, et al. cont.
Christopher A. Hansen 
E. Vincent Warren 
American Civil Liberties 

U nion Foundation 
125 Broad Street. 18th FI. 
New York. NY 10004
(212) 549-2500
Brent E. Simmons 
ACLU F oundation of 

Michigan
300 South Capitol Avenue 
Lansing, MI 48901 
(517)371-5140
Michael J. Steinberg 
ACLU Fund of Michigan 
60 West Hancock Street 
Detroit. MI 48201 
(313)578-6814
Godfrey J. Dillard 
Milton R. H enry 
Reginald M. Turner 
Citizens F or Affirmative 

Action’s P reservation 
P.O. Box 31-1421 
Detroit. MI 48231-1421 
(313)964-2838
Thomas Saenz 
Victor Viramontes 
Mexican American Legal 

Defense and Educational , 
Fund

634 South Spring Street,
11th FI.

Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213) 629-2512



1

Sixth C ircuit Docket E n tries: Gratz, et al. v. B o llin 
ger, et al., No. 01-102......................................................  \

Sixth C ircuit Docket E n tries: Gratz, et al. v. B o llin 
ger, et al., No. 01-104......................................................  2

Sixth C ircuit Docket E n tries: Gratz, et al. v. B o llin 
ger, et al., No. 01-1333.................................................... 3

Sixth C ircuit Docket E n tries: Gratz, et al. v. B o llin 
ger, et al., No. 01-1438.................................................... 9

D istric t C ourt Docket E ntries: Gratz, et al. v. 
Bollinger, et al., No. 97-CV-75231...............................  13

C om plaint (R l)1, filed O ctober 14, 1997.......................  33

A nsw er (R6), filed D ecem ber 3, 1997............................  42

O rder and Opinion G ran ting  C lass Certification 
(R63), filed D ecem ber 23, 1998 ................................... 52

D istric t C ourt O rder Providing th a t  Proper Defen
dan ts  be N am ed (R76), filed April 1 , 1999............... 72

Ex. B to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, UM L e tte r to Jen n ife r G ratz dated 
Ja n u a ry  19, 1995 (R78), filed April 9, 1999............  73

Ex. C to P la in tiffs’ Motion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, UM L ette r to Jen n ife r G ratz dated 
A pril 24, 1995 (R78), filed April 9, 1999..................  75 *

JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS

References to the D istrict Court record docket entries are denoted
as (R#).



JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS -  Continued

Ex. E to P la in tiffs’ Motion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, UM L ette r to P a trick  H am acher dated  
November 19, 1996 (R78), filed A pril 9, 1999......... 77

Ex. S to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, Adm ission Policy for M inority S tu 
dents (R78), filed A pril 9, 1999 ................................... 79

Ex. V to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, G uidelines SCUGA 1995 (R /8), filed 
A pril 9, 1999 ...................................................................... 84

Ex. W to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, G uidelines SCUGA 1996 (R78), filed 
A pril 9, 1999 ...................................................................... 94

Ex. X to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, G uidelines SCUGA 1997 (R78), filed 
A pril 9, 1999 ...................................................................... 104

Ex. Y to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, E xcerpts from the  College of L itera 
tu re , Science and the  A rts Guidelines for All 
Terms of 1995 (R78), filed A pril 9, 1999..................  115

Ex. Z to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, Excerpts from the  College of L ite ra 
tu re , Science and the  A rts G uidelines for All 
Terms of 1996 (R78), filed A pril 9, 1999................... 131

Ex. AA to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, E xcerpts from the  College of L ite ra 
tu re , Science and the  A rts G uidelines for All 
Terms of 1997 (R79), filed A pril 9, 1999................... 147

Ex. BB to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, U of M Adm ission Application Infor
m ation Retrieve -  Jen n ife r G ratz (R79), filed 
April 9, 1999 ...................................................................... 163



iii

JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Ex. CC to P la in tiffs’ Motion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, U of M Adm ission Application Infor
m ation Retrieve -  P atrick  H am acher (R79). filed 
April 9, 1999 .....................................................................  165

Ex. DD to P la in tiffs’ M otion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, Excerp ts from the  College of L itera 
tu re , Science and the  A rts G uidelines for All 
Terms of 1998 (R79), filed April 9, 1999..................  167

Ex. EE to P la in tiffs ' Motion for P a rtia l Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, 1998 G uidelines for the  C alculation of 
a Selection Index for all Schools and Colleges 
Except E ng ineering  (R79), filed April 9, 1999.......  182

Intervenors’Answer (R110), filed October 12, 1999......... 198

Ex. B to P la in tiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, 1999 G uidelines for the  C alculation of 
a Selection Index for all Schools and Colleges 
Except E ng ineering  (R156), filed Ju ly  17, 2000 .... 208

Ex. D to P la in tiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, 2000 G uidelines for the  C alculation of 
a Selection Index for all Schools and Colleges 
Except E ngineering  (R156), filed Ju ly  17, 2000 .... 223

Ex. F to D efendan ts’ Renewed Motion for Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, Ted Spencer Memo on Reasons for
D iversity da ted  Septem ber 25, 1996 (R160), filed 
Ju ly  17, 2000.....................................................................  241

Ex. Y to D efendan ts’ Renewed M otion for Sum m ary 
Judgm ent, Excerp ts from the  College of L itera 
tu re , Science and the  A rts G uidelines for All 
Terms of 2000 (R160), filed Ju ly  17, 2000 ............... 243



IV

Ex. AA to D efendan ts’ Renewed M otion for Sum 
m ary Judgm en t, P rocedures for Reviewing LS&A 
(including R esidentia l College) and E ngineering 
F reshm an  A pplications for All Terms of 2000 
(R160), filed Ju ly  17, 2000 ...........................................  254

Ex. BB to D efendan ts’ Renewed Motion for Sum 
m ary  Ju dgm en t, E xcerp ts from the College of 
L ite ra tu re , Science and th e  A rts G uidelines for 
All Terms of 1999 (R160), filed Ju ly  17. 2000......... 262

Ex. EE to D efendan ts’ Renewed Motion for Sum 
m ary Ju dgm en t, D efendan ts’ Supplem ental Ob
jections and Response to  In terrogato ry  N um ber 
One (1) (R160), filed Ju ly  17, 2000 ............................  272

Ex. D to P la in tiffs’ M em orandum  in Opposition to 
D efendan ts’ M otion for Sum m ary  Ju d g m en t and 
Reply M em orandum  in S upport of P la in tiffs’ Mo
tion for P a rtia l Sum m ary Judgm ent, 1998 G uide
lines T rain ing  (R173), filed A ugust 11, 2 0 0 0 ..........  277

P la in tiffs’ Notice of Appeal (R212), filed February  
26, 2001 ..............................................................................  282

Sixth  C ircuit O rder G ran tin g  P etition  and Cross- 
P etition  for Appeal, filed M arch 26, 2001................  285

Sixth C ircuit O rder G ran ting  En Banc Review, filed 
October 19, 2 0 0 1 ..............................................................  287

D efendan ts’ P etition  for Perm ission to Appeal, filed 
F eb ruary  12, 2001...........................................................  290

P la in tiffs’ C ross-Petition for Perm ission to Appeal, 
filed F eb ruary  20, 2001 .................................................  317

O rder Allowing C ertio rari, filed December 2, 2002... 327

JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS -  Continued



1

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES  

U.S. C ourt o f  A p p ea ls for th e  S ix th  C ircu it
No. 01-102

2/12/01 Perm ission for Leave to Appeal Docketed.
Request filed by Petitioner Lee Bollinger. 
1292 petition for perm ission to appeal. □  
(blc) [01-102]

2/20/01 Respondent RESPONSE and cross-petition 
in support of 1292(b) petition. Response 
from David F. H err for Respondent Patrick 
H am acher, Respondent Jennifer Gratz. 
Certificate of service date 2/16/01 [01-102] 
(blc)

* * *

3/26/01 ORDER filed: The petition and cross-petition 
for permission to appeal are GRANTED 
[01-102, 01-104], Boyce F. M artin, Jr., Chief 
Judge, M artha C. Daughtrey, Karen N. 
Moore, Circuit Judges, (blc) [01-102 01-104]

* * *



2

U.S. C ourt o f  A p p ea ls  for th e  S ix th  C ircu it

No. 01-104

2/23/01 Perm ission for Leave to Appeal Docketed.
Request filed by Petitioner Jennifer Gratz, 
Petitioner Patrick  Ham acher. Petition first 
received on 2/20/01 as p art of response to 
1292 petition filed in 01-102. □  (blc) [01-104]

* * *

3/26/01 ORDER filed: The petition and cross-petition
for permission to appeal are GRANTED 
[01-102, 01-104]. Boyce F. M artin, Jr., Chief 
Judge, M artha C. Daughtrey, Karen N. 
Moore, C ircuit Judges, (blc) [01-102 01-104]

* * *



3

U.S.

3/12/01

3/15/01

5/8/01

5/14/01

6/4/01

C ourt o f A p p ea ls  for th e  S ix th  C ircu it

No. 01-1333

Choi Case Docketed, Notice filed by Appellant 
Jennifer Gratz, Appellant Patrick Hamacher. 
Transcript needed: y (blc) [01-1333]

Appellee LETTER filed regarding jurisd ic
tion; requests “cross-petitions” be granted. 
L etter from John H. Pickering for Appellee 
Univ MI Bd of Regent, Appellee Jam es J. 
D uderstadt, Appellee Lee Bollinger. Certifi
cate of service date 3/14/01 [01-1333] (blc) 
[01-1333]

* * *

FIRST PROOF BRIEF filed by Kirk O. 
Kolbo for Appellant Patrick Hamacher, 
Appellant Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1333, Kirk 
O. Kolbo for Appellee Patrick Hamacher, 
Appellee Jennifer G ratz in 01-1416, Kirk O. 
Kolbo for Appellant Patrick  Ham acher, 
A ppellant Jennifer G ratz in 01-1418 Certifi
cate of Service date 5/7/01. Num ber of Pages: 
64 (13864). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] (rgfi) 
[01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* * *

PETITION for en banc hearing filed by Kirk 
O. Kolbo for Appellants Patrick Hamacher, 
Jenn ifer Gratz. Certificate of service date 
5/11/01. [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] (blh) 
[01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* * *

ORDER filed placing the petition for hearing 
en banc in abeyance. [2367428-1] [01-1333,



4

6/7/01

6/8/01

6/29/01

7/10/01

01-1416 01-1418]. Entered by order of the 
court, (blh) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* * *

PROOF BRIEF filed by John Payton for 
Appellee Univ MI Bd of Regent, Appellee 
Jam es J. D uderstadt, Appellee Lee Bollinger 
in 01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418 Copies: 01. 
Certificate of Service date 6/6/01. Num ber of 
Pages: 60 (13929). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* * *

PROOF BRIEF field by E. V incent W arren 
for Appellee Ebony Patterson  in 01-1333, E. 
V incent W arren for Appellee Ebony P a tte r
son in 01-1418 Copies: 01. Certificate of 
Service date 6/6/01. N um ber of Pages: 33 
(8811). [01-1333, 01-1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01- 
1418]

*  *  *

PROOF BRIEF filed by K irk O. Kolbo for 
Appellant Patrick  Ham acher, A ppellant 
Jennifer G ratz in 01-1333, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellee Patrick  H am acher, Appellee 
Jennifer G ratz in 01-1416, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
A ppellant Patrick  Ham acher, Appellant 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1418. Certificate of 
service date 6/27/01. N um ber of Pages: 57 
(12949). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] (rgf) 01- 
1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* * *

CERTIFIED RECORD filed. Volumes 
include 3 Tr; 18 PI. [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (jc) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]



5

7/12/01

7/19/01

7/31/01

7/31/01

PROOF BRIEF filed by John Payton for 
Appellee Univ MI Bd of Regent, Appellee 
Jam es J. D uderstadt, Appellee Lee Bollinger 
in 01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418. Certificate"of 
service date 7/11/01. N um ber of Pages: 29 
(6988). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418]" Final 
fourth brief due 7/30/01 in 01-1333, in 01- 
1416, in 01-1418. [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

APPENDIX filed by Kirk O. Kolbo for 
A ppellant Patrick H am acher, Appellant 
Jenn ifer Gratz in 01-1333, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellee Patrick H am acher, Appellee 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1416, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
A ppellant Patrick Ham acher, Appellant 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1418. Copies: 5 +10 (9 
vols.) for en banc hearing. Extra copies 
received on 10/29/01. Certificate of service 
date 7/18/01 [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] 
(ert) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

FINAL BRIEF filed by Theodore M. Shaw 
for Appellee Citizens Aifir, et al. 01-1333, 
01-1416, 01-1418. Copies: 07 Certificate of 
service date 7/30/01. Num ber of Pages: 34 
(8835). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] (rgf) [01- 
1333 01-1416 01-1418]

FINAL BRIEF filed by John Payton for 
Appellee Univ MI Bd of Regent, Appellee 
Jam es J. D uderstadt, Appellee Lee Bollinger 
in 01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418. Copies: 07 
Certificate of service date 7/30/01. Num ber 
of Pages: 60 (13922). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* *



6

7/31/01

7/31/01

7/31/01

8/27/01

FINAL BRIEF filed by John Payton for 
Appellee Univ Mi Bd of Regent, Appellee 
Jam es J. D uderstadt, Appellee Lee Bollinger 
in 01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418. Copies: 07. 
Certificate of service date 7/30/01. Number 
of Pages: 29 (6975). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

FINAL BRIEF filed by Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellant Patrick  H am acher, A ppellant 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1333, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellee Patrick  H am acher, Appellee 
Jennifer G ratz in 01-1416, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellant Patrick  Ham acher, Appellant 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1418 Copies: 07.
Certificate of Service date 7/30/01. Num ber 
of Pages: 67 (13981). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01-1416 0-1418]

*  *  *

FINAL BRIEF filed by Kirk O. Kolbo for 
A ppellant Patrick H am acher, Appellant 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1333, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellee Patrick  H am acher, Appellee 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1416, Kirk O. Kolbo for 
Appellant Patrick Ham acher, Appellant 
Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1418 Copies: 07.
Certificate of Service date 7/30/01. Num ber 
of Pages: 57 (12934). [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (rgf) [01-1333 01-1416 0-1418]

Oral argum ent date set for October 23, 2001 
in court room 607. Notice of argum ent sent 
to counsel. [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] (rid) 
[01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

* * *



7

10/19/01 ORDER filed granting petition for en banc 
hearing [2356046-1], [2356062-1], and
[2356074-1] filed by Kirk O. Kolbo. Boyce F. 
M artin, Chief Judge; Danny J. Boggs, 
Eugene E. Siler, Alice M. Batchelder, M ar
th a  C. D aughtrey, Karen N. Moore, R. G. 
Cole, Eric L. Clay, Ronald L. Gilman, Circuit 
Judges, (blh) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418 01- 
1438 01-1447 01-1516]

* * *

12/6/01 CAUSE ARGUED on 12/6/01 by David F.
H err for Appellant Patrick Hamacher, 
Appellant Jenn ifer G ratz in 01-1333, John 
Payton for Appellee Univ MI Bd of Regent, 
Appellee Jam es J. D uderstadt, Appellee Lee 
Bollinger in 01-1333, John Payton for 
A ppellant MI Bd Regents, Appellant Jam es 
J. D uderstadt, Appellant Lee Bollinger in 
01-1416, David F. H err for Appellee Patrick 
Ham acher, Appellee Jennifer G ratz in 01- 
1416, David F. H err for Appellant Patrick 
Ham acher, Appellant Jennifer G ratz in 01- 
1418, John Payton for Appellee MI Bd 
Regents, Appellee Jam es J. D uderstadt, 
Appellee Lee Bollinger in 01-1418 before 
Judges M artin, Boggs, Siler, Batchelder, 
Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman. [01- 
1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] (me) [01-1333 01- 
1416 01-1418]

10/23/02 U.S. Supreme Court notice filed regarding 
petition for writ of certiorari filed by Appellant 
Jennifer Gratz in 01-1333, Appellant Patrick 
Hamacher in 01-1333, Appellee Jennifer Gratz 
in 01-1416, Appellee Patrick Hamacher in 01- 
1416. Appellant Jennifer Gratz in 01-1418, 
Appellant Patrick Hamacher in 01-1418. Filed



8

10/23/02

12/5/02

12/6/02

in the Supreme Court on 10-01-02, Supreme 
Ct. case number: 02-516. [01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418] (swh) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

U.S. Suprem e Court notice filed regarding 
petition for w rit of certiorari filed by Appel
lee Ebony Patterson  in 01-1333, Defendant 
Ebony Patterson  in 01-1416, Appellee Ebony 
Patterson  in 01-1418. Filed in the Supreme 
Court on 10-16-02, Supreme Ct. case num 
ber: 02-571. [01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] 
(swh) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]

U.S. Suprem e Court le tte r filed granting 
petition for w rit of certiorari lim ited to 
Question 1 presented by the petition 
[2635739-1] filed by Patrick  Hamacher, 
Jenn ifer Gratz, Patrick  H am acher, Jennifer 
Gratz, Patrick  Ham acher, Jennifer Gratz 
[01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418] in 01-1333, 01- 
1416, 01-1333. Filed in the Suprem e Court 
on 12-02-02. (swh) [01-1333 01-1416 01- 
1418]

U.S. Suprem e Court le tte r filed denying 
petition for w rit of certiorari [2635796] filed 
by Ebony Patterson, et al. [01-1333, 01-1416, 
01-1418, 01-1438] in 01-1333, 01-1416, 01- 
1418. Filed in the Supreme Court on 12-02-
02. (swh) [01-1333 01-1416 01-1418]



9

U.S. C ourt o f  A p p ea ls  for th e  S ix th  C ircu it

No. 01-1438

3/30/01 Civil Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant 
Ebony Patterson, Appellant Ruben M artinez, 
Appellant L aurent Crenshaw, Appellant K arla 
R. W illiams, Appellant Larry Brown, Appellant 
Tiffany Hall, Appellant Kristen M.J. H arris, 
Appellant Michael Sm ith, Appellant Khyla 
Craine, Appellant Nyah Carmichael, Appellant 
Shanna Dubose, Appellant Ebony Davis, 
Appellant Nicole Brewer, Appellant Karla 
H arlin , Appellant Brian H arris, Appellant 
K atrina Gipson, Appellant Candice B.N. Rey
nolds, Appellant Denise Patterson, Appellant 
Moises M artinez, Appellant Larry Crenshaw, 
A ppellant H arry  J. W illiams, Appellant Patricia 
Swan-Brown, Appellant K aren A. McDonald, 
A ppellant Linda A. H arris, Appellant Deanna
A. Sm ith, A ppellant Alice Brennan, Appellant 
Ivy Rene Carmichael, Appellant Sarah L. 
Dubose, Appellant Inger Davis, Appellant 
B arbara Dawson, Appellant Roy D. Harlin, 
A ppellant W yatt G. H arris, Appellant George
C. Gipson, Appellant Shawn R. Reynolds, 
A ppellant Citizens Affir, Jam es J . Duderstadt,’ 
MI Bd Regents. T ranscript needed: y □  (blc)

*  *  *

5/14/01 PETITION for en banc hearing filed by Kirk O.
Kolbo for Appellees Patrick Hamacher, Jennifer 
Gratz. Certificate of service date 5/11/01 101- 
1438](blh)

** *



10

6/4/01

7/10/01

10/19/01

10/19/01

11/16/01

12/6/01

ORDER filed placing the petition for hearing en 
banc in abeyance. [2367450-1] [01-1438] E n
tered by order of the court, (blh)

* * *

CERTIFIED RECORD filed. Volumes include 3 
Tr; 18 PI. [01-1438] Applied from 01-1333, 01- 
1416 & 01-1418. (jc)

* * *

ORDER filed gran ting  petition for en banc 
hearing [2356046-1], [2356062-1], and [2356074- 
1] filed by Kirk O. Kolbo. Boyce F. M artin, Chief 
Judge; Danny J. Boggs, Eugene E. Siler, Alice M. 
Batchelder, M artha C. Daughtrey, K aren N. 
Moore, R.G. Cole, Eric L. Clay, Ronald L. 
Gilman, C ircuit Judges, (blh)

Date previously set for oral argum ent is can
celled. [01-1438] (me)

* * *

ORDER filed denying motion to term inate the 
stay of the d istrict court’s injunction filed by 
Kirk O. Kolbo in 01-1447; oral argum ent set for 
12/6/01 as follows: 01-1333/1416/1418-20 min. 
appt; 15 min. appe; 5 min. itv; 01-1438 15 min 
per side; 01-1447/1516 20 min. per side in 01- 
1333/1416/01-1418, 01-1438/01-1447, 01-1516. 
Boyce F. M artin  Jr., Chief Judge, Danny J. 
Boggs, Eugene E. Siler, Alice M. M artha C. 
D aughtrey, K aren N. Moore, R. G. Cole, Eric L. 
Clay, Ronald L. Gilman, Circuit Judges, (ert)

*  *  *

CAUSE ARGUED on 12/6/01 by Theodore M. 
Shaw for A ppellant Citizens Aflir, Appellant



11

Shawn R. Reynolds, Appellant George C. 
Gipson, Appellant W yatt G. H arris, Appellant 
Roy D. Harlin, Appellant B arbara Dawson, 
Appellant Inger Davis, Appellant Sarah L. 
Dubose, Appellant Ivy Rene Carmichael, 
A ppellant Alice Brennan, Appellant Deanna A. 
Sm ith, Appellant Linda A. H arris, Appellant 
K aren A. McDonald, Appellant Patricia Swan- 
Brown, Appellant H arry J . W illiams, Appellant 
Larry Crenshaw, Appellant Moises M artinez, 
A ppellant Denise Patterson, Appellant Candice
B.N. Reynolds, Appellant K atrina Gipson, 
A ppellant Brian H arris, Appellant K arla 
Harlin, Appellant Nicole Brewer, Appellant 
Ebony Davis, Appellant Shanna Dubose, Appel
lant Nyah Carmichael, Appellant Khyla Craine, 
A ppellant Michael Sm ith, A ppellant Kristen 
M.J. H arris, Appellant Tiffany Hall, Appellant 
Larry Brown, Appellant K arla R. Williams, 
A ppellant L auren t Crenshaw, Appellant Ruben 
M artinez, Appellant Ebony Patterson, David F. 
H err for Appellee Patrick Ham acher, Appellee 
Jenn ifer G ratz before Judges M artin, Boggs, 
Siler, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, 
Clay, Gilman. [01-1438] (me)

10/23/02 U.S. Suprem e Court notice filed regarding 
petition for w rit of certiorari filed by Appellee 
Jenn ifer Gratz, Appellee Patrick Hamacher. 
Filed in the Suprem e Court on 10-01-02, Su
preme Ct. case number: 02-516. [01-1438] (swh)

10/23/02 U.S. Suprem e Court notice filed regarding 
petition for w rit of certiorari filed by Appellant 
Ebony Patterson. Filed in the Supreme Court 
on 10-16-02, Suprem e Ct. case num ber 02-571. 
[01-1438] (swh)



12

12/5/02 U.S. Suprem e Court le tte r filed granting 
petition for w rit of certiorari lim ited to Ques
tion 1 presented by the petition [2635747-1] 
filed by Patrick H am acher, Jennifer G ratz [01- 
1438], Filed in the Suprem e Court on 12-02-02. 
(swh)



13

U.S. D is tr ic t  C ourt

for th e  E a stern  D is tr ic t  o f  M ich igan  (D etro it)

10/14/97 1 COMPLAINT -  Receipt # 351144 -  Date
Fee Received: 10/14/97 (nh) [Entry date 
10/16/97]

10/21/97 4 SUMMONS returned  executed by process
server on 10/14/97 answ er due 11/3/97 for 
Lee Bollinger, for Jam es T. D uderstadt, for 
Univ MI College Lit, for Univ MI (LS) 
[E ntry  date 10/23/97]

* * *

12/3/97 6 ANSWER by defendants Lee Bollinger,
Jam es T. D uderstad t and Univ MI to 
com plaint [1-1] w ith proof of m ailing (RH) 
[Entry date 12/05/97] [Edit date 05/27/99]

12/3/97 6 AFFIRMATIVE defenses by defendants
Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt and 
Univ MI (RH) [Entry date 12/05/97] [Edit 
date 05/27/99]

*  *  *

12/22/97 8 DEMAND by plaintiffs for ju ry  trial (dp)
[E ntry  date 01/05/98]

*  *  *

2/5/98 11 MOTION by Ebony Patterson, Ruben
M artinez, L aurent Crenshaw, K arla 
W illiams, Larry Brown, Tiffany Hall, 
K risten J. J. H arris, Michael Smith, Khyla 
Craine, Nyah Carmichael, Shanna Dubose, 
Nichole Brewer, Ebony Davis, K arlin 
H arlin , Brian H arris, K atrina Gipson, 
Candice Reynolds and Citizens for Affirma
tive Action’s Preservation to intervene,



14

2/5/98

2/11/98

2/24/98

2/24/98

3/4/98

7/7/98

with brief and proposed answer of interven
ing defendants (RH) [Entry date 02/06/98] 
[Edit date 01/26/99]

-  SCHEDULE by Judge Patrick J. Duggan: 
sta tu s conference set for 2:00 3/31/98 (mo) 
[Entry date 02/09/98] [Edit date 05/27/99]

12 MOTION (first amended) by Ebony P a tte r
son, L auren t Crenshaw, K arla R. Williams, 
Tiffany Hall, K risten M. J. H arris, Michael 
Sm ith, Khyla Craine, Nyah Carmichael, 
S hanna Dubose, Ebony Davis, Nicole 
Brewer, K arla H arlin, Brian H arris, 
K atrina  Gipson, Candice B. N. Reynolds, 
Citizens Actions, Ruben M artinez and 
L arry  Brown to intervene w ith proof of 
m ailing (cv) [E ntry  date 02/12/98] [Edit 
date 05/27/99]

* * *

14 RESPONSE by plaintiffs Jennifer Gratz 
and Patrick  H um acher to motion to in te r
vene [12-1] (RH) [Entry date 02/26/98] 
[Edit date 05/27/99]

15 RESPONSE by defendants to motion to 
intervene [12-1] w ith proof of m ailing (RH) 
[Entry date 08/11/98]

16 REPLY by intervening defendants to 
response to motion to intervene [12-1] w ith  
proof of m ailing (pd) [Entry date 05/27/99]

* * *

24 MEMORANDUM opinion and order by 
Judge Patrick  J. Duggan denying motion to



15

7/21/98

7/24/98

8/14/98

9/14/98

10/13/98

10/27/98

intervene by intervening defen [12-1] (dp) 
[Entry date 07/08/98]

*  *  *

29 MOTION by intervening defendants for
reconsideration of order [24-1] with brief,
attachm ent and proof of m ailing (kg)
[Entry date 07/22/98]

30 NOTICE by the Court of hearing on motion
for reconsideration of order [24-1] by
intervening defen [29-1] (RH) [Entry date 
08/04/98]

*  *  *

34 SUPPLEMENTAL memorandum by in ter
vening defendants in support of motion for 
reconsideration of order [24-1] by interven
ing defen [29-1] with attachm ents A-D and 
proof of mailing (dp) [Entry date 08/17/98]

36 MOTION by Univ MI, Jam es T. Duder- 
stad t, Lee Bollinger for order denying class 
certification with brief, exhibits and proof 
of m ailing (LS) [Entry date 09/15/98]

*  *  *

45 MOTION by plaintiffs for class certifica
tion, and for bifurcation of liability and 
dam ages trials w ith attachm ents A-F (LS) 
[Entry date 10/14/98]

* * *

48 OPINION and order by Judge Patrick J. 
Duggan denying motion for reconsideration of 
order [24-1] by intervening defen [29-1] with 
proof of mailing, (cf) [Entry date 10/30/98]



16

11/2/98

11/2/98

11/2/98

11/18/98

11/20/98

12/10/98

49 APPEAL by intervening defendants of 
order [48-1] to USCA -  FEE: PAID -  
Receipt: #370580 (do) [Entry date 11/04/98] 
[Edit date 05/27/99]

52 REPLY by defendants to response to 
motion for order denying class certification 
[36-1] w ith exhibits A-E and proof of 
m ailing (dh) [Entry date 11/05/98] [Edit 
date 05/27/99]

52 RESPONSE by defendants to motion for 
class certification [45-1] and for bifurcation 
of liability and damages trials  [45-2] w ith 
exhibits A-E and proof of mailing (dh) 
[Entry date 11/05/98] [Edit date 05/27/99]

*  *  *

56 REPLY by plaintiffs Patrick Humacher and 
Jennifer Gratz to response to motion for 
class certification [45-1], motion for bifurca
tion of liability and damages trials by 
Jennifer Gratz, Patrick Hum acher [45-2] 
with attachm ents (kg) [Entry date 11/19/98]

57 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from USCA of 
receipt of appeal & docket [51-1] -  appeal 
case # 98-2248 (LS) [Entry date 11/24/98]

* * *

-  MOTION hearing held on motion for class 
certification [45-1] and for bifurcation of 
liability and damages trials  [45-2] and 
motion for order denying class certification 
[36-1] -  disposition: taken under advise
m ent -  Judge Patrick J. Duggan -  Court 
Reporter: M arie M etcalf (mo) [Entry date 
12/10/98] [Edit date 05/27/99]



17

*  *  *

12/23/98 62 ORDER by Judge Patrick J. Duggan 
granting motion for class certification [45- 
1] and for bifurcation of liability and 
damages trials [45-2] and d e l i n g  motion 
for order denying class certification [36-1] 
(lg) [Entry date 12/28/98] [Edit date 
05/27/99]

12/23/98 63 MEMORANDUM opinion and order by 
Judge Patrick J. Duggan, regarding plain
tiffs motion for class certification and 
bifurcation of liability and damaged trials 
and defendants motion for order denying 
class certification (lg) [Entry date 12/30/98]

*  *  *

4/1/99 76 ORDER by Judge Patrick J . Duggan, with
consent motion, providing th a t the proper 
defendants be nam ed and with proof of 
mailing. (Note: “Board of Regents” added as 
party  text to defendant University of 
M ichigan and term inating  defendant, The 
U niversity of Michigan College of L itera
ture, A rts and Science.) (cf) [Entry date 
04/05/99] [Edit date 04/05/99]

4/9/99 77 MOTION by plaintiffs Patrick H um acher
and Jennifer G ratz for partial sum m ary 
judgm ent on liability w ith brief (dp) [Entry 
date 04/12/99]

4/9/99 78 AFFIDAVIT and exhibits filed by plaintiffs
Patrick  H um acher and Jennifer G ratz in 
support of motion for partial sum m ary 
judgm ent on liability (document 77); 
volume I (dp) [Entry date 04/12/99] [Edit 
date 04/12/99]



18

5/3/99

5/3/99

5/3/99

5/3/99

4/9/99

5/3/99

79 AFFIDAVIT and exhibits filed by plaintiffs 
Patrick H um acher and Jennifer G ratz in 
support of motion for partia l summary 
judgm ent (document 77); volume II (dp) 
[Entry date 04/12/99]

80 MOTION by defendant’s for summary 
judgm ent (cm) [Entry date 05/04/99]

81 RESPONSE by defendants to motion for 
partia l sum m ary judgm ent on liability [77- 
1] with cross-motion for sum m ary judg
ment, brief and proof of m ailing (cm) [Entry 
date 05/04/99] [Edit date 05/27/99]

82 APPENDIX by defendants in support of 
opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for partial 
sum m ary judgm ent, and m em orandum  in 
support of motion for sum m ary judgm ent 
by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, 
Univ MI, Univ MI College Lit [80-1] Vol
ume 1: Documents and M aterials (cm) 
[Entry date 05/04/99]

83 APPENDIX by defendants in support of 
opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for partia l 
sum m ary judgm ent, and m em orandum  in 
support of defendants’ cross-motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent by Lee Bollinger, 
Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI, Univ MI 
College Lit [80-1] Volume 2: Deposition 
Excerpts (CM) [Entry date 05/04/99]

84 APPENDIX by defendants in support of 
opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for partia l 
sum m ary judgm ent, and motion for sum 
m ary judgm ent by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. 
D uderstadt, Univ MI, Univ MI College Lit



19

[80-1] Volume 3: Expert W itness Reports 
(cm) [Entry date 05/04/99]

* * *

6/1/99 9 / MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition
to motion for summary- judgm ent by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI, 
Univ MI College Lit [80-1] (dh) [Entry date 
06/02/99]

6/1/99 98 NON-CERTIFIED copy of order from
USCA gran ting  -  appeal case # 98-2248 
(dh) [Entry date 06/02/99]

6/1/99 99 AFFIDAVIT of Kirk O. Kolbo and exhibits
regarding m em orandum  in opposition by 
Jenn ifer Gratz, Patrick  Hum acher [97-1] 
(dh) [Entry date 06/02/99]

*  *  *

6/7/99 101 NON-CERTIFIED copy of order from
USCA gran ting  appellants’ motion to stay 
d istrict court proceedings -  appeal case # 
98-2248 (dp) [Entry date 06/08/99]

8/13/99 102 SLIP opinion from USCA reversing and
rem anding the case for fu rther proceedings, 
etc. -  appeal case # 98-2009/2248. (cf) 
[Entry date 08/17/99]

8/13/99 103 NON-CERTIFIED copy of judgm ent from
USCA reversing and rem anding the case 
for fu rther proceedings, etc. -  appeal case # 
98-2009/2248. (cf) [Entry date 08/17/99]

9/8/99 107 NON-CERTIFIED copy of order from
USCA granting  case -  appeal case # 98- 
2248 (dh) [Entry date 09/09/99]



20

9/15/99

10/12/99

2/7/00

3/9/00

* * *

109 MANDATE from USCA reversing, rem and
ing and vacating-appeal case # 98-2248 
(LS) [Entry date 09/17/99]

*  *  *

110 ANSWER by intervening defendants Citi
zens Aff Actions, Candice B. N. Reynolds, 
K atrina Gipson, Brian H arris, Ebony Davis, 
Shanna Dubose, Nyah Carmichael, Khyla 
Craine, Michael Smith, Kristen M. J. 
H arris, Tiffany Hall, Ruben Martinez, Karla 
R. Williams, Laurent Crenshaw, Larry 
Brown, Ebony Patterson, Nicole Brewer and 
K arla H arlin to complaint [1-1] with proof of 
m ailing proof of mailing (dp) [Entry date 
10/14/99]

* * *

119 MOTION by defendants for relief from order 
regarding class certification and bifurcation 
in light of subsequent authority with brief 
and proof of mailing (cm) [Entry date 
02/09/00]

* * *

130 REPLY brief by defendants to response to,
and in support of, motion for relief from
order regarding class certification and 
bifurcation in light of subsequent au thority  
by Jam es T. D uderstadt, Lee Bollinger and 
Univ MI [119-1] with proof of m ailing (dp) 
[Entry date 03/13/00]

* * *



21

5/2/00

7/17/00

7/17/00

7/17/00

7/17/00

144 OPINION and order by Judge Patrick J. 
Dugan denying motion for relief from order 
regarding class certification and bifurcation 
in light of subsequent authority  by Jam es 
T. D uderstadt, Lee Bollinger, Univ MI 
[119-1] w ith proof of mailing. [EOD Date: 
5/2/00] (cf) [Entry date 05/02/00]

* * *

156 MOTION (renewed) by plaintiffs’ Patrick 
H um acher and Jennifer G ratz renewed 
motion for partia l sum m ary judgm ent on 
liability w ith supplem ental memorandum 
in support of motion, affidavit of Kirk O. 
Kolbo and exhibits in support of motion, (cf) 
[Entry date 07/18/00]

*  *  *

158 MOTION (renewed by defendants Univ MI,
Jam es T. D uderstadt, Lee Bollinger re
newed motion for sum m ary judgm ent as to 
plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declara
tory relief with brief and certificate of
service via courier, (cf) [Entry date 
07/18/00]

159 MOTION (renewed) by defendants Univ 
MI, Jam es T. D uderstadt, and Lee Bollin
ger renewed motion for sum m ary judgm ent 
on grounds of qualified im m unity with brief 
and certificate of service via courier, (cf) 
[Entry date 07/18/00]

160 APPENDIX (Volume 1 -  documents and 
m aterials) by defendants Univ MI, Jam es 
T. D uderstadt, and Lee Bollinger to motion 
renewed motion for sum m ary judgm ent on 
grounds of qualified im m unity by Lee



22

Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ Mi 
[159-1], and motion renewed motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent as to plaintiffs’ claims 
for injunctive and declaratory relief by Lee 
Bollinger. Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[158-1] (cf) [Entry date 07/18/00] [Edit date 
07/18/00]

7/17/00 161 APPENDIX (Volume 2 -  deposition ex
cerpts) by defendants Univ MI, Jam es T. 
D uderstadt, and Lee Bollinger to motion 
renewed motion for sum m ary judgm ent on 
grounds of qualified im m unity by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[159-1], and motion renewed motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent as to plaintiffs’ claims 
for injunctive and declaratory relief by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[158-1]. (cf) [Entry date 07/18/00] [Edit date 
07/18/00]

7/17/00 162 APPENDIX (Volume 3 -  expert w itness
reports) by defendants Univ MI, Jam es T. 
D uderstadt, and Lee Bollinger to motion 
renewed motion for sum m ary judgm ent on 
grounds of qualified im m unity by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[159-1], and motion renewed motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent as to plaintiffs’ claims 
for injunctive and declaratory relief by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[158-1]. (cf) [Entry date 07/18/00]

7/17/00 163 APPENDIX (Volume 4 -  court orders and
briefs and amici curiae) by defendants Univ 
MI, Jam es T. D uderstadt, and Lee Bollin
ger to motion renewed motion for sum m ary 
judgm ent on grounds of qualified im m unity 
by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstad t,



23

L niv MI [159-1], and motion renewed 
motion for sum m ary judgm ent as to plain
tiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory 
relief by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. Duder- 
stad t, Univ MI [158-1], (cf) [Entry date 
07/18/00]

* * *

7/17/00 165 MOTION by defendants Jam es T. Duder-
s tad t and Lee Bollinger for sum m ary 
judgm ent on grounds of qualified im m unity 
w ith proof of m ailing idp) [Entry date 
07/20/00]

* * *

8/11/00 172 RESPONSE by Patrick Humacher, Jen n i
fer G ratz to renewed motion for sum m ary 
judgm ent on grounds of qualified imm unity 
by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, 
Univ MI [159-1], and renewed motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent as to plaintiffs’ claims 
for injunctive and declaratory relief by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[158-1] w ith proof of m ailing (LS) [Entry 
date 08/14/00]

8/11/00 172 REPLY by Patrick H um acher, Jennifer
G ratz to response and in support of re
newed motion for partial sum m ary judg
m ent on liability by Jenn ifer Gratz, Patrick 
H um acher [156-1] w ith proof of m ailing 
(LS) [Entry date 08/14/00]

8/11/00 173 AFFIDAVIT of Kirk O. Kolbo and exhibits
subm itted in support of plaintiffs memo
randum  in opposition to defendants two 
renewed motions for sum m ary judgm ent 
and reply m emorandum in support of



24

8/ 11/00

8/ 11/00

8/ 11/00

8/ 11/00

8/ 11/00

8/11/00

plaintiffs motion for partial sum m ary 
judgm ent w ith attachm ents A-F (LS) 
[Entry date 08/14/00]

* * *

175 RESPONSE in opposition by intervening 
defendants to renewed motion for partial 
sum m ary judgm ent on liability by Jennifer 
G ratz and Patrick  Hum acher [156-1] with 
proof of m ailing (approved for filing) (LS) 
[Entry date 08/14/00]

176 RESPONSE by intervening defendants to 
renewed motion for sum m ary judgm ent as 
to plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief by 
Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ 
MI [158-1] w ith attachm ent and proof of 
m ailing (LS) [Entry date 08/14/00]

177 APPENDIX by intervening defendants in 
support of defendant -  intervenors opposi
tion ot plaintiffs renewed motion for sum 
m ary judgm ent (Volume 1: Expert W itness 
Reports) (LS) [Entry date 08/14/00]

178 APPENDIX by intervening defendants in 
support of defendant -  intervenors opposi
tion to plaintiffs renewed motion for sum 
m ary judgm ent (volume II: Expert W itness 
Reports) (LS) [Entry date 08/14/00]

179 APPENDIX by intervening defendants in
support of defendant -  intervenors opposi
tion to plaintiffs renewed motion for sum 
m ary judgm ent (volume II-B: Expert
W itness Reports) (LS) [Entry date 08/14/00]

180 APPENDIX by intervening defendants in 
support of defendant-intervenors opposition 
to plaintiffs renewed motion for sum m ary



25

judgm ent (volume III: Expert W itness 
Report) (LS) [Entry date 08/14/00]

8/11/00 181 APPENDIX by intervening defendants in
support of defendant -  intervenors opposi
tion to plaintiffs renewed motion for sum 
m ary judgm ent (volume IV: M aterials and 
Deposition Excerpts) (LS) [Entry date 
08/14/00]

8/11/00 182 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposi
tion to motion renewed motion for sum 
m ary judgm ent on grounds of qualified 
im m unity by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T.
D uderstadt, Univ MI [159-1] with proof of 
m ailing and attachm ents (lg) [Entry date 
08/15/00]

* * *

8/24/00 188 REPLY by p la in tiff s to response in opposi
tion to motion renewed motion for partial 
sum m ary judgm ent on liability by Jennifer 
Gratz, Patrick Hum acher [156-1] (nh) 
[Entry date 08/29/00]

* * *

9/1/00 193 SUR-REPLY m emorandum by defendants
in terveno rs in opposition to motion re
newed motion for partia l sum m ary judg
m ent on liability by Gratz, Patrick 
H um acher [156-1] with proof of mailing 
(nh) [Entry date 10/05/00]

9/7/00 191 NOTICE by defendant Univ MI of adjourn
ing hearing on motion renewed motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent on grounds of qualified 
im m unity by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. 
D uderstadt, Univ MI [159-1]; renewed 
motion for judgm ent as to plaintiffs’ claims



26

for injunctive and declarator}7 relief by Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI 
[158-1]; motion to strike any testimony or 
expert opinions (including of William 
Bowen) based on consideration of the college 
and beyond database by Jennifer Gratz, 
Patrick H um acher [157-1]; motion renewed 
motion for partial summary' on liability by 
Jennifer Gratz, Patrick Hum acher [156-1]; 
motion for sum m ary judgm ent on grounds of 
qualified im m unity by Lee Bollinger, Jam es 
T. D uderstadt [165-1] for 9:30 11/21/00 and 
adjouning the final pretrial conference (cm) 
[Entry date 09/08/00]

10/3/00 192 CERTIFIED copy of order from USCA
denying petitions for permission to appeal 
or alternatively  for relief in m andam us -  
appeal case # 00-0107/0109 (also see 97- 
75928) (dp) [Entry date 10/04/00]

* * *

11/16/00 -  MOTION hearing  held on motion renewed
motion for sum m ary judgm ent as to plain
tiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory 
relief by Bollinger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, 
Univ Mi [158-1], motion renewed motion 
for partia l sum m ary judgm ent on liability 
by Jenn ifer Gratz, Patrick H um acher [156- 
1] -  disposition: taken under advisem ent -  
Judge Patrick  J . Duggan -  Court Reporter: 
M arie M etcalf (mo) [Entry date 11/16/00]

11/27/00 204 TRANSCRIPT taken on 11/16/00 of motion 
for partia l sum m ary judgm ent on liability 
and motion to strike, defendants’ renewed 
motion for sum m ary judgm ent re injunctive 
(lg) [Entry date 12/01/00]



27

* * *

12/13/00 205 JO IN T sum m ary of undisputed facts 
regarding admissions process, (cf) [Entry 
date 12/20/00]

12/13/00 206 OPINION by Judge Patrick J. Duggan 
denying renewed motion for sum m ary 
judgm ent on grounds of eleventh am end
m ent im m unity by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. 
D uderstadt, Univ MI [159-1], g ranting 
renewed motion for sum m ary judgm ent 
w ith respect to the LSA’s admissions 
program s for 1999 and 2000 by Lee Bollin
ger, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Univ MI [158-1], 
g ran ting  renewed motion for sum m ary 
judgm ent with respect to the LSA’s adm is
sions program s in existence from 1995 
through 1998, and the admissions pro
gram s for such years shall be declared 
unconstitutional and denying request for 
injunctive relief by Jennifer Gratz, Patrick 
H um acher [156-1], and granting motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent on grounds of qualified 
im m unity by Lee Bollinger, Jam es T. 
D uderstad t [165-1] with proof of mailing. 
[EOD Date: 12/20/00] (c f [Entry date 
12/20/00] [Edit date 12/20/00]

1/30/01 207 ORDER by Judge Patrick J . Duggan
gran ting  renewed motion for partial sum 
m ary judgm ent on liability by Patrick 
H um acher, Jennifer G ratz [156-1] in favor 
of plaintiffs w ith respect to the LSA’s 
adm issions programs in existence from 
1995 thrugh 1998 and the admissions 
program s for such years are hereby de
clared unconstitutional; and in favor of 
University defendants with respect to the



28

LSA’s admission program s for 1999 and 
2000; denying plaintiffs requests injunctive 
relief [158-1], denying motion for summary 
judgm ent on grounds of qualified im m unity 
by Jam es T. D uderstadt, Lee Bollinger 
[165-1], g ranting  renewed motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent on grounds of qualified 
by Univ MI, Jam es T. D uderstadt, Lee 
Bollinger [159-1] and the Board of Regents 
motion for sum m ary judgm ent on grounds 
of E leventh Amendm ent im m unity is 
denied (see order for details) w ith proof of 
m ailing [Date 2/2/01] (LS) [Entry date 
02/02/01]

2/9/01 208 ORDER by Judge Patrick J . Duggan,
sta ting  th a t the claims under qualified 
im m unity should be resolved as quickly as 
possible [EOD Date 2/12/01] (lg) [Entry 
date 02/12/01]

2/9/01 209 JUDGM ENT (ORDER) by Judge Patrick J.
Duggan, to dismiss defendants Lee Bollin
ger and Jam es T. D uderstadt [EOD Date 
2/13/01] (lg) [Entry date 02/13/01]

2/26/01 210 OPINION by Judge Patrick  J . Duggan
regarding defendant-intervenors’ argum ent 
th a t the College of L iterature, Science and 
the A rts admissions program s pass consti
tu tional m uster as narrowly tailored m eans 
of rem edying past and curren t discrim ina
tion by the university for la ter considera
tion w ith proof of mailing. An order 
consistent with this opinion shall issue 
forthwith. [EOD Date: 2/28/01 (cf) [Entry 
date 02/28/01]



29

2/26/01

2/26/01

3/2/01

3/2/01

3/12/01

3/13/01

211 ORDER by Judge Patrick J. Duggan 
gran ting  motion for sum m ary judgm ent 
w ith respect to defendant-intervenors’ 
claim th a t the university was justified in 
using race as a factor in admissions to 
remedy the present effects of past discrim i
nation by Patrick H um acher, Jennifer 
G ratz [156-1] and th a t defendant- 
in tervenors’ claim th a t the university was 
justified  in using race as a factor in adm is
sions to remedy the present effects of past 
discrim ination are dismissed with proof of 
m ailing. [EOD Date 2/28/01] (cf) [Entry 
date 02/28/01]

212 APPEAL by plaintiffs Patrick Hum acher 
and Jennifer G ratz of orders [209-2] and 
[207-1] to USCA with affidavit of service — 
FEE: PAID -  Receipt #: 413914 (do) [Entry 
date 03/02/01]

213 PROOF of m ailing of notice of appeal to 
USCA, all of record and M arie M etcalf (do) 
[Entry date 03/02/01]

214 CERTIFIED copy of appeal notice by 
Jenn ifer Gratz, H um acher [212-1] and 
docket transm itted  to USCA (do) [Entry 
date 03/02/01]

215 MOTION by intervening defendants for 
en try  of a final judgm ent pursuan t to 54(B) 
and, in the alternative, to add certification 
for interlocutory appeal pu rsuan t to 59(E) 
w ith brief (dp) [Entry date 03/13/01]

216 PROOF of mailing by intervening defen
dants of motion for entry of a final judgm ent 
pursuan t to 54(b) and, in the alternative, 
59(e) motion to add a certification for



30

3/15/01

3/21/01

3/22/01

3/23/01

3/23/01

3/26/01

3/26/01

3/27/01

interlocutory appeal (dp) [Entry date 
03/13/01]

217 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from USCA of 
receipt of appeal notice by Jenn ifer Gratz 
and Patrick H um acher [212-1] -  appeal 
case # 01-1333 (dp) [Entry date 03/16/01]

218 ORDER by Judge Patrick J. Duggan th a t 
final judgm ent is entered with respect to 
D efendant-Intervenors’ claims [EOD Date 
3/22/01] (cm) [Entry date 03/22/01]

219 RESPONSE by plaintiffs Patrick 
H um acher and Jennifer G ratz to motion for 
entry  of a final judgm ent pursuan t to 54(B) 
[215-1], m otion to add certification for 
interlocutory appeal pu rsuan t to 59(E) 
[215-2] w ith proof of m ailing (kg) [Entry 
date 03/23/01]

220 APPEAL by intervening defendants of 
orders [211-1] and [210-1] to USCA with 
proof of service -  FEE; not paid (do) [Entry 
date 03/26/01]

-  STAYED pending appeal by Judge Patrick 
J. Duggan (pd) [Entry date 03/27/01]

221 PROOF of m ailing of notice of appeal to 
USCA and counsel of record (do) [Entry 
date 03/26/01]

222 CERTIFIED copy of appeal notice by inter
vening defendants [220-1] and docket trans
mitted to USCA (do) [Entry date 03/26/01]

223 TRANSCRIPT order form by appellants 
regarding request for transcript(s) appeal 
case #01-1333 (nh) [Entry date 03/28/01]



31

4/4/01

4/4/01

4/4/01

4/4/01

4/12/01

6/22/01

6/26/01

224 ORDER from USCA granting  the petition 
and cross-petition for permission to appeal 
-  USCA #01-0102/0104. [EOD Date 4/5/01] 
(cf) [Entry date 04/05/01]

225 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from USCA of 
receipt of appeal notice intervening defen 
by appellant [220-1] -  appeal case # 01- 
1438. (cf) [Entry date 04/05/01] [Edit date 
04/05/01]

226 APPEAL filing fee received from plaintiff 
Patrick  H um acher for appeal notice of 
appeal & docket [214-1] in the am ount of 
$ 105.00 -  Receipt #415896 -  appeal case 
01-1418 (nh) (E ntry  date 04/11/01]

227 APPEAL filing fee received from plaintiff 
Jenn ifer G ratz for appeal notice of appeal 
& docket [214-1] in the am ount of $ 105.00 
-  Receipt # 415897 -  Appeal case 01-1416 
(nh) [Entry date 04/11/01]

*  *  *

229 APPEAL filing fee received from N atl Assn 
Adv for_appeal notice [220-1] in the am ount 
of $ 105.00 -  Receipt # 416306 -  appeal 
case # 01-1438 (jg) [Entry date 04/17/01]

231 NOTICE by plain tiff Jenn ifer G ratz of 
designation of record for appeal (dp) [Entrv 
date 06/26/01]

232 RECORD consisting of: 18 volumes of 
pleadings and 3 transcrip ts transm itted  to 
USCA -  appeal case # 01-1333 & # 01-1438. 
(UPS 1Z 467 088 03 1209 636 6, UPS 1Z 
467 088 03 1209 637 5, and UPS 1Z 467



32

8/2/01

8/2/01

10/31/02

10/31/02

12/ 11/02

12/ 11/02

088 03 1209 638 4) (cf) [Entry date 
06/26/01]

233 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from USCA of 
receipt of record -  appeal case # 01-1333, 
01-1416, 01-1418. (cf) [Entry date 08/03/01]

234 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT from USCA of 
receipt of record — appeal case # 01-1438. 
(cf) [Entry date 08/03/01]

235 NOTICE from the US Suprem e Court th a t 
a petition for w rit of certiorari was filed 
and placed on the docket (kg) [Entry date 
10/31/02]

236 NOTICE from the US Suprem e Court th a t 
a petition for w rit of certiorari was filed 
and placed on the docket (kg) [Entry date 
10/31/02]

237 ORDER from the U.S. Supreme Court 
denying w rit of certiorari regarding -  
appeal case # 01-1333/01-1416/01-1414/01- 
1438 [EOD Date: 12/16/02] (cm) [Entry date 
12/16/02]

238 ORDER from the U.S. Suprem e Court of 
lim ited g ran t of w rit of certiorari regarding 
question 1 -  appeal case # 01-1333/01-1416/ 
01-1418/01-1438 [EOD Date 12/16/02] (cm) 
[Entry date 12/16/02



33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JE N N IFE R  GRATZ and 
PATRICK HAMACHER,

for them selves and all o thers 
sim ilarly  s itua ted ,

P laintiffs,

LEE BOLLINGER, JAM ES J. 
DUDERSTADT, THE 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 
and THE UNIVERSITY OF 
M ICHIGAN COLLEGE OF 
LITERATURE, ARTS AND 
SCIENCE,

D efendants.

N a tu re  of the  Action

1. This is a class action brought for violations and 
threatened  violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the 
class they represen t to equal protection of the laws under 
the Fourteenth  Am endm ent to the United States Constitu
tion. and for racial discrim ination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 
§§ 1981, 1983 and 2000d et seq. Plaintiffs seek declaratory 
and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive 
dam ages in an am ount to be proven a t trial.

Civil Action 
#97-75231

PATRICK DUGGAN 

COMPLAINT 

CLASS ACTION

Ju risd ic tion  and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action under 28 
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This action arises under the 
Fourteenth A m endm ent to the United S tates Constitution,



34

and under federal laws, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 
2000d et seq.

3. Venue in th is court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1391 and th is Court has personal jurisdiction over the 
defendants in th is m atter because the events giving rise to 
th is  claim occurred, and will occur, in th is district.

P lain tiffs

4. Jennifer G ratz is, and a t all times relevant to this 
litigation was, a resident of the S tate of Michigan. G ratz 
applied in 1994 for admission to the University of Michi
gan College of L iterature, Science & A rts (the “LSA 
College”) in Ann Arbor as an undergraduate beginning in 
the  academic year 1995-96. In Jan u a ry  1995, the LSA 
College placed her on a “w ait list” for admission. In April
1995, she was apprised th a t her application had been 
rejected. She has attended University of Michigan a t 
Dearborn instead.

5. Patrick  H am acher is, and a t all tim es relevant to 
th is  litigation was, a resident of the State of Michigan. 
H am acher applied for adm ission to the LSA College as an 
undergraduate  in 1996. By le tter dated November 19,
1996, the LSA College informed him th a t he had been 
placed on a “w ait lis t” for admission. Sometime in the 
spring of 1997, he was apprised th a t his application had 
been rejected. He has attended Michigan S tate  University 
instead, bu t would transfer to the LSA College if offered 
an opportunity. He intends to apply to transfer if  the 
discrim inatory admissions system described herein is 
elim inated.



35

D efendants

6. The U niversity of Michigan is a public educational 
institution in the S tate of Michigan. The LSA College is a 
school under the supervisory au thority  of the University of 
Michigan.

7. Jam es D uderstad t was the President of the 
University of M ichigan during the tim e th a t G ratz’s 
application was under consideration. He was, a t th a t time, 
the individual ultim ately responsible for the admissions 
policies described below. He is being sued in his individual 
capacity.

8. On or around February  1, 1997, Lee Bollinger 
became the P resident of the University of Michigan, and 
was President a t the tim e th a t H am acher’s application 
was rejected. He was, a t th a t time, the individual u lti
m ately responsible for the admissions policies described 
below. He is being sued in both his individual and official 
capacities. Unless enjoined, he will continue to approve of, 
and im plem ent, an admissions system substantially  the 
sam e as the system  described below.

Class Action Allegations

9. G ratz and H am acher bring th is class action 
pursuan t to Rules 23(a), 23(b), and 23(c)(4)(A) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class 
consisting of all students who: •

• applied for and were not granted admission to 
the LSA College for all academic years since 
1995-96 through the entry of a judgm ent in 
this action; and



36

• were members of those racial or ethnic 
groups, including Caucasian, th a t defendants 
trea ted  less favorably in considering their 
applications for admission to the LSA Col
lege.

10. Plaintiffs seek to m ain tain  this class, pursuan t to 
Rules 23(b) and 23(c)(4), on the issues of w hether defen
dan ts engaged in unlawful discrimination and w hether 
defendants should be enjoined from continuing their 
discrim inatory policies.

11. The Class is so num erous th a t joinder of all its 
m em bers is impracticable. Defendants receive thousands 
of applications for adm ission each year for the LSA Col
lege. Plaintiffs do not know addresses or the precise 
num ber of rejected applicants, but can ascertain  this 
inform ation from the defendants’ records.

12. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all 
m em bers of the Class and predom inate over any questions 
solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among 
the  questions of law and fact common to the Class are 
w hether defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the  U nited S tates Constitution, and federal laws, 42 
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d et seq., by discrim inating 
and by conspiring to discrim inate against certain  appli
cants on the basis of race, and w hether they will continue 
to do so. 13

13. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the 
m em bers of the Class, and they are adequate represen ta
tives of the Class. Plaintiffs and members of the Class 
have sustained  dam ages because of defendants’ unlawful 
activities alleged herein. Plaintiffs have retained counsel



37

com petent and experienced in race discrim ination litiga
tion and intend to prosecute th is action vigorously. P lain
tiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 
Class.

14. A class action is superior to other available 
m eans for the fair and efficient adjudication of the contro
versy.

Facts

15. The University of M ichigan is a S tate-run  
university which also receives federal funds. The LSA 
College is an educational unit p art of, operated by, and 
responsible to, the University of Afichigan. It also receives 
federal funds.

16. The LSA Admissions Form asks each applicant 
to disclose his or her race.

17. Each of the plaintiffs identified his or her race by 
checking the box next to “white.”

18. Defendants used the race information provided 
by plaintiffs and other applicants to determ ine who would 
be adm itted to the LSA College.

19. Defendants used different admissions standards 
based on each studen t s self-identified race. As a result, 
students from favored racial groups had a significantly 
greater chance of admission than  students with sim ilar 
credentials from disfavored racial groups.

20. Applicants from disfavored racial groups were 
not compared directly to applicants from favored racial 
groups.



38

21. Plaintiffs, categorized as white, were not among 
the favored racial groups th a t b en efited  from less s trin 
gent adm issions standards.

22. D efendants did not merely use race as a “plus” 
factor or as one of m any factors to a tta in  a diverse student 
body. R ather, race was one of the predom inant factors 
(along w ith scores on standardized admissions tests and 
high school grades) used for determ ining admission.

23. Defendants had no compelling in terest to justify 
th e ir use of race in the admissions process, and were not 
m otivated by either an in te rest in educational diversity or 
by a desire to rem edy the  present effects of any past 
discrim ination.

24. Assum ing arguendo th a t defendants had a 
compelling in te rest for which they used race in their 
adm issions criteria, defendants did not consider, and 
never employed, any race neu tral alternative to achieve 
th a t in terest.

25. As a resu lt of defendants’ racially discriminatory 
procedures and practices, plaintiffs’ applications were 
rejected. Each of the plaintiffs suffered humiliation, 
em otional distress, and pain and suffering as a conse
quence of his or her application being rejected. Each of the 
plaintiffs also suffered hum iliation, emotional distress, 
and pain and suffering upon learning th a t defendants had 
discrim inated against him  or her on the basis of race.

26. As a resu lt of defendants’ discrim ination, G ratz 
and H am acher were forced to attend  undergraduate 
institu tions th a t were e ither less prestigious or more 
expensive (or both) resulting  in higher educational costs 
and lower future earnings.



39

2 / ' If not enj°m ed, the University of Michigan the 
LSA College, and Bollinger will continue to use race in 
selecting students for the LSA College

FIRST CLATM

28. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and 
averm ents of paragraphs 1-27 as if fully set forth herein.

29. Hollinger and D uderstadt acted under color of
law to deny plaintiffs equal protection of the laws, and to 
discrim inate on the basis of race, in violation of 42 U S C 
§§ 1981 and 1983. '

3°. Bollinger and D uderstadt violated plaintiffs’ 
clear and well-established Constitutional right to receive 
the same consideration for admissions as applicants of 
other races.

31. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations and 
averm ents of paragraphs 1-30 as if fully set forth herein.

32. The University of Michigan and the LSA College
are redp ien ts ° f  funds. They discrim inated
p aintiffs on the basis of their race, color, and/or ethnicity 
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.



40

RELIEF

W HEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgm ent:

A. Awarding them  compensatory and punitive 
dam ages in an am ount to be proven at trial;

B. Declaring th a t defendants violated their 
rights to nondiscrim inatory trea tm en t under 
the Fourteenth  A m endm ent and 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d et seq.\

C. Enjoining defendants from continuing to dis
crim inate on the  basis of race in violation of 
the Fourteenth  Amendment;

D. Requiring the LSA College to offer 
H am acher adm ission as a transfer student;

E. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs pursuan t 
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable 
authority; and

F. Awarding any other relief th a t is appropriate 
and just.

Respectfully subm itted,

/s/ Patrick  J. W right
Patrick  J. W right, Esq.
(S tate  B ar No. 54052)
37781 Hollyhead 
Farm ington Hills, MI 48331

David F. Herr, Esq.
K irk Kolbo, Esq.
(.pro hac vice application 

forthcoming)
Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand 
2300 N orthw est Center 
90 S. 11th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140



Michael E. Rosman, Esq. 
Michael P. McDonald, Esq. 
H ans F. Bader, Esq.
(pro hac vice applications 

forthcoming)
CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL 

RIGHTS
1233 20th Street, NW,

Suite 300
W ashington. D.C. 20036 
(202) 833-8400

41



42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ and 
PATRICK HAMACHER,

for them selves and all o thers )
sim ilarly  s itu a ted , )

P lain tiffs, j

v - )

LEE BOLLINGER, JAM ES J. )
DUDERSTADT, THE }
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, )
and  THE UNIVERSITY OF )
M ICHIGAN COLLEGE OF >
LITERATURE, ARTS AND )
SCIEN CE, })

D efendants. \

Civil Action 
No. 97-75231 

Hon.
P atrick  J . Duggan 

Hon.
Thom as A. Carlson

ANSWER

Defendants Lee Bollinger, Jam es J . D uderstadt, and 
the  Regents of the U niversity of Michigan hereby answer 
the  Complaint. D efendants tre a t nam ed defendants “The 
U niversity of M ichigan” and “The U niversity of Michigan 
College of L iterature, A rts and Science” as referring to the 
“Regents of the U niversity of Michigan,” the body corpo
ra te  w ith the au thority  to be sued under law, and respond 
to the Com plaint on th a t basis. Accordingly, the  term  
“defendants” as used in th is Answer refers to Bollinger, 
D uderstad t and the Regents of the U niversity of M ichigan. 
D efendants would not object to the filing of an Amended 
C om plaint th a t replaced “The University of M ichigan” and 
“The U niversity of Michigan College of L iterature, A rts



43

and Science,” which are not proper defendants, with the 
“Regents of the University of M ichigan.”

Except as hereinafter expressly adm itted, qualified, or 
otherwise adm itted, defendants specifically deny each and 
every allegation, statem ent, m atte r and thing contained in 
the  Complaint. Defendants respond to the numbered 
allegations in the Com plaint on knowledge to themselves 
and on inform ation and belief as to other m atters, as 
follows:

1. No response is required to the allegations in 
paragraph 1 of the Complaint, w'hich are the plaintiffs’ 
characterization of their claims.

2. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 2 of 
the Complaint.

3. Defendants adm it tha t, to the extent th a t the 
Court has subject-m atter jurisdiction, venue is proper in 
th is Court. Defendants deny all of the  rem aining allega
tions in paragraph  3 of the Complaint.

4. Defendant the Regents of the U niversity of Michi
gan states tha t, on or about Jan u a ry  12, 1995, the U niver
sity of Michigan-Ann Arbor received an application for 
freshm an admission to the U niversity’s College of L itera
ture , Science and the A rts for the fall 1995 term  from 
Jenn ifer Gratz. On Jan u ary  19, 1995, the University of 
Michigan-Ann Arbor sent a le tte r to G ratz informing her 
th a t her application was rejected, but offering her a 
position on an “extended w ait list.” G ratz did not respond 
to the offer, and therefore was not considered further when 
other students were adm itted from the extended w ait list. 
Defendant the Regents of the University of Michigan 
adm its th a t G ratz was adm itted to the University of



44

M ichigan-Dearborn on December 6, 1994, and th a t she 
attends the U niversity of Michigan-Dearborn. Defendants 
Bollinger and D uderstad t lack personal knowledge with 
respect to G ratz’ application. All defendants lack knowl
edge and inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to the 
tru th  or falsity of the rem aining allegations of paragraph 4 
of the Complaint.

5. Defendant the Regents of the U niversity of Michi
gan sta tes th a t on or about October 23, 1996, the U niver
sity of Michigan-Ann Arbor received an application for 
freshm an admission to the U niversity’s College of L itera
tu re , Science and the A rts for the fall 1997 term  from 
Patrick  Hamacher. On November 19, 1996, the U niversity 
of M ichigan-Ann Arbor sen t a le tte r to Ham acher inform
ing him  th a t it was delaying decision on his application. 
On April 14, 1997, the  University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 
sen t a le tte r to H am acher informing him th a t his applica
tion was rejected, bu t offering him a position on an “ex
tended w ait list.” H am acher did not respond to the offer, 
and therefore was not considered fu rther when other 
studen ts were adm itted from the extended w ait list. 
D efendants Bollinger and D uderstadt lack personal 
knowledge w ith respect to H am acher’s application. Defen
dan ts deny th a t they employ or employed the “discrim ina
tory adm issions system ” described in the Complaint. All 
defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to 
form a belief as to the  tru th  or falsity of the rem aining 
allegations of paragraph  5 of the Complaint.

6. Defendants adm it the allegations in the first 
sentence of paragraph  6 of the Complaint. Defendants do 
not understand  the second sentence of paragraph 6 of the



45

Complaint as pleaded, but sta te  th a t the College of L itera
ture , Science and the A rts is a college of the U niversity of 
Michigan.

7. Defendants adm it the allegations in the first 
sentence of paragraph 7 of the Complaint. In response to 
the second sentence, defendants state  th a t during the time 
th a t G ratz’ application was under consideration, Duder- 
stad t, as president of the University of Michigan, served 
as the U niversity’s chief adm inistrative officer, and had 
oversight responsibility for the University’s admissions 
policies. Defendants adm it th a t plaintiffs purport to sue 
D uderstadt in his individual capacity.

8. Defendants adm it the first sentence of paragraph 
8 of the Complaint, and adm it th a t plaintiffs purport to 
sue Bollinger in his individual and official capacities. 
Defendants fu rther state  th a t as president of the Univer
sity of Michigan, Bollinger is the University’s chief adm in
istrative officer, and has oversight responsibility for the 
University’s adm issions policies. With respect to the last 
sentence of paragraph  8 of the Complaint, defendants 
s ta te  th a t the Com plaint inaccurately describes the 
University of M ichigan’s admissions process, and therefore 
th a t no response is required. To the extent th a t a response 
is deemed necessary, defendants the Regents of the U ni
versity of M ichigan and Bollinger sta te  th a t they do have a 
curren t intention to continue using race as one of many 
factors considered in admissions, and deny the rem aining 
allegations of the last sentence of paragraph 8 of the 
complaint. To the extent th a t a response is deemed neces
sary, defendant D uderstad t lacks knowledge or inform a
tion sufficient to form a belief as to the tru th  or falsity of 
the allegations in the last sentence of paragraph 8 of the 
Complaint.



46

9. Defendants adm it th a t plaintiffs purport to bring 
th is  action as a class action. No response is necessary to 
the plaintiffs’ characterization of th e ir claims in the 
rem ainder of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Defendants adm it th a t plaintiffs seek to m ain
ta in  a class. No response is necessary’ to the plaintiffs’ 
characterization of th e ir claims in the rem ainder of para
graph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Defendants adm it th a t the University of Michi
gan receives thousands of applications each y’ear for 
freshm an admission into the College of L iterature, Science 
and the Arts, and th a t some of the nam es and addresses of 
rejected applicants m ay be obtained from files m aintained 
by the  Office of U ndergraduate Admissions. Defendants 
deny all of the rem aining allegations in paragraph 11 of 
the  Complaint.

12. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 12 
of the Complaint.

13. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13 
of the  Complaint, except th a t  defendants lack information 
or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the tru th  of 
the allegations regarding the competence and experience 
of plaintiffs’ counsel.

14. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14 
of the Complaint.

15. Defendants s ta te  th a t the University of Michigan 
is an en tity  created by the M ichigan S tate  Constitution. 
Defendants adm it th a t the  University of Michigan, which 
includes the College of L iterature, Science and the Arts, 
receives federal funds.



47

16. Defendants adm it th a t the U niversity of Michi
gan’s Application for U ndergraduate Admission perm its 
applicants to indicate their race. Defendants deny all of 
the rem aining allegations in paragraph 16 of the Com
plaint.

17. Defendants sta te  th a t G ratz identified her race 
as “w hite/Caucasian,” but lack knowledge or information 
w hether she so indicated on her application for freshm an 
admission. Defendants fu rther sta te  th a t Ham acher 
declined to indicate his race on his application, but state  
on information and belief th a t H am acher disclosed, in 
tak ing  the ACT exam ination, th a t his race was 
“w hite/Caucasian.”

18. Defendants state  th a t the  University of Michigan 
uses race as a factor in admissions, as part of a broad 
array  of qualifications and characteristics of which racial 
or ethnic origin is but a single though im portant element. 
Defendants deny all of the rem aining allegations in 
paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

19. Defendants state  th a t the U niversity of Michigan 
applies rigorous admissions standards to all applicants; 
and th a t all adm itted students are fully qualified to 
succeed at the University. Defendants further state  th a t 
the University of Michigan uses race as a factor in adm is
sions, as p art of a broad array  of qualifications and charac
teristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single 
though im portant element. Defendants deny all of the 
rem aining allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20 
of the Complaint.



48

21. Defendants adm it th a t plaintiffs are not mem
bers of an underrepresented m inority group and th a t their 
race was not a factor th a t enhanced the U niversity of 
M ichigan’s consideration of th e ir applications. Defendants 
deny all of the rem aining allegations in paragraph  21 of 
the Complaint.

22. Defendants sta te  th a t high school grades in 
academic courses represent the predom inant factor used 
for determ ining adm ission to the U niversity of Michigan, 
College of L iteratu re, Science and the  Arts. Defendants 
adm it th a t the U niversity of M ichigan uses race as a factor 
in admissions, as p a rt of a broad array  of qualifications 
and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a 
single though im portan t elem ent. Defendants deny all of 
the  rem aining allegations of paragraph  22 of the Com
plaint.

23. Paragraph  23 of the Com plaint states a conclu
sion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent 
th a t  a response is deemed necessary, defendants deny the 
allegations in paragraph  23 of the Complaint.

24. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 24 
of the Complaint.

25. Defendants deny the allegations in the first 
sentence of paragraph  25 of the Complaint. Defendants 
lack knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as 
to the tru th  or falsity of the other allegations in paragraph  
25 of the Complaint.

26. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 26 
of the Complaint.

27. Defendants adm it th a t the University of Michi
gan has a cu rren t intention to continue to use race as a



49

factor in admissions, as p art of a broad array  of qualifica
tions and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is 
bu t a single though im portant element. Defendants deny 
all of the rem aining allegations in paragraph 27 of the 
Complaint.

RESPONSE TO P L AINTIFFS’ FIRST CT.ATM

28. Defendants repeat the ir responses to the allega
tions of paragraphs 1-27 of the Complaint as set forth 
above.

29. Paragraph  29 sets forth a conclusion of law to 
which no response is required. To the extent a response is 
required, defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 29 
of the Complaint.

30. Paragraph  30 sets forth a conclusion of law to 
which no response is required. To the extent a response is 
required, defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 30 
of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO PT.A.INTIFFS’ SECOND CT.ATM

31. Defendants repeat the ir responses to the allega
tions of paragraphs 1-30 of the Complaint as set forth
above.

32. Defendants state  th a t the University of Michigan 
is an en tity  created by the Michigan S tate  Constitution. 
Defendants adm it th a t the U niversity of Michigan, which 
includes the College of L iterature, Science and the Arts, 
receives federal funds. Defendants deny the rem aining 
allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.



50

No response is required to the rem ainder of the 
Complaint, which sets forth plaintiffs' prayer for relief. To 
the extent th a t a response is required, defendants deny 
the rem aining allegations in the Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE D EFEN SES

Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses 
based on the ir current knowledge and information.

1. The Complaint fails to sta te  a claim upon which 
relief may be granted.

2. This Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over 
the Com plaint because the plaintiffs lack standing.

3. Defendants D uderstad t and Bollinger did not 
violate plaintiffs’ clearly established rights, and are 
therefore qualifledly im m une from suit. 4 5 6 7 8

4. This Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over 
the Regents of the U niversity of Michigan, and over 
Bollinger in his official capacity, both of whom are immune 
from su it in federal court by the doctrine of sovereign 
immunity.

5. Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief are barred by 
the doctrine of mootness.

6. Plaintiffs have failed to m itigate the ir damages, if
any.

7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of 
laches.

8. Plaintiffs have nam ed im proper defendants. 
Defendants would not object to the filing of an Amended 
Com plaint th a t replaced “The U niversity of M ichigan” and 
“The University of Michigan College of L iterature, A rts



51

and Science ” which are not proper defendants, with the 
Regents of the U niversity of M ichigan.”

five H , Defen?antJs s ta te  th a t they assert these affirma-
and '  r t b“ ed7 n information presently available 
and in order to avoid waiver. Defendants reserve the right
to w ithdraw  any of these affirm ative defenses or to assert 

becomes1I S  ™ 6,1865 “  ^

Wherefore, defendants pray for a judgm ent dismissing
and d T " lth  prejudice and aw arding them  the cost? 
and disbursem ents of th is action, together with attorneys’

and p“ peSr  addltl°naI reIief aa the  "iay  deem ju s t

Dated:

Respectfully subm itted,
/s/ John Pavton 

John Payton 
Jan e  Sherburne

2445 M Street, N.W. 
W ashington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 663-6000

/s/ Leonard M. Niehoff
Leonard M. Niehoff P36695 
BUTZEL LONG
350 South M aine Street, Suite 300 
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 
(313)213-3625

December 3, 1997

[Certificate O f Service Omitted In Printing]



52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ and 
PATRICK HAMACHER, 
for them selves and all 
o thers sim ilarly  s itu a ted ,

P laintiffs,

CASE NO.: 
97-CV-75231-DT 

HON. PATRICK 
J. DUGGAN

LEE BOLLINGER, JAM ES 
J . DUDERSTADT, THE 
UNIVERSITY OF M ICHIGAN, 
and  THE UNIVERSITY OF 
M ICHIGAN COLLEGE OF 
LITERATURE, ARTS,
AND SCIENCE,

D efendants.

ORDER
At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

D istrict Courthouse, City of Detroit, County 
of Wayne, S ta te  of Michigan, o n  . DEC 23 1998

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN 
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

For the reasons set forth in an Opinion issued th is 
date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
th a t  defendants’ motion for an order denying class certifi
cation is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 
DECREED th a t  plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is 
GRANTED as follows:



53

P ursuan t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), the Court certifies 
the following class, represented by Patrick Ham acher, on 
the issue of liability:

Those individuals who applied for and were not 
granted admission to the College of L iterature, 
Science & the  A rts of the U niversity of Michigan 
for all academic years from 1995 forward and 
who are members of those racial or ethnic 
groups, including Caucasian, th a t defendants 
tre a t less favorably on the basis of race in con
sidering th e ir application for admission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 
DECREED th a t plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate the trial 
into a liability and damage phase is GRANTED.

/s/ Patrick J. Duggan 
PATRICK J. DUGGAN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE
Copies to:

K irk O. Kolbo, Esq.
Kerry L. Morgan, Esq.
Michael E. Rosman, Esq.
John Payton, Esq.
Leonard M. Niehoff, Esq.



54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ and 
PATRICK HAMACHER, for 
them selves and all o thers 
sim ilarly  s itua ted ,

P laintiffs,

CASE NO.: 
97-CV-75231-DT

HON. PATRICK J. 
DUGGAN

v.

LEE BOLLINGER, JAM ES 
J . DUDERSTADT, THE 
UNIVERSITY OF M ICH I
GAN and THE UNIVERSITY 
OF M ICHIGAN COLLEGE 
OF LITERATURE, ARTS, 
AND SCIENCE,

D efendants.

O PINIO N

This m atte r is currently  before the Court on plaintiffs’ 
motion for class certification and bifurcation of liability 
and dam age tria ls  and defendants’ motion for order 
denying class certification. Plaintiffs seek class certifica
tion from th is Court p u rsuan t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B) 
and 23(b)(2) on the issues of w hether defendants engaged 
in  unlawful discrim ination; w hether they should be 
enjoined from engaging in such discrim ination in the 
fu ture; and on plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. (Pis.’ 
Br. in Supp. Mot. Class Cert, a t 1). Alternatively, plaintiffs 
seek to m ain tain  a class pursuan t to FED. R. Crv. P. 
23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4) on the issue of w hether defendants 
engaged in unlawful discrim ination and on plaintiffs’



oo

claim for punitive damages. Id. Defendants oppose plain
tiffs’ request for class certification contending th a t plain
tiffs fail to dem onstrate why class action is the appropriate 
vehicle through which to adjudicate the m erits of plain
tiffs’ claims. In addition, plaintiffs also request the Court 
to order bifurcation of the liability and damage issues. The 
Court entertained oral argum ent on the parties' respective 
motions on December 10, 1998. For the reasons th a t 
follow, the Court grants in part, and denies in part, 
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court denies 
defendants motion for an order denying class certification. 
The Court also g rants plaintiffs’ motion for bifurcation of 
the liability and dam ages aspects of the trial.

Class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. In order to 
m ain tain  an action pursuan t to Rule 23, a prospective 
class m ust satisfy the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) 
which provides:

(a) P rereq u isites  to a C lass A ction. One or
more members of a class may sue or be sued as 
representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) 
the class is so num erous th a t joinder of all mem
bers is impracticable, (2) there are questions of 
law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or 
defenses of the representative parties are typical 
of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the 
representative parties will fairly and adequately 
protect the in terests of the class.

“The Supreme Court has required district courts to con
duct a ‘rigorous analysis’ into w hether the prerequisites of 
Rule 23 are m et before certifying a class.” In Re Am. Med. 
Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1078-79 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting 
General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S. Ct.



r

2364, 2372, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982)). Once the class 
representative has satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 
23(a), the representative m ust then dem onstrate “th a t the 
class he seeks to represen t falls w ithin one of the subcate
gories of Rule 23(b).” Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 
F.2d 511, 522 (6th Cir. 1976) (citing 3 B. J. Moore, Federal 
Practice 23.03 a t 23-228 (2d ed. 1974)). “The party  
seeking class certification bears the burden of proof.” In Rc 
Am . Med., 75 F.3d a t 1079. The Court will apply the 
aforem entioned criteria  to the plaintiffs’ request for class 
certification.

56

A. Rule 23(a) P rerequ isites

1. N um erosity

The first subdivision of Rule 23 requires th a t the class 
be “so num erous th a t jo inder of all members is im practica
ble.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “There is no stric t numerical 
te s t for determ ining im practicability of joinder.” In Re Am. 
Med., 75 F.3d a t 1079 (citing Senter, 532 F.2d a t 523 
n. 24). “W hen class size reaches substantial proportions, 
however, the im practicability requirem ent is usually 
satisfied by the num bers alone.” Id. The potential class is 
defined as all individuals who:

(1) applied for and were not granted admission 
to the College of L iterature, Science & the 
A rts (“LSA”) or who in the future intend to 
apply for adm ission into the LSA for all aca
demic years from 1995 forward; and



57

(2) are m em bers of those racial or ethnic 
groups, including Caucasian, th a t Defen
dants tre a t less favorably in considering 
the ir applications for admission to the Law 
School.1

(Pis.’ Br. in Supp. Mot. Class Cert, a t 1). Plaintiffs note 
th a t “[defendan ts receive thousands of applications for 
admission each year for a lim ited num ber of available 
spaces.” (Pis.’ Br. in Supp. Mot. Class Cert, at 5) (citing 
Dfs.’ Ans. a t U 11). Joinder of thousands of students who 
applied for and were not granted admission” and are 

m em bers of racial and ethnic groups, including Cauca
s ian” is impracticable. The Court finds th a t plaintiffs 
satisfy the num erosity requirem ent of Rule 23(a)(1).

2 . Common questions of law or fact

“Rule 23(a) simply requires a common question of law or 
fact.” Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prod. Co., 123 F.3d 877, 884 
(6th Cir. 1997) (citing Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 994 F.2d 
1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original)). In this 
case, each plain tiff seeks a determ ination from this Court 
th a t defendants’ admissions policy impermissibly utilizes 
race as a factor in determ ining the propriety of admission 
in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the Equal 
Protection Clause of the Constitution. The common ques
tion over the constitutionality of defendants’ admissions 
policy is sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2). *

Presum ably, counsel for plaintiffs intended to refer to the College 
of Literature, Science, & the Arts.



58

3. Typicality of claim s or defenses betw een p la in 
tiffs and class

The th ird  prerequisite to a class action under Rule 
23(a) is the requirem ent th a t “the claims or defenses of the 
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses 
of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The typicality test 
“limitfs] the class claims to those fairly encompassed by 
the nam ed plaintiffs’ claim s.” In  Re Am. Med., 75 F.3d at 
1082 (citation and quotation omitted).

Typicality determ ines w hether a sufficient re la
tionship exists between the injury to the named 
plain tiff and the conduct affecting the class, so 
th a t the court may properly a ttribu te  a collective 
na tu re  to the  challenged conduct. . . .  A necessary 
consequence of the typicality requirem ent is th a t 
the representative’s in terests will be aligned 
w ith those of the represented group, and in pu r
suing his own claims, the nam ed plaintiff will 
also advance the in terests  of the class members.

Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 399 (6th 
Cir.) cert, denied, 118 S. Ct. 2312, 141 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1998) 
(quoting In Re Am. Med., 75 F.3d a t 1082) (citing H erbert 
B. Newberg and Alba Conte, 1 Newberg on Class Actions, 
§ 3-13, a t 3-75, 76 (3d ed. 1992)).

Plaintiffs contend th a t “typicality” elem ent is m et 
w here plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful discrim ination “arise 
from defendants’ system atic use of race in m aking adm is
sions decisions th a t adversely affect all applicants who are 
not members of the preferred racial groups.” (Pis.’ Br. in 
Supp. Mot. Class Cert, a t 8-9). In contrast, defendants 
contend th a t plaintiffs are unable to m eet the typicality 
requirem ent because of the natu re  of the individualized



59

determ inations, exclusive of race, th a t factor into defen
d an ts’ admissions decisions. To th is end, defendants, 
m aintain  th a t plaintiffs m isconstrue ’ the defendants’ 
admissions policy by arriving a t an inappropriate defini
tion of the proposed class. (Dfs.’ Br. in Opp. Class Cert, a t 
19). Defendants quibble w ith plaintiffs’ employment of the 
term  treated  less favorably.’ Because defendants evaluate 
such criteria as a prospectvie studen t’s academic record, 
standardized te s t score, essay, residency status, geo
graphical location, alum ni relationships, personal 
achievement, leadership and service, defendants contend 
th a t an applicant who possesses any one or more of these 
factors is “trea ted  more favorably than  one who does not.” 
Id. Thus, defendants assert th a t the class sought to be 
m aintained by plaintiffs, is “am orphous” and fails the 
typicality requirem ent.

The Court rejects defendants’ argum ent. In order to 
m eet the typicality requirem ent, plaintiffs m ust establish 
th a t “a significant relationship exists between the injury 
to the nam ed plain tiff and the conduct affecting the class, 
so th a t the court m ay properly a ttribu te  a collective nature 
to the challenged conduct.” Sprague, 133 F.3d a t 399. 
P lain tiff G ratz is a Caucasian resident of the state  of 
M ichigan who applied for admission into the fall 1995 
freshm an class. (Pis.’ Compl. a t 1 4). P lain tiff Gratz was 
placed on a “w ait-list” and la ter denied admission. Id. 
P lain tiff H am acher is a Caucasian resident of the state  of 
M ichigan who applied for admission into the fall 1997 
freshm an class. (Id. a t 15). P laintiff H am acher was 
rejected for admission in the spring of 1997; however, 
plain tiff H am acher alleges a desire to attend the Univer
sity of Michigan if defendants cease application of alleg
edly discrim inatory criteria in admissions.



60

The challenged conduct in this case is defendants’ 
allegedly improper application of race as a criterion in 
adm issions decisions. The fact th a t each studen t is subject 
to an array  of other factors does not defeat plaintiffs' 
ability to satisfy the typicality requirem ent. “When it is 
alleged th a t the same unlaw ful conduct was directed at or 
affected both the nam ed plain tiff and the class sought to 
be represented, the typicality requirem ent is usually 
satisfied, irrespective of varying fact pa tterns which 
underlie individual claim s.” Sm ith  v. University o f Wash. 
Law  School, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1342 (W.D. W ash. 1998) 
(citing Newberg § 3.13 a t 3-77 and Supp.; Raboidoux v. 
Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir. 1993)).

To the extent th a t race is a factor in each admissions 
decision by defendants, “a sufficient relationship exists 
between the injury to the nam ed plaintiff and the conduct 
affecting the class” sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to m ain
ta in  the  class. See Sprague, 133 F.3d at 399. “In cases 
alleging racial, ethnic, or sex discrim inated against them  
in the same general fashion as against the other members 
of the class.” Sm ith , 2 F. Supp. 2d a t 1342 (citing Rossini 
v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc., 798 F.2d 590, 598 (2d Cir. 1986)). 
The lead plaintiffs allege th a t defendants discrim inated 
against them  in the sam e m anner by subjecting Caucasian 
applicants to differing admissions criteria than  th a t 
applicable to members of a m inority group. In this regard, 
plaintiffs’ claims are representative of those of the nam ed 
class in th a t the ir claims arise out of the same alleged 
discrim inatory conduct. Accordingly, the typicality re
quirem ent of Rule 23(a) is satisfied in this case.



61

4. Adequacy of R epresentation.

The Sixth Circuit requires satisfaction of two factors 
in order establish adequacy of representation: 1) the 
representative will vigorously prosecute the in terests of 
the class through qualified counsel; and 2) the representa
tive m ust have common in terests w ith unnam ed members 
of the class. Senter, 532 F.2d a t 525 (citing Gonzales v 
Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 73 (6th Cir. 1973)).

In m aking the determ ination of adequacy of rep
resentation the district court should consider the 
experience and ability of counsel for the plaintiffs 
and w hether there  is any antagonism  between 
the in terests of the plaintiffs and other members 
of the class they seek to represent.

Cross v. National Trust Life Ins. Co., 553 F.2d 1026 1031 
(6th Cir. 1977).

The record of th is case contains the affidavits of counsel 
for plaintiffs delineating th e ir respective qualifications to 
serve as counsel for the class of plaintiffs. This Court finds 
plaintiffs counsel to be qualified to prosecute the instan t 
action on behalf of the class. Accordingly, the first prong 
on the adequacy of representation analysis is met.

With respect to the second elem ent, the Court finds 
the  record u tterly  devoid of the presence of any evidence 
tending to show antagonism  between the in terests of 
plaintiffs G ratz and H am acher, and the members of the 
class which they seek to represent. In fact, the Court has 
already determ ined th a t plaintiffs share a common in te r
est m litigating the constitutionality of the consideration 
of race as an admissions preference. Therefore, plaintiffs 
have m et the adequacy of representation elem ent of Rule 
23(a).



62

B. C ertification

Having determ ined th a t plaintiffs satisfy the prereq
uisites contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), the Court will 
now tu rn  to an analysis of the issue of certification under 
subsection (b) of Rule 23. Plaintiffs seek to certify’ a class 
comprised of the following individuals:

[A]ll individuals who:

(1) applied for and were not granted admission 
to LSA or who in the fu ture intend to apply 
for admission into the LSA for all academic 
years from 1995 forward; and

(2) are m em bers of those racial or ethnic 
groups, including Caucasian, th a t  defen
dants tre a t less favorably in considering 
the ir applications for admission. . . .

( Pis. Br. in Supp. Mot. Class Cert, a t I). 1

1. Rule 23(b)(2) C ertification

Plaintiffs initially  seek to certify this class pursuan t to 
F ed . R. Crv. P. 23(b)(2),which provides:

(b) Class Actions M aintainable. An action may 
be m aintained as a class action if the prerequi
sites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addi
tion:

*  *  *

(2) the party  opposing the class has acted or re
fused to act on grounds generally applicable to 
the class, thereby m aking appropriate final in 
junctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief 
w ith respect to the class as a whole.



63

In support of certification under Rule 23(b)(2), plaintiffs 
note th a t defendants:

discrim inate in a categorical m anner on the basis 
of racial identity, and plain tiff H am acher seeks 
both declaratory and injunctive relief from de
fendants’ unlawful practices. P lain tiff H am acher 
still desires to attend  the LSA and would apply 
to transfer if  defendants ceased the ir discrim ina
tory practices.

(Pis.’ Br. in Supp. Mot. Class Cert, a t 10). Thus, plaintiffs’ 
assert th a t in light of defendants’ across the board alleged 
discrim ination in admissions criteria, plaintiffs are en ti
tled to certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Defendants launch a trip artite  a ttack  on plaintiffs’ 
m aintenance of a class action pursuan t to Rule 23(b)(2). 
F irst defendants contend th a t plain tiff Ham acher lacks 
standing  to represent a class seeking declaratory and 
injunctive relief. Second, defendants argue th a t plaintiffs 
cannot establish th a t injunctive relief predom inates over 
plaintiffs’ claims for money damages, a necessary condi
tion to Rule 23(b) class status. Third, defendants, relying 
on the Sixth C ircuit’s holding in Craft v. M emphis L ight 
Gas & Water Div., 534 F.2d 684, 686 (6th Cir. 1976)’ 
contend th a t the class action vehicle is unnecessary “when 
the  natu re  of the relief requested would automatically 
inure to the putative m em bers.” (Dfs.’ Br. in Opp. Mot. 
Class Cert, a t 6). According to defendants, if plaintiff 
H am acher were to prevail on the m erits of his claim and 
obtain a declaratory ruling th a t race was an impermissible 
factor in admissions, a benefit would immediately inure to
the  putative class members in the absence of class certifi
cation.



64

Defendants claim th a t plain tiff H am acher lacks 
standing  because he “suffers no th rea t of im m inent future 
injury. . . . ” (Dfs.’ Br. in Opp. Mot. Class Cert, a t 21). 
According to defendants, H am acher's undergraduate 
perform ance to date a t M ichigan S tate  University pre
cludes his ability to tran sfe r to the U niversity of Michi
gan.2 In addition, defendants argue th a t because plaintiff 
H am acher has not applied to transfer, he has no present 
in ten t to do so, and thus suffers no im m inent risk of future 
injury sufficient to support standing to entitle him to 
injunctive relief. D efendants cite the Court to th a t portion 
of H am acher’s deposition testim ony in which he addresses 
his intentions w ith respect to transfer to the University of 
Michigan.

Q: Have you applied to transfer to the U niver
sity of M ichigan a t Ann Arbor?

A: No, I haven’t.

Q: Do you intend to apply to transfer?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: When?

A: Hopefully when the policy is changed. And
I’m going to get my grades up and apply to 
transfer.

Q: Do you have an understanding th a t your
grades aren’t  up high enough now to apply 
to transfer?

A: I’m going to get them  up and apply to transfer. 1

1 According to defendants, H am acher would need to achieve a 3.0 
grade point average to a ttem pt to transfe r to the U niversity of Michi
gan.



65

(H am acher Dep. a t 125-26). According to defendants, the 
aforementioned testim ony establishes th a t Hamacher 
lacks the present in ten t to transfer to U niversity of Michi
gan and bars his ability to represent a Rule 23(b)(2) class 
seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Defendants rely upon City o f Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 
U.S. 95 (1983) and Lujan v. Defenders o f Wildlife, 504 U.S. 
555 (1992) for the proposition th a t plaintiff Ham acher 
lacks the requisite capacity and in ten t to transfer and 
hence, lacks standing. In Lyons, a plaintiff pursued a civil 
rights claim against the city of Los Angeles arising out of 
the  police departm en t’s use of a chokehold in effectuating 
an arrest. The Suprem e Court held th a t plaintiff lacked 
standing  to obtain an injunction because “[t]he equitable 
rem edy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable 
injury, a requirem ent th a t cannot be m et where there is no 
showing of any real or im m ediate irreparable injury.” 
Lyons, 461 U.S. a t 111. In Lujan, environm ental groups 
challenged lim itations on the scope of regulations designed 
to require consultation w ith the Secretaries of the Interior 
and Commerce before any federal agency action th a t may 
detrim entally  affect an endangered species. The nature  of 
the  environm ental groups claimed injury was “th a t the 
lack of consultation with respect to certain funded activi
ties abroad ‘increases the ra te  of extinction of endangered 
and threatened  species.’ ” Lujan, 504 U.S. a t 562 (citation 
omitted). The Suprem e Court determ ined th a t plaintiffs’ 
professed in tentions to re tu rn  to the habitats of endan
gered species abroad were insufficiently concrete to estab
lish standing. “Such “some day” intentions -  w ithout any 
description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specifica
tion of when the some day will be — do not support a



66

finding of the “actual or im m inent” injury th a t our cases 
requ ire .” Lujan, 504 U.S. a t 564 (em phasis in original).

P lain tiff H am acher’s claim is not barred by the 
reasoning of Lyons and Lujan. The essence of Ham acher's 
claim challenges the U niversity 's practice of applying 
allegedly discrim inatory criteria in admissions decisions. 
Arguably, plain tiff H am acher has standing to seek money 
dam ages for the injury he allegedly suffered when he was 
denied the opportunity to compete on an equal footing for 
available spaces in the fall 1997 class a t the University of 
M ichigan. See Northeastern Fla. Chapter o f the Associate 
Gen. Contractors o f Am . u. City o f Jacksonville, Fla., 508 
U.S. 656, 666 (1993) (“The “injury in fact” in an equal 
protection case of th is variety  is the  denial of equal tre a t
m ent resulting  from the imposition of the barrier, not the 
u ltim ate  inability to obtain the benefit.”); see also Regents 
o f the Univ. o f Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 280-81 (1978) 
(“[E]ven if Bakke had been unable to prove th a t he would 
have been adm itted in the absence of the special program, 
it  would not follow th a t he lacked standing.”)

W ith respect to p lain tiff H am acher’s injunctive relief 
claim, Ham acher has expressed his intention to apply to 
tran sfe r to the University of Michigan upon its cessation of 
alleged discrim inatory practices in admissions. In th is 
regard, H am acher’s in tention does not m irror those 
in tentions which the Suprem e Court found to be sufficient 
in Lujan. In Lujan, the Suprem e Court was faced w ith 
affidavits from plaintiffs indicating their “in ten t” to 
someday re tu rn  to the hab ita ts  of endangered species. In 
contrast, p lain tiff H am acher claims th a t he will reapply 
for admission when his application is considered on an 
equal basis w ith those applications of other m inority



67

applicants. To the extent th a t plaintiff Ham acher reap
plies to the U niversity of Michigan, he will again face the 
sam e harm ” in th a t race will continue to be a factor in 
admissions. In th is C ourt’s opinion, H am acher's present 
grades are not a factor to be considered a t this time. The 
relevant inquiry w ith respect to H am acher’s standing for 
injunctive relief is th a t he intends to transfer to the 
University of M ichigan when defendants cease the use of 
race as an adm issions preference. Accordingly, the Court 
rejects defendants’ argum ent th a t plaintiff Ham acher 
lacks standing to m aintain  the class pursuan t to 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

P lain tiff H am acher’s claim is appropriate for class 
trea tm en t p u rsu an t to Rule 23(b)(2). It is undisputed th a t 
defendants’ have system atically attribu ted  a racial prefer
ence in admissions decisions w ith respect to non-minority 
students. P lain tiff is prim arily seeking a declaration from 
th is Court th a t such a policy is unconstitutional because it 
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 
A m endm ent to the  Constitution, and an injunction to 
prohibit defendants’ continued utilization of such a policy. 
“It is a singular policy and practice of racial discrim ination 
pervasively applied on a classwide basis th a t plaintiff 
challenges in th is law suit.” (Pis.’ Rep. Br. in Supp. Mot. 
Class Cert, a t 2). Defendants have thus “acted or refused 
to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby 
m aking appropriate final injunctive re lie f” Fed R Civ P 
23(b)(2).

While it is true, th a t in addition to the declaratory 
and injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs, Ham acher and 
his proposed class intend to seek compensatory and 
punitive damage, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is 
appropriate. “So long as the predom inant purpose of the



68

su it is for injunctive relief, the fact th a t a claim for dam 
ages is also included does not vitiate the applicability of 
23(b)(2).” Jones v. D iamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1100 n. 17 
(5th Cir. 1975); see also Kurezi v. Eli L illy & Co., 160 
F.R.D. 667, 680 (N.D. Ohio 1995). As plaintiffs note in 
th e ir brief, if necessary, the individual determ inations 
w ith respect to damages will ultim ately be m ade in a 
separate  proceeding from this Court’s decision on the issue 
of w hether injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate 
on the issue of defendants’ liability. At the appropriate 
tim e, the Court may, if  necessary, certify subclasses 
p u rsuan t to Rule 23.

Moreover, the  Court rejects defendants’ claim th a t the 
doctrine of necessity bars plaintiffs’ m aintenance of the 
class pursuan t to Rule 23(b)(2). In Craft, supra, the Sixth 
C ircuit barred a plaintiffs’ class action challenging the 
constitutionality of a municipal u tility ’s policies pertain ing 
to term ination of u tility  service on the grounds th a t 
declaratory and injunctive relief, is granted, would “accrue 
to the benefit of others sim ilarly s itua ted” and, conse
quently . . . “no useful purpose would be served by perm it
ting  th is case to proceed as a class action. . . . ” Craft, 534 
F.2d 684 (6th Cir. 1976). In contrast to Craft, the Court 
believes th a t a class action serves a useful purpose in the 
in s tan t case because plain tiff H am acher’s claims are 
particularly  susceptible to problems of mootness. “Certifi
cation of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) is ‘especially appro
priate where, as here, the claims of the members of the 
class may become moot as the case progresses.’” Johnson  
v. City o f Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065, 1070 (5th Cir. 1981); 
see also Penland v. Warren County Jail, 797 F.2d 332 (6th 
Cir. 1986) (reversing a district court’s denial of class



69

certification and criticizing the court's application of the 
doctrine of necessity).

Defendants acknowledge the potential mootness 
problems sta ting  th a t “the passage of time might render 
H am acher’s claim for injunctive relief moot.” (Dfs.’ Br. in 
Opp. to Class Cert, at 9). As the course of the litigation 
may consume a significant period of time, the claims of the 
individual studen ts run  the risk  of becoming moot. The 
class action vehicle thus provides a mechanism for ensur
ing th a t a justiciable claim is before the Court. Accord- 
insly> the Court declines to apply the doctrine of necessity 
to bar plaintiffs’ claims.

2. Rule 23(b)(1)(B )

Plaintiffs also seek to m aintain  a class pursuan t 
to Rule 23(b)(1)(B) which provides:

(1) the prosecution of separate  actions by or 
against individual members of the class would 
create a risk of

(B) adjudications with respect to individual 
members of the class which would as a practical 
m atter be dispositive of the in terests of the other 
members not parties to the adjudications or sub
stan tially  im pair or impede the ir ability to pro
tect their in terests. . . .

Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class certification is frequently employed 
by courts w here a large class of plaintiffs seek recovery 
from a limited fund. See In re Jackson Lockdown/M CO  
Cases, 107 F.R.D. 703, 711-12 (E.D. Mich. 1985). The 
claims presented in the present law suit do not hinge upon 
recovery from a limited fund. Accordingly, class certifica
tion under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is denied.



r

70

3. Rule 23(b)(3)

As an alternative, plaintiffs seek certification under 
Rule 23(b)(3). However, as previously noted in th is opin
ion, th is Court will certify the class pursuan t to 
FED. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the Court will not 
en te rta in  plaintiffs’ request for Rule 23(b)(3) certification.

4. P la in tiffs’ C lass C ertification for Dam ages

In addition to plaintiffs’ request for certification on 
the  discrim ination issue pu rsu an t to Rule 23(b)(2), plain
tiffs also request certification on the claim for punitive 
dam ages. Plaintiffs s ta te  th a t at the present time they are 
not seeking class certification on individual damage 
issues. The Court notes th a t in the event of a finding of 
liability, the Court will be faced w ith not only determ ining 
a punitive damage award, but individual damage determ i
nations as well. Thus, a t th is time, the Court declines to 
certify the class for a dam age award, either compensatory 
or punitive, until such tim e as liability is determ ined in 
th is  action.

5. Conclusion

The Court will certify a class, pu rsuan t to 
F ed . R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), on the issue of liability; w hether 
defendants’ use of race as a factor in admissions decisions 
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth  
Am endm ent to the Constitution. The class will be repre
sented by Mr. H am acher and will consist of those indi
viduals who applied for and were not granted admission to 
the College of L iterature, Science & the Arts of the U ni
versity of Michigan for all academic years from 1995 
forward and who are m em bers of those racial or ethnic



71

groups, including Caucasian, th a t defendants trea t less 
favorably on the basis of race in considering their applica
tion for admission.3 The claims of the class are limited to 
injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court will not 
consider claims for damages a t th is time.

C. P la in tiffs’ M otion to B ifurcate the Trial

Plaintiffs request th a t the Court bifurcate the trial 
into a liability and damage phase. The Court grants 
plaintiffs request to bifurcate the trial. The issue of 
defendants’ liability for plaintiffs’ claims will be tried first. 
I f  the court enters a finding th a t defendants’ admissions 
policy is unconstitutional, the Court will then m ake a 
determ ination as to how to proceed w ith the damage phase 
of the trial.

An order consistent with th is opinion shall issue 
forthwith.

/ s /P atrick  J . Duggan ______
PATRICK J. DUGGAN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUD G E
Copies to:

K irk O. Kolbo, Esq.
K erry  L. M organ, Esq. Dec. 23, 1998
M ichael E. Rosm an, Esq.
Jo h n  Payton, Esq.
Leonard M. Niehoff, Esq.

Plaintiffs do not seek to have p lain tiff Gratz represent a class 
certified pursuan t to F ed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).



r

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FO R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

72

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ, e t al., ) Civil Action No. 
P lain tiffs, ) 97-75231

v. j Hon. P a trick  J . Duggan

LEE BOLLINGER, e t al., ) Hon. Thom as A. Carlson

D efendants. ?

ORDER PROVIDING THAT THE PRO PER  
DEFENDANTS BE NAMED

By agreem ent of the parties and for good cause shown, 
it  is hereby ORDERED th a t the defendants herein are: 
Lee Bollinger, Jam es J. D uderstadt, and the Board of 
Regents of the U niversity of Michigan. It is FURTHER 
ORDERED th a t caption in th is m atte r be amended accord
ingly, and the am endm ent and the claims stated  in the 
am ended pleading against the  Board of Regents shall 
re la te  back to the  date of the original pleading pursuan t to 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).

So ORDERED, t h i s __day of APR 01 1999. 1999

/s/ PATRICK J. DUGGAN 
Hon. Patrick  J. Duggan



The Exhibits on the  following pages w ere en tered  in the

U nited  S ta tes  D istric t Court for the 
E as te rn  D istric t of M ichigan (Detroit)

[C aption O m itted In Prin ting]



73

Jan u a ry  19, 1995

Ms. Jennifer D. G ratz 
12757 C hestnut 
Southgate, MI 48195
D ear Ms. Gratz:

One of my most difficult tasks as Director is letting well 
qualified students like you know th a t we have delayed our 
final decision on your admission until our second review in 
early to mid-April.

D uring our initial review of your application we evaluated 
your high school grades and courses, your SAT I or ACT 
scores, and all information you provided about your 
ex tracurricu lar and personal accomplishments. As a resu lt 
of th is prelim inary evaluation, your application was 
classified as “well qualified, bu t less competitive than  the 
studen ts who have been adm itted on first review”. The 
question th a t m ost students ask after receiving this le tte r 
is; w hat happens next? So th a t you have a better under
standing  of our adm issions process for students in your 
situation, here is w hat you can expect:

1. You may subm it scores from additional SAT 
I or ACT exams you take through the De
cember te s t dates.

2. Your application will rem ain active and will 
be reviewed again in early to mid-April.

THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN

Office of
Undergraduate
Admissions



74

3. During the April review, the best qualified 
students from the  delayed group will be ad
m itted to fill the rem aining available spaces. 
Typically, several hundred students are se
lected in th is review.

4. You need do nothing fu rther except continue 
to work diligently in all your classes.

You have our best wishes for an enjoyable and successful
senior year.

Sincerely,

/s/ Theodore L. Spencer 
Theodore L. Spencer 
Director



75

April 24, 1995

Ms. Jennifer D. G ratz 
12757 C hestnut 
Southgate, MI 48195

D ear Ms. Gratz:

In the initial review of your application for admission, we 
notified you th a t a final decision would be made in mid- 
April when we were able to determ ine if additional spaces 
would be available. All of the applications have now been 
reviewed and I regret to inform you we are unable to offer 
you admission. This decision is not a reflection of your 
academic achievement, bu t ra th e r a result of the large 
num ber of highly qualified applicants which far exceeded 
the available spaces for the entering Class of 1995.

There may be a possibility th a t space will be available for 
a few students after the enrollm ent deposit deadline of 
May 1 has passed. Should th is happen, we will admit 
students to fill those spaces. We invite you to place your 
nam e on th is extended w aiting list by completing and 
retu rn ing  the enclosed form before May 10. Selection will 
be based on the best overall qualifications. All students 
who re tu rn  the Extended W aiting List form will hear from 
us by the end of June. However, we expect to take very few 
studen ts from the Extended W aiting List, and recommend 
studen ts m ake alternative plans to attend another in stitu 
tion.

THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN

Office of
Undergraduate
Admissions



76

Your in terest in the U niversity of Michigan is deeply 
appreciated. Knowing th a t there  are many fine colleges 
and universities in the country, we are confident you will 
select one which will m eet your educational expectations. 
However, should your in te rest in graduating  from the 
U niversity of Michigan continue, we encourage you to 
apply for admission as a tran sfe r student. Students with 
junior standing are given preference in our transfer 
adm ission process.

You have our best and sincere wishes for success as you 
en ter the  post secondary years of your education.

Sincerely,

/s/ Theodore L. Spencer 
Theodore L. Spencer 
Director

R/EWLO



November 19, 1996

Mr. Patrick H. H am acher 
2428 N orbert S treet 
Flint, MI 48504

D ear Mr. Hamacher:

Thank you for the in terest in the University of Michigan. 
A fter careful consideration and review, we are unable to 
take  final action on your application and m ust postpone 
our decision until mid-April for Fall 1997.

We expect to receive nearly 20,000 applications from first 
year applicants for a class of about 5,000. This requires us 
to use a very selective process to m anage our enrollment. 
Therefore, we offer admission to those candidates w ith the 
strongest overall qualifications on the initial review. 
Although your academic credentials are in the qualified 
range, they are not a t the level needed for first review 
admission to the College of L iterature, Science, and The 
Arts.

WTe will reevaluate your application in mid-March and 
notify you in w riting of a final decision by mid-April. We 
will not know how m any postponed candidates we will be 
able to admit, nor the specific probability of your adm is
sion, until we evaluate all of the applications th a t arrive 
by our equal consideration date of February 1. In previous 
years, we have always been able to adm it a num ber of

THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN

Office of
Undergraduate
Admissions



78

postponed candidates, however, th is varies from year to 
year. Please refer to the enclosed “Questions and Answers 
About the Postponed Process” for more information.

We certainly hope your in terest in Michigan rem ains 
strong, however, we also encourage you to explore other 
educational options. You have our best wishes for an 
enjoyable and successful senior year.

Sincerely,

/s/ Theodore L. Spencer 
Theodore L. Spencer 
Director

PF



79

THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN

Office of
Undergraduate
Admissions

MEMORANDUM 
TO: Lester Monts

FROM: Ted Spencer

RE: Request for M inority Admission Policy

DATE: October 4, 1995

Lester, here is some information we have put together for 
you regarding Shirley McFee’s request. I hope th is helps 
you explain the University position and how it relates to 
our office. Please let me know if you need any more infor
mation.

ADMISSION POLICY FOR MINORITY STUDENTS

The U ndergraduate Admissions Office has been formally 
charged to recru it and enroll a diverse student body th a t 
reflects the population of our state  and national constitu
ents. Em phasis on the recruitm ent of underrepresented 
groups was established in the early 70’s under affirmative 
action goals subscribed to by the University. It was read
dressed by the Michigan M andate which clearly reaf
firmed the principles and goals of the greater University. 
A significant p a rt of the m andate is the “recruitm ent and 
enrollm ent of studen ts from underrepresented groups, ie. 
Black, Hispanic and Native American.”



80

The process of recruitm ent and application review are 
both well defined by the Admissions Office. The many 
programs directly tied to recruitm ent are reviewed and 
evaluated annually. Modifications are made to ensue the 
effectiveness of the programs. The same is true regarding 
the selecting and im plem entation of guidelines used for 
reviewing m inority applicants.

To understand the process and procedures used to recruit 
and review applicants is simplified by separating the two 
functions. The following sum m arizes our efforts in the 
process of application review and effectiveness in m inority 
recruitm ent programs.

Application Review

O ur responsibility in evaluating m inority students is to 
determ ine w hether they have the ability to successfully 
complete the undergraduate degree program offered in the 
college or school they are adm itted to. M any factors and 
procedures are used in the evaluation which are not unlike 
those used in the review of m ajority students. The signifi
cant difference is m inority guidelines are set to adm it all 
students who qualify and m eet the standards set by the 
un it liaison w ith each academic unit, while m ajority 
guidelines are set to m anager the num ber of admissions 
granted to satisfy the various targets set by the colleges 
and schools.

C riteria for all groups generally include: high school 
grades, standardized test scores, curriculum , competitive
ness of the high school, high school counselors recommen
dation, essay and studen t extracurricular activities. I t can 
also include an a rt portfolio, interview or audition depend
ing on the program they wish to enroll in.



81

The use of affirm ative action in the admission process is 
best understood by recognizing the fact th a t students 
adm itted under the  guidelines are academically qualified 
to successfully complete M ichigan degree requirem ents. 
Thus, the significant difference between our evaluation of 
underrepresented minority applicants and majority 
s tuden ts is the difference between m eeting qualifications 
to predict graduation ra th e r th an  selecting qualified 
studen ts one over another due to the large volume of the 
applicant pool.

This process does advantage underrepresented groups as 
well as student-ath letes, applicants w ith certain alum ni 
ties, and artistically  and musically gifted students who 
also are given special consideration. The University 
recognizes the significant contribution th a t these groups of 
students m ake in enriching the en tire  campus experience 
and we assure th e ir presence as p a rt of our student body 
by advantaging them  in the admissions process. I t is 
im portan t to note, however, th a t an individual who is not 
prepared academically to be a M ichigan student, regard
less of their m inority status, will not be admitted.

Two special academic program s offered by the U niversity 
are Sum m er Bridge and the Comprehensive Studies 
program. Both are adm inistered under the College of 
L iteratu re, Science, and the A rts but serve all units for 
adm itted freshm en. Careful selection is used in determ in
ing which studen t will benefit from the academic support 
offered by each of the programs.

Secondly the two program s assist students who may come 
from high schools where the competition and rigor of study 
was less competitive; consequently the gifted student was 
not exposed to the  same difficulties of study found in



schools advantaged by economics or the selectivity of a 
private school. Again, the criteria for admission to Bridge 
and CSP is determ ined by the same academic predictors 
used for admissions. W hen it is apparent th a t the aca
demic support program will benefit the student, they are 
placed in the program.

M inority application review is carried out by the individ
ual counselor assigned to the geographic territory  or 
special unit. When a decision to adm it is not clear, the 
counselor may elect to w ait for new test scores, fall sem es
te r  grades or a personal interview  with the student. This 
provides the opportunity to be tte r evaluate the candidate 
after new information is received. Admission counselors 
can also m eet with other admissions staff to receive input 
and advice based on th e ir assessm ent.

Overall the process is highly individualized and has been 
effective in selecting studen ts who have a solid chance of 
g raduating  w ithin a four or five year period.

82

M inority Recruitm ent Program s

The very heart of our m inority recruitm ent is the m any 
special program s aimed a t prospective and adm itted 
students. Much of our success is a ttracting  well qualified 
s tuden ts is a direct resu lt of m eeting the needs of students 
and paren ts during the crucial decision m aking period. We 
offer a host of recruitm ent program s th a t encourage 
everything from personal phone calls to evening recep
tions.

The prim ary  m inority program s are provided in two 
form ats th a t describe and detail the extent to which we 
actively recruit students. All program s are evaluated



83

annually and frequently modified to adjust to the changing 
needs of students.



84

CONFIDENTIAL

GUIDELINES -  SCUGA 1995

THE SCUGA FACTOR

The SCUGA  factors are an attem pt to give some s tan 
dardization to decisions made by many different counsel
ors on m any different applications. We recognize th a t all 
communities, schools, populations, course offerings, 
grading practices, personal circumstances, etc. are not the 
same. We w ant to have justifiable decisions th a t blend the 
consistency and rigidness of a stric t formula w ith the 
variations and flexibility of a hum anistic review th a t 
occurs in a “rolling adm issions” process. In reality, only 
the “C” factor should be added to the GPA. But for our 
m ethod of selection all SCUGA factors are attached 
(added) to the GPA. The “U” (unusual), “G” (geographic), 
“A” (alumni) factors of the SCUGA formula assist in 
enrolling students who will provide a desired m ixture of 
characteristics believed beneficial to the University.

Counselors will determ ine the Adjusted Grade Point 
Average or Index (GPA2) from the five SCUGA factors. 
The GPA2 will reflect several prom inent characteristics in 
the  applicant’s file th a t will not be displayed in the clerk- 
computed GPA1. Both the  GPA1 and the GPA2 will be 
entered into the system and can be accessed on the QU 
screen.

Notice: Schools are not “ranked” throughout the state  or 
country but are given a “classification” based on their 
school profile and academic information. The SCUGA 
factor should be discussed in only general term s but 
acknowledging th a t we do consider various factors in our



S5

decisions th a t reflect the difference among schools and to 
help us enroll the  mix of students desired b3- the Univer
sity. S trict principles of fairness ’ and consistency can no 
longer be the major focus w ithin or among schools or 
among students.

Counselors m ust always en ter the SCUGA factors on the 
coding section of the application and the sum as the GPA2. 
If  no adjustm ent is made, simply record the GPA th a t was 
computed by the clerk beside the GPA2 line on the front of 
the application. Any unusual circumstance should be noted 
and stapled to the application in a prominent place.

Keep a disk file of your schools and SCUGA points. Add to 
it as you review applications from more schools.

S (school) factor:

_ BLANK indicates insufficient data  to award SCUGA 
.0 For schools th a t receive no SCUGA points.
■ 1 For better-than-average schools (probably not more 

than  60 in Michigan)
.2 For very good schools (probably not more than  30 in 

Michigan)
.3 For unusually  good schools (probably not more than  

3 to 4 in Michigan and 50 in the U.S.)
.4 For exceptionally strong schools -  tend to be select 

private (8-15 in the country)
.5 For tru ly  outstanding  schools — program sim ilar to 

first two years a t m any colleges. S tudents score 
very high on tests and large num bers attend the 
most selective colleges. High grades rare for most 
students.

The same S factor should normally be applied to all 
applicants from the same school and is related to the 
points given for the C factor. Use discretion when a



86

studen t has taken  a “w eak” program  and use the negative 
“C” factor.

The following guide will be used for the “S” factor. W eight 
is given to the overall streng th  of the school program. The 
school profile is the prim ary source of such data and 
should be coupled w ith our own profile and follow up files. 
(The files are located on the  th ird  floor in the work area 
ju s t outside of Jim  V anhecke’s office). A very high percent 
of those attending strong four year colleges and universi
ties, high test scores for the entire school and above 
average academic perform ance on first year follow up 
reports could move the school upward. A code will be 
entered on the M aster C hart Indicating an exception.

This factor is based on average SAT/ACT scores and the 
num ber of AP/IB courses a t the school as well as the % 
a ttend ing  two and four year colleges. Resist the tem pta
tion of being generous when the  school is ju s t a little  short 
of the  excepted level. In every category (“S factor) there 
will be some schools th a t  ju s t make a certain  level and 
some th a t ju s t m iss a higher level.

The figures below represent the averages of over 300 
schools. Each counselor should be able to exercise judg
m ent as to the “S” factor for schools in each territory. 
Rem ember the “S” factor relates to the strength  of the 
school -  not ju s t a special group. In most cases the AP/IB 
figure is the starting  point. Then determ ine if the 
SAT/ACT & College Bound substan tia te  the  “S” points. A 
strong record a t UM, achievem ent tests, AP/AB scores, the 
school’s curriculum  guide and other information will help 
in m aking an appropriate decision. Schools rated  4 & 5 
m ust be exceptionally strong. Such rating  would be very



87

rare  among public schools. There are also m any private
schools th a t should not be above a 2.

S = .0 Schools w ith SAT average below 920 and ACT 
below 22 20-45% attend college 
No or very few Honors or AP courses

S = .1 Schools w ith SAT average below 979 trance = 950- 
1010, and ACT below 23. S e v e n t^ g h t  percent at- 
tend college. At least 7 AP/IB courses

S = '2 SAT average of 1050 (range = 1020-
iOSO) or ACT average of 25. Ninety percent attend
oADTD S t r o n S  honors or advanced courses. At least 
9 AP/IB courses

s  = -3 Schools w ith SAT average of 1130 (range = 1090-
a1i 50),Or ACT f  e ra?e of 27 ■ Ninety-seven percent 
attend  college. M any Honors or rigorous courses. At 
least 11 AP/IB courses. Achievement scores of > 550 
anchor im pressive results on AP exams support 
high level of learning.

S = A  W™ SAT avera&e of H 70  (range = 1160-
10) or ACT average 28. Ninety-nine percent at- 

end college. List would include many competitive 
colleges. S trong AP record even when courses are 
not always called AP. Look for exams taken. At 
least 12 AP/IB. M any records include Achievement 
scores th a t tend to be in the 650+ range. Course 
grades tend not to cluster a t the highest end of the 
scale. Look a t distribution of grades and scores.

S = .5
Sch°°Js Wlth SAT avera&e of 1260 (range = 1220+) 
or ACT average 30. Ninety-nine percent attend col-
!ege; W°Uld lnclude m any highly competi-
tive/selective colleges. Im pressive num ber of high
achievement scores. Many National M erit winners. 
At least 13 AP/IB. Curriculum reads like the 1st 
and 2nd year a t a typical liberal a rt college.



88

S tuden ts  receive 4's & 5's on AP. G rades tend 
to c lu ster in the  m id-range of the  scale. Coun
selor comments indicate real differences in a 
PLUS/MINUS grading system. Students have gone 
in depth into an area of study. Often including for
eign study ra th e r th an  ju s t travel.

If the school factor reflects the range of test scores ra ther 
th an  averages please being a copy to MM and we will try  
to assign an appropriate “S” factor. We need to build a 
data  base on this information.

C (curriculum) factor:

Given the wide disparity  in high school course selection 
and offerings, it seems im perative th a t the choice of strong 
courses, particularly  clearly identified Honors and AP/IB, 
be considered in the review process. It is unfair to reward 
(by Admission) a s tuden t who has elected a mediocre 
curriculum , sometimes for as m any as four years, during 
high school while punishing (by Postponement) those with 
stronger programs. Achievement of a respectable GPA in a 
dem anding and challenging program more often repre
sents high motivation and commitment than  a contrived 
inflated GPA in a weak curriculum . The stronger program 
also be tter prepares the  s tuden t for the quality of work 
expected a t the University of Michigan. All students are 
expected to elect a t least four traditional college prepara
tory subjects each sem ester. Those with less should be 
deferred upon first review even if GPA and test score place 
them  in the Adm it range.

C (curriculum ) factor: (including 9th grade) S tarting point 
of 0 = Strong academic program, 19 academic courses in 
grades 9-12. Count Honors as .5 and AP/IB as 1. for full 
year courses. Do NOT round up!



89

-.2 = Very w eak academic program, relative to what is 
offered in the school, less th an  15 academic courses 
in grades 9-12. Three or fewer academics in senior 
year. No honors or AP. Use judgm ent. Admission 
doubtful.

-.1 = Weak academic program, relative to w hat is offered 
in the school, no honors or AP, 15-18 academics in 
grades 9-12. Use judgm ent.

0 = Average to strong academic program, one AP/IB or 
1-3 honors, a t least 19 academic courses in grades 
9-12.

.1 = For a very strong program. 2-3 AP/IB or 4-7 honors 
in year long courses and a t least 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12.

.2 = For an unusually strong program. 4-5 AP/IB or 8-11 
honors in year long courses and  a t least 19 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

.3 = For a superior program. 6 or 7 AP/IB or 12-15 
honors in year long courses and  a t least 20 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

.4 = A fantastic  program. 8+ AP/IB or 16+ honors in 
year long courses and  a t least 20 academic courses 
in grades 9-12.

NOTES: Make sure th a t there is a reasonable degree of
in tegrity  in the school’s definition of “Honors” courses. In 
general, you can calculate 2 honors or/and accelerated 
courses to equal 1 AP course. That presum es th a t honors 
a t th a t school are not equal to or as dem anding as AP/IB. 
A statem ent from the high school such as “This would be 
Honors at another school or faculty policy precludes such a 
label” does not qualify for our inclusion as an “honors” 
course and should not be counted. Use your knowledge



90

(not assum ptions) about w hat different labels used by the 
schools m ean in this area. Tracks, phase, core, level, 
advanced, etc. do not always mean ‘'advanced” when 
th ink ing  of such courses as being for those whose course 
background has been strong, have received high grades, 
are selected to participate and w rite the AP Exams.

U (unusual) factor:

The “U ” factor will be based on information provided on 
page 4 of the application, item 23, titled ACADEMICS 
AND EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES. The awarding 
of a “U ” factor will be by a Unique Factor Option (UFO) 
committee decision and will be used in the rolling adm is
sion determ ination. Counselors should subm it applications 
for review in which students have dem onstrated through 
outstanding  achievem ents th a t they m erit the addition of 
the  “U ” factor added to the GPA2 Index. The “U” factor 
will he awarded on national, regional, or state recognition 
o f academic or extracurricular activities.

Exam ples of the above recognition include:

1. Elected positions a t Girls or Boys S tate
2. N ational Science Foundation Award
3. N ational or Regional Service Club Award
4. Unique in itiative in a community or en trepreneu

rial endeavor resu lting  in national, regional, or 
sta te  recognition.

5. Professional th eater experience a t the “Broadway” 
level.

6. Olympic ath lete  or national recognition as an 
athlete, i.e. figure skater.

7. One person a rt show.
8. W riting published in nationally recognized m aga

zine
9. W estinghouse Scholar (can be high school juniors)



91

(As additional accomplishments are identified, they will be 
added to examples for future reference.)

Counselors need to have some validation of the achieve
m ent such as high school counselor confirmation, copy of 
aw ard certificate, new spaper clipping, etc.

A point of .1, .2 or .3 will be given to those applicants 
whose outstanding accomplishments in areas sim ilar to 
those cited above w arran t the extra value added to their 
GPA2 Index. If the addition of the .1, .2 or .3 value raises 
the student into the adm it category on first review, adm is
sion will be granted. If the addition of the “unique” points 
to the GPA2 Index does not place the student in an adm it 
cell of the guidelines, the studen t will be postponed and 
m ay be given priority when and if selection is made from 
the postponed group. The reviewing counselor will keep a 
copy of the application face sheet for the postpone review.

The Unique Factor Option (UFO) committee will consist of 
M arilyn, chair, and one m em ber from each team , and will 
m eet a t least twice a m onth to review the applications 
subm itted by counselors. A “U ” factor cover sheet will be 
completed to aid the UFO committee in identifying the 
unusual circum stances th a t w arran t review. A counselor 
m ay not assign a “U” factor to any o f their applications on 
their own or w ithin their teams. To be consistent and to 
keep the “U ” factors assigned a t a reasonable number, the 
decisions will all be m ade by the UFO committee. It is 
expected there will be no more than  20 to 30 students who 
would qualify for a “U” factor.



92

Exceptional Cases for Postponed Group Review

Exceptional cases are those students who have out
standing  accomplishments at the local level. They do not 
qualify for a “U” factor, but can be given special considera
tion w hen/if we select students from the postponed group 
in the spring Counselors should review the information 
provided in item 23 on the application to look for awards, 
honors, elected positions held, unusual work experiences, 
ou tstanding  counselor recommendations, etc., during the 
s tuden t’s years in high school. Remember, most applicants 
to U-M are very active students in leadership positions, 
sports activities, social clubs, etc. Active involvement in 
these activities is not unusual and is normal for the 
applicant pool. The exceptional case designation is not to 
be used as compensation for w eaker academic achieve
m ent a ttribu ted  to over involvement in non-academic 
activities.

Exceptional bv v irtue  of “bevond th e ir  control” factors:

An exceptional case m ay also be a student whose academic 
record was impacted by extended illness, frequent changes 
of high schools, trau m a and other events beyond the 
control of the individual bu t not ju s t the problems of 
growing up in today’s society.

Counselors should identify the ir exceptional cases by 
w riting  “Exceptional Case” and a key reason for the 
designation on the bottom of the face of the application. A 
copy of the face of the application should be made and kept 
in your files until we are ready to review applications from 
the  postponed group.

A warding the “U ” factor or identifying exceptional cases 
needs to be based on accomplishments above and beyond



93

the normal involvement of students in their academic and 
extracurricular activities (or the beyond their control 
factors). S tudents who neglect th e ir academic achievement 
for over involvement in extracurricular activities are not 
to be rewarded.

You may also wran t to keep a separate  folder for your 
“WANNABES” w'hose only claim for any extra considera
tion is th a t they are tenacious in th e ir desire for adm is
sion. Likthe exceptional cases, m ake a notation a t the 
bottom of the application and keep a copy of the face of the 
application in your WANNABE folder.

G (geographic) factor:

1 For applicants from northern  Michigan, (defined as 
counties including and north of Oceana, Newago, 
Mecosta, Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac counties), ru 
ral areas, and small communities th a t are sepa
rated  geographically and/or culturally from larger 
and/or more sophisticated areas. Also, w estern 
s ta tes (beyond Mo, Iowa, Minn) except California 
and southern  states below VA, Tenn (except for 
Florida and Texas). Foreign students are not 
aw arded G factor points.

A (alumni) factor:

1 (Non-resident applicants only) Applicants m ust be 
a child, grandchild, sibling, or spouse of an alum 
nus. Do not add when “legacy” (mother/father) re
sults in using insta te  guidelines.



94

G UIDELINES -  SCUGA 1996

THE SCUGA FACTOR

The SCUGA  factors are an a ttem pt to give some s tan 
dardization to decisions m ade by many different counsel
ors on m any different applications. We recognize th a t all 
communities, schools, populations, course offerings, 
grading practices, personal circumstances, etc. are not the 
same. We w ant to have justifiable decisions th a t blend the 
consistency and rigidness of a strict formula with the 
variations and flexibility of a hum anistic review th a t 
occurs in a “rolling adm issions” process. In reality, only 
the “C” factor should be added to the GPA. B ut for our 
m ethod of selection all SCUGA factors are attached 
(added) to the GPA. The “U” (unusual), “G” (geographic), 
“A” (alumni) factors of the SCUGA formula assist in 
enrolling studen ts who will provide a desired m ixture of 
characteristics believed beneficial to the University.

Counselors will determ ine the Adjusted G rade Point 
Average or Index (GPA2) from the five SCUGA factors. 
The GPA2 will reflect several prom inent characteristics in 
the  applicant’s file th a t will not be displayed in the clerk- 
computed GPA1. Both the  GPA1 and the GPA2 will be 
entered into the system and can be accessed on the QU 
screen.

Notice: Schools are not “ranked” throughout the s ta te  or
country bu t are given a “classification” based on their 
school profile and academic information. The SCUGA 
factor should be discussed in only general term s but 
acknowledging th a t we do consider various factors in our 
decisions th a t reflect the difference among schools and to



95

help us enroll the mix of studen ts desired by the Univer
sity. Strict principles of “fairness" and consistency can no 
longer be the major focus w ithin or among schools or 
among students.

Counselors m ust always en ter the SCUGA factors on the 
coding section of the application and the sum as the GPA2. 
If  no adjustm ent is made, simply record the GPA th a t was 
computed by the clerk beside the GPA2 line on the front of 
the application. A ny unusual circumstance should be noted 
and stapled to the application in a prominent place.

Keep a disk file of your schools and SCUGA points. Add to 
it as you review applications from more schools.

S (school) factor:

_ BLANK indicates insufficient data  to award SCUGA 
.0 For schools th a t receive no SCUGA points.
.1 For better-than-average schools (probably not more 

than  60 in Michigan)
.2 For very good schools (probably not more than  30 in 

Michigan)
.3 For unusually  good schools (probably not more than  

3 to 4 in Michigan and 50 in the U.S.)
.4 For exceptionally strong schools -  tend to be select 

private (8-15 in the country)
.5 For tru ly  outstanding schools -  program sim ilar to 

first two years a t m any colleges. S tudents score 
very high on tests and large num bers attend the 
most selective colleges. High grades rare  for most 
students.

The sam e S factor should normally be applied to all 
applicants from the same school and is related to the 
points given for the C factor. Use discretion when a s tu 
dent has taken  a “w eak” program and use the negative “C” 
factor.



96

The following guide will be used for the “S” factor. Weight 
is given to the  overall streng th  of the school program. The 
school profile is the prim ary source of such data and 
should be coupled w ith our own profile and follow up files. 
(The files are located on the  th ird  floor in the work area 
ju s t outside of Jim  Vanhecke’s office). A very high percent 
of those attending strong four-year colleges and universi
ties, high te s t scores for the  entire school and above 
average academic perform ance on first year follow up 
reports could move the school upward. A code will be 
entered on the M aster C hart Indicating an exception.

This factor is based on the num ber of AP/IB courses 
offered a t the  school, the percentage of s tudents attending 
two and four year colleges and average SAT/ACT scores. 
Resist the tem ptation of being generous when the school is 
ju s t  a little  short of the excepted level. In every category 
(“S” factor) there  will be some schools th a t ju s t m ake a 
certain  level and some th a t ju s t miss a higher level.

The figures below represent the averages of over 300 
schools. Each counselor should be able to exercise judg
m ent as to the “S” factor for schools in each territory. 
Rem ember the “S” factor relates to the strength  of the 
school -  not ju s t a special group. In most cases the A P /IB  
figure is the starting point. Then determ ine if the College 
Bound and SAT/ACT statistics substan tia te  the “S” points. 
A strong record a t UM, achievem ent tests, AP/AB scores, 
the school’s curriculum  guide and other inform ation will 
help in m aking an appropriate decision. Schools rated 4 & 
5 m ust be exceptionally strong. Such rating  would be very 
ra re  among public schools. There are also many private 
schools th a t should not be above a 2.



97

Note: The 1995 High School Profiles and SAT scores
listed below are based on pre-Recentered scores.

S = .0 Very few or no Honors or AP courses 
Less th an  509c attend college 
SAT average below 920 and ACT below 22

S = .1 At least 7 AP/IB courses. Seventy-five percent 
attend  college. SAT average range of 950-1010 and 
ACT below 23.

S — .2 At least 9AP/IB courses. Strong honors or advanced 
courses. Eighty-five percent attend  college. SAT av
erage range of 1020-1080 or ACT average of 25.

S — .3 At least 11 AP/IB courses. M any Honors or rigorous 
courses. Achievement scores of > 550 and/or im
pressive resu lts on AP exams support high level of 
learning. Ninety-five percent attend college. SAT 
average range of 1090-1150 or ACT average of 27.

S = .4 At least 12 AP/IB. Strong AP record even when 
courses are not always called AP. Look for exams 
taken. Course grades tend not to cluster a t the 
highest end of the scale. Look at distribution of 
grades and scores. Many records include Achieve
m ent scores th a t tend to be in the 650+ range. 
N inety-nine percent attend  college. List would in 
clude m any competitive colleges. SAT average 
range of 1160-1210 or ACT average 28.

S = .5 At least 13 AP/IB. Im pressive num ber of high 
achievem ent scores. Many N ational M erit winners. 
Curriculum  reads like the 1st and 2nd year a t a 
typical liberal a rt college. Students receive 4’s & 5’s 
on AP. G rades tend to cluster in the mid-range of 
the scale. Counselor comments indicate real differ
ences in a PLUS/MINUS grading system. Students 
have gone in depth into an area of study. Often in
cluding foreign study ra th e r than  ju s t travel.



98

Ninety-nine percent attend  college. List would in
clude m any highly competitive/selective colleges. 
SAT average range of 1220+ or ACT average of 30.

If you need help in determ ining an appropriate “S” factor 
due to wide variations in selection criteria, please bring 
your data to MM and we will assign an appropriate “S” 
factor.

C (curriculum) factor:

Given the wide disparity in high school course selection 
and offerings, it seems im perative th a t the choice of strong 
courses, particularly  clearly identified Honors and AP/IB, 
be considered in the  review process. It is unfair to reward 
(by Admission) a s tuden t who has elected a mediocre 
curriculum , sometimes for as m any as four years, during 
high school while punishing (by Postponement) those with 
stronger programs. Achievement of a respectable GPA in a 
dem anding and challenging program more often repre
sents high m otivation and comm itm ent th an  a contrived 
inflated GPA in a weak curriculum . The stronger program 
also be tter prepares the s tuden t for the quality of work 
expected a t the U niversity of Michigan. All students are 
expected to elect a t least four traditional college p repara
tory subjects each sem ester. Those with less should be 
deferred upon first review even if GPA and test score place 
them  in the Adm it range.

C (curriculum) factor: (including 9th grade) S tarting  point 
of 0 = Strong academic program, 19 academic courses in 
grades 9-12. Count Honors as .5 and AP/IB as 1. for full 
year courses. Do NOT round up!

-.2 = Very weak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, less than  15 academic courses 
in grades 9-12. Three or fewer academics in senior



99

year. No honors or AP. Use judgm ent. Admission 
doubtful.

• 1 -  Weak academic program, relative to w hat is offered 
in the school, no honors or AP, 15-18 academics in 
grades 9-12. Use judgm ent.

0 = Average to strong academic program, one AP/IB or 
1-3 honors, at least 19 academic courses in trad es  
9-12. S

1 = For a very  strong program. 2-3 AP/IB or 4-7 honors 
m year long courses and a t least 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12.

■ 2 = For an unusually strong program. 4-5 AP/IB or 8-11 
honors in year long courses and  a t least 19 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

• 3 = For a superior program. 6 or 7 AP/IB or 12-15
honors in year long courses and  a t least 20 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

.4 = A fantastic  program. 8+ AP/IB or 16+ honors in 
year long courses and  a t least 20 academic courses 
in grades 9-12.

NOTES: Make sure th a t there  is a reasonable degree of 
integrity in the school’s definition of “Honors” courses. In 
general, you can calculate 2 honors or/and accelerated 
courses to equal 1 AP course. T hat presum es th a t honors 
a t th a t school are not equal to or as dem anding as AP/IB. 
A statem ent from the high school such as “This would be 
Honors a t another school or faculty policy precludes such a 
label does not qualify for our inclusion as an “honors” 
course and should not be counted. Use your knowledge 
(not assum ptions) about w hat different labels used by the 
schools mean in th is area. Tracks, phase, core, level, 
advanced, etc. do not always m ean “advanced” when



100

th ink ing  of such courses as being for those whose course 
background has been strong, have received high grades, 
are selected to participate and w rite the AP Exams.

U (unusual) factor:

The “U ” factor will be based on information provided on 
page 3 of the  application, item 31, titled Activities, Work 
Experience and Awards. The awarding of a “U” factor will 
be by a Unique Factor Option (UFO) committee decision 
and will be used in the rolling admission determ ination. 
Counselors should subm it applications for review in which 
studen ts have dem onstrated through outstanding 
achievem ents th a t they m erit the addition of the “U” factor 
added to the GPA2 Index. The “U” factor w ill be awarded 
on national, regional, or state recognition o f academic or 
extracurricular activities.

Exam ples of the above recognition include:

1. Elected positions a t Girls or Boys S tate
2. N ational Science Foundation Award
3. N ational or Regional Service Club Award
4. Unique in itiative in a community or en trepreneu

rial endeavor resu lting  in national, regional, or 
sta te  recognition.

5. Professional th ea te r experience a t the “Broadway” 
level.

6. Olympic a th lete  or national recognition as an 
athlete, i.e. figure skater.

7. One person a rt show.
8. W riting published in nationally recognized m aga

zine
9. W estinghouse Scholar (can be high school juniors) 

(As additional accomplishments are identified, they will be 
added to examples for fu ture reference.)



101

Counselors need to have some validation of the achieve
m ent such as high school counselor confirmation, copy of 
award certificate, new spaper clipping, etc.

A point of . 1, .2 or .3 will be given to those applicants 
w'hose outstanding accomplishments in areas sim ilar to 
those cited above w arran t the extra  value added to their 
GPA2 Index. If the addition of the .1, .2 or .3 value raises 
the studen t into the adm it category' on first review adm is
sion will be granted. If the addition of the “unique” points 
to the GPA2 Index does not place the student in an adm it 
cell of the guidelines, the s tuden t will be postponed and 
may be given priority when and if selection is made from 
the postponed group. The reviewing counselor will keep a 
copy of the application face sheet for the postpone review.

The Unique Factor Option (UFO) committee will consist of 
M arilyn, chair, and one m ember from each team, and will 
m eet a t least twice a month to review the applications 
subm itted by counselors. A “U” factor cover sheet will be 
completed to aid the UFO committee in identifying the 
unusual circum stances th a t w arran t review. A counselor 
m ay not assign a “U" factor to any o f their applications on 
their own or w ithin their teams. To be consistent and to 
keep the “U” factors assigned a t a reasonable number, the 
decisions will all be m ade by the UFO committee. It is 
expected there will be no more than  20 to 25 students who 
would qualify for a “U ” factor.

E xceptional Cases for Postponed Groun Revipw

Exceptional cases are those students who have out
standing accomplishments at the local level. They do not 
qualify for a “U” factor, but can be given special considera
tion when/if we select students from the postponed group



102

in  the  spring Counselors should review the information 
provided in item 31 on the  application to look for awards, 
honors, elected positions held, unusual work experiences, 
outstanding  counselor recom m endations, etc., during the 
s tu d en t’s years in high school. Remember, most applicants 
to U-M are very active students in leadership positions, 
sports activities, social clubs, etc. Active involvement in 
these activities is not unusual and is normal for the 
applicant pool. The exceptional case designation is not to 
be used as compensation for w eaker academic achieve
m ent attribu ted  to over involvement in non-academic 
activities.

Exceptional bv v irtue  of “beyond th e ir  control” factors:

An exceptional case m ay also be a s tuden t whose academic 
record was impacted by extended illness, frequent changes 
of high schools, trau m a and other events beyond the 
control of the individual bu t not ju s t the problems of 
growing up in today’s society.

Counselors should identify the ir exceptional cases by 
w riting “Exceptional Case” and a key reason for the 
designation on the bottom of the face of the application. A 
copy of the face of the application should be made and kept 
in your files until we are ready to review applications from 
the  postponed group.

A warding the “U ” factor or identifying exceptional cases 
needs to be based on accomplishments above and beyond 
the norm al involvement of students in the ir academic and 
ex tracurricu lar activities (or the beyond their control 
factors). S tudents who neglect the ir academic achievement 
for over involvement in extracurricular activities are not 
to be rewarded.



103

You may also w ant to keep a separate  folder for your 
WANNABES” whose only claim for any extra considera

tion is th a t they are tenacious in the ir desire for adm is
sion. Like the exceptional cases, make a notation at the 
bottom of the application and keep a copy of the face of the 
application in your WANNABE folder.

G (geographic) factor:

• 1 For applicants from northern  Michigan, (defined as 
counties including and north of Oceana, Newago, 
Mecosta, Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac counties), ru 
ral areas, and small communities th a t are sepa
rated geographically and/or culturally from larger 
and/or more sophisticated areas. Also, w estern 
states (beyond Mo, Iowa, Minn) except California 
and southern states below VA, Tenn (except for 
Florida and Texas). Foreign students are not 
awarded G factor points.

A (alumni) factor:

• 1 For all applicants whose grandparents, parents
siblings or spouse have been enrolled in any unit on 
the Ann Arbor campus as degree seeking students 
(revised 10-6-95)

For units th a t have separate  guidelines for resident 
and non-resident applications, non-resident lega
cies (applicants whose parents attended U-M Ann 
Arbor campus) will be evaluated for admission us
ing in sta te  guidelines in addition to receiving .1 for 
the alum ni factor.



104

GUIDELINES -  SCUGA 1997

SCUGA

(School. Curriculum . LTnusual. Geographic. Alumni)

The SCUGA  factors are an attem pt to give some s tan 
dardization to decisions m ade by m any different counsel
ors on m any different applications. We recognize th a t all 
communities, schools, populations, course offerings, 
grading practices, personal circumstances, etc. are not the 
same. We w ant to have justifiable decisions th a t blend the 
consistency and rigidness of a strict formula with the 
variations and flexibility of a hum anistic review th a t 
occurs in a “rolling adm issions” process. In reality, only 
the “C” factor should be added to the GPA. But for our 
m ethod of selection all SCUGA factors are attached 
(added) to the GPA. The “U” (unusual), “G” (geographic), 
“A” (alum ni) factors of the SCUGA formula assist in 
enrolling studen ts who will provide a desired m ixture of 
characteristics believed beneficial to the University.

Counselors will determ ine the adjusted Grade Point 
Average or Selector Index (GPA2) from the five SCUGA 
factors. The GPA2 will reflect several prom inent charac
teristics in the applicant’s file th a t will not be displayed in 
the clerk-computed GPA1. Both the GPA1 and the GPA2 
will be entered into the system  and can be accessed on the 
QU screen.

Notice: Schools are not “ranked” throughout the state  or 
country bu t are given a “classification” based on their 
school profile and academic information. The “S” factor 
should be discussed only in general term s acknowledging 
th a t we do consider various factors in our decisions th a t 
reflect the difference among schools which help us enroll



105

the mix of students desired by the University. Strict 
principles o f fairness’ and consistency can no longer be the 
major focus within or among schools or amojig students.

Counselors m ust always en ter the SCUGA factors on the 
coding section of the application and their sum on the 
GPA2 line. If no adjustm ent is made, simply record the 
GPA th a t was computed by the clerk on the GPA2 line of 
the application folder.

Record the “S” factor you assign to your high schools and 
report updates to Jan e t Hall so she can keep the m aster 
chart of “S” factors current. Add to it  as you review appli
cations from more schools.

S (school) factor:

_  BLANK indicates insufficient data to award SCUGA 
.0 For schools th a t receive no SCUGA points.
.1 For better-than-average schools (probably not more 

th an  60 in Michigan)
.2 For very good schools (probably not more than  30 in 

Michigan)
.3 For unusually good schools (probably not more than  3 

to 4 in Michigan and 50 in the U.S.)
.4 For exceptionally strong schools -  tend to be select 

private (8-15 in the country)
.5 For tru ly  outstanding schools — program sim ilar to 

first two years a t m any colleges. Students score very 
high on tests  and large num bers attend the most se
lective colleges. High grades rare  for most students.

The same S factor should normally be applied to all 
applicants from the same school and is related to the 
points given for the C factor. Use discretion when a s tu 
dent has taken a “w eak” program and use the negative “C” 
factor.



106

The following guide will be used for the “S” factor. Weight 
is given to the overall s trength  of the school program. The 
school profile is the prim ary source of such data and 
should be coupled w ith our own profile and follow up files. 
(Follow Up reports for the m ost recent 2 years are located 
on the th ird  floor in the work area ju s t outside of Jim  
V anhecke’s office). A very high percent of those attending 
strong four year colleges and universities, high test scores 
for the entire school and above average academic perform
ance on first year follow up reports could move the school 
upward. A code will be entered on the M aster C hart 
indicating an exception.

This factor is based on the num ber of AP/IB courses 
offered a t the  school, the percentage of students attending 
two and four year colleges and average SAT I/ACT scores. 
Resist the tem ptation of being generous when the school is 
ju s t  a little short of the expected level. In every category 
(“S” factor) there  will be some schools th a t ju s t make a 
certain  level and some th a t ju s t miss a higher level.

The figures below represent the averages of over 300 
schools. Each counselor should be able to exercise judg
m ent as to the “S” factor for schools in each territory. 
Rem ember the “S” factor relates to the strength  of the 
school -  not ju s t a special group. In most cases the A P /IB  
figure is the starting point. Then determ ine if the College 
Bound and SAT I/ACT statistics substan tia te  the “S” 
points. A strong record a t UM, SAT II subject tests, AP/AB 
scores, the school's curriculum  guide and other informa
tion will help in m aking an appropriate decision. Schools 
ra ted  4 & 5 m ust be exceptionally strong. Such rating  
would be very ra re  among public schools. There are also 
m any private schools th a t should not be above a 2.



107

Note: The 1996 High School Profiles and SAT I scores
listed below are based on Recentered scores.

S = .0 Very few or no Honors or AP courses 
Less than  509c attend college 
SAT I average below 1040 and ACT below 22

S = .1 At least 7 AP/IB courses. Seventy-five percent 
attend college.
SAT I average range of 1050-1080 and ACT below 
23.

S = .2 At least 9 AP/IB courses. Strong honors or ad
vanced courses. Eighty-five percent attend college. 
SAT I average range of 1130-1160 or ACT average 
of 25.

S = .3 At least 11 AP/IB courses. Many honors or rigorous 
courses. SAT II subject scores of > 610 and/or im 
pressive resu lts  on AP exams support high level of 
learning. Ninety-five percent attend college. SAT I 
average range of 1200-1230 or ACT average of 27.

S = .4 At least 12 AP/IB. Strong AP record even when 
courses are not always called AP. Look for exams 
taken. Course grades tend not to cluster a t the 
highest end of the scale. Look a t distribution of 
grades and scores. Many records include SAT II 
subject scores th a t tend to be in the 710+ range. 
N inety-nine percent attend college. List would in
clude m any competitive colleges. SAT I average 
range of 1240-1270 or ACT average of 28.

S = .5 At least 13 AP/IB. Impressive num ber of high SAT 
II subject scores. Many N ational M erit winners. 
Curriculum  reads like the 1st and 2nd year a t a 
typical liberal a rt college. Students receive 4’s & 
5’s on A P. Grades tend to cluster in the mid-range 
of the scale. Counselor comments indicate real dif
ferences in a PLUS/MINUS grading system. S tu 
dents have gone in depth into an area of study.



108

Often including foreign study ra th e r than  ju s t 
travel. N inety-nine percent a ttend  college. List 
would include many highly competitive/'selective 
colleges. SAT I average range of 1320+ or ACT av
erage of 30.

If  you need help in determ ining an appropriate “S” factor 
due to wide variations in selection criteria, please bring 
your data to MM and we will assign an appropriate “S” 
factor.

C (curriculum) factor:

Given the wide disparity  in high school course selection 
and offerings, it seems im perative th a t the choice of strong 
courses, particularly  clearly identified Honors and APTB, 
be considered in the review process. It is unfair to reward 
(by Admission) a s tuden t who has elected a mediocre 
curriculum , sometimes for as many as four years, during 
high school while punishing (by Postponement) those w ith 
stronger programs. Achievement of a respectable GPA in a 
dem anding and challenging program more often repre
sents high motivation and comm itm ent th an  a contrived 
inflated GPA in a weak curriculum. The stronger program 
also better prepares the  s tuden t for the quality of work 
expected a t the  U niversity of Michigan. All students are 
expected to elect at least four traditional college p repara
tory  subjects each sem ester. Those w ith less should be 
deferred upon first review even if GPA and test score place 
them  in the Admit range.

C (curriculum ) factor: (including 9th grade) S tarting  point 
of 0 = Strong academic program, 19 academic courses in 
grades 9-12. Count Honors as .5 and AP/IB as 1. for full 
year courses. Do NOT round up!



109

-.2 =

-.1 =

0  =

.1 =

.2 =

.3 =

.4 =

\ e r y  weak academic program, relative to w hat it 
offered in the school, less than  15 academic courses 
m grades 9-12. Three or fewer academics in seS o

doubtfuL °rS °r  ^  Use Judgm ent' Admission

aCt dT ^  P[ 0gram ’ relative ^  w hat is offered 

^ u ^  ^  15' 18 *

f-Thnno t0 Ŝ r,°ng academic program, one AP/IB or 
12 rs, a t least 19 academic courses in grades 9-

For a very strong program. 2-3 AP/IB or 4-7 honors
in year long courses and a t least 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12. academic

For an unusually strong program. 4-5 AP/IB or 8-11 
honors m year long courses at least 19 aca 
demic courses in grades 9-12.

For a superior program. 6 or 7 AP/IB or 12-15 
honors m year long courses a t least 20 aca 
demic courses in grades 9-12.

A  fantastic  program. 8+ AP/IB or 16+ honors in year

Zel7,7 and at leaSt 20 «  in

NOTES: Make sure th a t there is a reasonable degree of 
in tegrity  in the school’s definition of “Honors” courfes In 
general, you can calculate 2 honors or/and accelerated

a t UthST  t0, Gq,Ual 1 * *  C0Urse' That Presumes th a t honors 
a t  th a t school are not equal to or as dem anding as AP/IB
A statem ent from the high school such as “This would be

l a b e l - " /  an° th e r SCh°01 ° r faCUlty P° llCy Precludes such a bel does not qualify for our inclusion as an “honors”
ourse and should not be counted. Use your knowledge

(not assum ptions) about w hat different labels used by the



no

schools m ean in th is  area. Tracks, phase, core, level, 
advanced, etc. do not always m ean “advanced” when 
th ink ing  of such courses as being for those whose course 
background has been strong, have received high grades, 
are selected to participate and w rite the AP Exams.

U (unusual) factor:

The “U” factor will be based on inform ation provided on 
page 3 of the  application, item 31, titled Activities, Work 
Experience and  Aw ards  as well as the essay and other 
information included with the application. The awarding 
of a “U ” factor will be used in the rolling admission deter
m ination. Counselors should consider applications for the 
U nusual in which students have dem onstrated through 
achievem ents or unusual backgrounds th a t they m erit the 
addition of the “U ” factor added to the GPA2 Index.

The U factor can be aw arded in 4 areas: Leadership and  
Service, Personal Achievements, Essay Analysis and 
Contribution to a Diverse Class.

I. Leadership and Service. Examples of strong leader
ship include:
• Elected positions a t Girls or Boys State
• Unique in itiative in a community endeavor 

resu lting  in special recognition.
• S tate  or Service Club Award
• Successful entrepreneur.

An U nusual factor of .1 to .2 can be given to those 
applicants whose TRULY OUTSTANDING ACCOM
PLISHM ENTS in areas sim ilar to those cited above 
w arran t the extra value added to the ir GPA2 Index. 
If the addition of the .1 or .2 value raises the studen t 
into the adm it category on first review, admission 
will be granted. If the addition of the  “unique” points



I l l

to the GPA2 Index does not place the student in an 
adm it cell of the guidelines, the student will be 
postponed and may be given priority when and if 
selection is m ade from the postponed group.

II. Personal Achievements. Exam ples of indicators of 
personal achievements include:

• National Science Foundation Award 
W estinghouse Scholar (can be high school juniors)

• S tate  or national recognition as an athlete.
• W inning a regional, state, or national a rt show. 

W riting published in a sta te  or nationally recog
nized m agazine

• Professional theater experience.

An U nusual factor of .1 or .2 can be given for out
standing personal achievements.

III. Essays are required. If the essay is missing the 
application is incomplete and cannot be m arked up 
for admission. The essay will be evaluated for Con
tent, Style, Originality, and Risk. A  .1 Unusual factor 
can be aw arded for an outstanding  essay. Very poor 
essays could detract from the admissibility of an 
applicant. For extremely poor essays a -.1 could be 
used.

IA . Contribution to a Diverse Class. The U niversity is 
committed to a rich educational experience for it’s 
students. A diverse, as opposed to a homogeneous, 
student population enhances the educational experi
ence for all students. To insure a diverse class, 
significant weight will be given in the admissions 
process to indicators of students contribution to a 
diverse class. An Unusual factor of .2 or .5 will be 
given for the potential contribution to a diverse class 
from only one of the following indicators:



112

• An applicant who is a m ember of a Federally 
recognized underrepresented race or ethnicity, 
which is also underrepresented on the UM Ann 
Arbor Campus, and who is from a school or com
m unity w here a significant m ajority of students is 
of a different race from the applicant (.5).

• Location of the school in a predom inately m inor
ity neighborhood (.5).

• S tudents who are economically, socially, or 
educationally disadvantaged. Indicators of such 
disadvantagem ent m ight include the CB applica
tion fee waiver request form, parents occupation, 
excessive work hours while attending  school, 
overcoming extraordinary  obstacles such as se
vere illness, abuse or hom elessness (.5).

• U nderrepresented in the unit to which they are 
applying (e.g., m ales into N ursing, females into 
Engineering) (.2).

A warding the “U ” factor in item s I or II or identifying 
exceptional cases needs to be based on accomplishments 
above and beyond the norm al involvement of students in 
th e ir  academic and extracurricu lar activities (or the 
beyond the ir control factors). Students who neglect their 
academic achievement for over involvement in extracur
ricular activities are not to be rewarded.

Because the U niversity is committed to enrolling a diverse 
group of studen ts whose unique life experiences reflect 
those from all economic, social, and educational back
grounds, the combination of points aw arded the “U” factor 
in all four areas (I, II, III, IV) may equal a maxim um  of 
1 . 0 .



113

Exceptional Cases for Postponed Group Review

Exceptional cases are those students who have out
standing accomplishments at the local level. They do not 
qualify for a U factor, but can be given special considera
tion when/if we select students from the postponed group 
in the spring. Counselors should review the information 
provided in item 31 on the application to look for awards, 
honors, elected positions held, unusual work experiences, 
outstanding counselor recommendations, etc., during the 
s tuden t s years in high school. Remember, most applicants 
to U-M are very active students in leadership positions, 
sports activities, social clubs, etc. Active involvement in 
these activities is not unusual and is normal for the 
applicant pool. The exceptional case designation is not to 
be used as compensation for w eaker academic achieve
m ent a ttribu ted  to over involvement in non-academic 
activities.

Exceptional by virtue o f “beyond their control” factors:

An exceptional case may also be a studen t whose academic 
record was impacted by extended illness, frequent changes 
of high schools, traum a and other events beyond the 
control of the individual but not ju s t the problems of 
growing up in today’s society.

Counselors should identify th e ir exceptional cases by 
w riting Exceptional Case and a key reason for the 
designation on the bottom of the face of the application. A 
copy of the face of the application should be made and kept 
in your files until we are ready to review applications from 
the postponed group.



114

You may also w ant to keep a separate  folder for your 
“WANNABES” whose only claim for any extra considera
tion is th a t they are tenacious in the ir desire for adm is
sion. Like the exceptional cases, m ake a notation at the 
bottom of the application and keep a copy of the fact of the 
application in your WANNABE folder.

G (geographic) factor:

.1 For applicants from northern  Michigan, (defined as 
counties including and north  of Oceans, Newago, Me
costa, Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac counties), rural a r
eas, and small communities th a t are separated 
geographically and/or culturally  from larger and/or 
more sophisticated areas. Also, w estern states (beyond 
Mo, Iowa, Minn) except California and southern states 
below VA. Tenn (except for Florida and Texas). For
eign students are not awarded G factor points.

A (alumni) factor:

.1 For all applicants whose grandparents, parents, 
siblings or spouse have been enrolled in any un it on 
the Ann Arbor campus as degree seeking students, 
(revised 10-6-95)

For units th a t have separate  guidelines for resident 
and non-resident applications, non-resident legacies 
(applicants whose parents attended U-M Ann Arbor 
campus) will be evaluated for admission using insta te  
guidelines in addition to receiving .1 for the alum ni 
factor.



115

Office of U ndergraduate Admissions CONFIDENTIAL  
Septem ber 1994 Internal Use only

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE, 
SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 

G UIDELINES FOR ALL TERMS OF 1995
OUA Liaison: Marilyn McKinney,

Associate Director 
OUA Backup Eleanor Hendershot, 

Assistant Director

936-2786

764-7511

LS&A Contact: Eugene W. Nissen, A ssistant 964-7297
Dean for S tudent Academic 
Affairs

1402 Mason Hall, 1027
LS&A Academic 
Advising

LS&A 
Enrollment 
Working Group

Charles Judge, Director of 763-1042 
Academic Services 

tem p address: 2009 Angell Hall 
1003

John R. Cham berlin, Associate 763-3271 
Dean for Academic 
A ppointm ents 

2550 LSA Bldg. 1382

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Admission of Freshm en

Adm issions C h art -  F irs t Review INSTATE (non
m inority )..................................

Adm issions C h art -  F irs t Review O ut-of-State (non
m inority )...................................

Adm issions C h art -  F irs t Review M inority IN 
STATE .......................................................

Adm issions C h art -  F irs t Review M inority Out-of- 
S ta te  ...............



116

Definition of A F reshm an  A pp lican t.............................. 5

Overview of Admission Policies (F irs t R eview ...........  5

Term s of A dm ission .................................................. 5

Assigned R eview er....................................................  5

A utom atic R eview ...................................................  5

Counselor R ev iew er...............................................  6

SCUGA G u id e lin es ................................................  6
G eneral R eq u irem en ts ............................................. 6

High School G rad u atio n ........................................ 6

Course P rep a ra tio n ................................................  6

P residen ts  Council R equ irem en ts .....................  6
SAT/ACT sco res ....................................................... 6

Special P rog ram s.................................................................. 7

Honors P ro g ram .........................................................  7

In teg ra ted  Prem edical-M edical Program  
(IN TEFLEX )............................................................. 10

R esidential C o lleg e ................................................... 12

Preferred  A dm ission.................................................. 12

Dual A dm ission ....................................................................  12

G eneral Policy.............................................................  12

E xceptions....................................................................  12

School of M usic and LS&A...................................  12

Honors and O ther U n i ts ....................................... 12

R esidential College and In te flex ........................ 13

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ....................................................... 13

S tuden ts  W ith Foreign Academic C reden tia ls .. 13



117

S tuden ts  W ith Mixed (Foreign/Domestic) 
Educational E x p e rien ces ............ “ ............

Guideline E xcep tions......................

U nderrep resen ted  M inority  G ro u p s ................
O ther P rio rity  G roups...........................

Special C o n sid e ra tio n ..............................

A pplicants from U naccredited S choo ls ....................
D isab ilitie s ................................

Postponed Group R eview ...............

Extended W ait L i s t ..............................

In app rop ria te  U nit D esig n a tio n ....................

Young Scholar Education Program  (YSEP)

13

13

13

14 

14 

14

14

15 

15 

15 

15

Admission of New Transfer S tudents
Adm ission C h art — W in te r............

A dm ission C h art — Spring/Sum m er..
Adm ission C h art -  F a l l ......................

Definition of New T ransfer S tuden ts

Transfer Team 

Transfer Guideline Grid

Sem esters of A dm ission ............................

W inter S e m e s te r ............................

Spring and Sum m er H alf Sem esters
Fall S e m e s te r ...............................

M inim um  P rep ara tio n  for T ra n s fe r ...........
Previous In s t i tu t io n ............

19

19

19

19

19

19



118

Previous Course W ork..............................................  20

High School P re p a ra tio n .........................................  20

Total P re p a ra tio n ......................................................  20

Concern L e tte r .........................................................  20

Special C onsideration for New T ra n s fe rs .................... 20

P re req u is ite s ...............................................................  20

M inim um  H ours to T ra n s fe r .................................  20

C redit E arned  in R esidence....................................  20

C S P ................................................................................. 21

H o n o rs ..........................................................................  21

B.G .S..............................................................................  21

Incom pletes, W ithdraw als, R e p e a ts .................... 21

U nderrep resen ted  M inority S tu d e n ts ...........................  21

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ......................................................  21

A dm ission of R ea d m its ......................................................  22

Action of R eadm ission A pplications...............................  22

Cross-Cam pus T ran s fe r .....................................................  23

T ransfer from U nits  on the  Ann Arbor C a m p u s .......  23

First-Y ear Cross-Cam pus T ransfer......................  23

Cross-C am pus T ransfer A fter More T han One 
Y e a r.............................................................................  23

T ransfer from U-M D earborn and U-M F lin t Cam 
p u ses ....................................................................................  24

F irs t Year Cross-Cam pus T ran sfe r......................  24



119

Cross-Cam pus Transfer w ith C redit E arned a t 
O ther In s titu tio n s  Prior to Enrolling a t U-M 
D earborn or U-M F lin t.................................  24

Required C redentials for all U-M Dearborn 
and U-M F lin t A p p lican ts .................................... 24

LS&A Residency R equirem ent of 60 H o u rs ......  25

Application D eadlines for A pplicants from U- 
M D earborn & U-M F l in t .....................................  25

Action P rocedures......................  0 =;

Rejection of Cross-Cam pus T ransfer -  Special 
P ro ced u res ................... nc

N ondegree A d m issions......................................

C rite ria  for Nondegree A dm issions............................

Dual E nrollm ent for High Scholl S tu d en ts .......
Procedures for N ondegree A dm issions..........................

R egistration  and Course Selection.........................

Advising and M aintenance of S tuden t Academic 
F ile s ...............................................

Academic Advising for ND S tu d e n ts ..................
Application R eco rd s ................................

In te rp re ta tio n  of College Policies for ND 
S tu d e n ts .................................

Academic Review and Renewal of A dm ission ............
C hange of Degree S ta tu s ......................

26

26
27

27

27

28 

28 

28

28

28

28

Second U ndergraduate  Degree Admission 28

S upplem entary  Inform ation 30



1 2 0

T ran sfe r C redit E valuation  Policy.................................. 30

LS&A Acceptance of C redit P o lic ie s .............................. 31

C ourses Taken by High School S tu d e n ts .....................  31

LS&A Three-Part Composition Requirem ent................... 31

T ransfer A pplicants w ith  C redits in Excess of 75 
H ours (Policy)...................................................................  32

Q u an tita tiv e  Reasoning: College R eq u irem en t.......... 33



121

CONFIDENTIAL LSA Freshman Guidelines 1995 All Terms

**First-Review —  IHSTATE t LEGACY (HON-MIHORITY)_____________ TABLE I
0-17

400-1)0

11-20

170-150

11-22

110-9(0

2J-2(

910-1020

21-26

1010-1100

27-21

1110-1190

29-30

1200-1210

31-32

1790-1370

33-34

1390-1410

35-34 

1 490-1400

> 4

r t a t r t s t /
PDTE

PDTE/a a A A A A A A

3 . 8 - 3 . 9

r t s t r t s t PDTE PDTE PDTE A A A A A

3 . 6 - 3 . 3
r t a t r t s t r t a t PDTE PDTE PDTE A a a a

3. 4 - 3 . 5

r t s t r t s t r t a t PDTE/
r t a t

PDTE PDTE PDTE a a a

3 . 2 - 3 . 3
RTST RTST RTST r t s t PDTE PDTE PDTE PDTE PDTE PDTE

3 . 0 - 3 . 1

RTST RTST RTST r r l t r a a r r a u r r a a r r a a r PDTE PDTE

2 . 8 - 2 . 9

RRlT R R I T R R t T r r i t r a a r r a a r r a a r r a a r PDTE PDTE

2. 6 - 2 . 7

RRtT R R i T R R t T R R t T RSSR RSSR RSSR RSS R r a a r r a a r

2 . 6 - 2 . 5
RRiT R R i T R R t T R R t T RSSR RSSR RSSR RSSR r a a r r a a r

2 . 2 - 2 . 3

RRtT R R i T R R I T R R t T RSSR RSSR RSSR RSSR r a a r r a a r

< 2 . 1

RRiT R R t T R R t T R R t T RSSR RSSR RSSR RSS R r a a r r a a r

N o t e s :
A-  Admit  •
RTST- R e j e c t ,  T e e t  S c o r e s
RRIT-  R e j e c t ,  S e c o n d a r y  S c ho o l  R e c o r d  a nd  T e s t  
RSSR- R e j e c t ,  S e c o n d a r y  S c h o o l  R e c o r d  
TOTE- P o a t p o n e  D e c i s i o n
Dold Caps f o r  A I R -  A u t o m a t i c  by c l e r k a ;  l o w e r  c a s e  a i r  d a o l a l o n s  by c o u n a e l o r a .
• •Ad mi t  a l l  s t u d e n t s  a t  t h a  989 o r  991 I f  t h e r e  a r e  no s e r i o u s  d e f i c i e n c i e s .  ADMIT TOP 51 f r o m  c o u n t i e s  o t h e r  t h a n  
L i v i n g s t o n ,  Macomb, Oa k la nd ,  Waehtenaw o r  Wayne.
De v e r y  c o n a e r v a t i v e  i n  a w a r d i n g  SCUGA p o i n t s :  A l l  s t u d e n t s  a r e  e x p e c t e d  t o  e l e c t  a d e m a n d i n g  p r o g r a m .

• ■ • • > • >. - -  - * ---------i *. A um t.* « ,4n>)aalon i e  o f f e r e d .

I i u a  mi
UtlQ 0 0 5 ? 3 5



122

«« First-Review —  OPT-Or-3TATE (HON-HINORITY) TABLE II

CONFIDENTIAL LSA Freslimnn Guidelines 1995 All Terms

0-1? 11-20 21-22 23-24 25-21 27-21 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36

400-110 4 00-150 1(0-940 150-1020 1030-1100 1110-1190 1200-1240 1290-1370 1310-1410 1 490-1(00

>4
r t a t r t s t r t a t PDTE A A A A A A

3 . 8 - 3 . 9
r t s t r t s t r t s t PDTE PDTE A A A A A

3. 6 - 3 . 7
r t s t r t s t r t a t PDTE PDTE PDTE A A A A

3 . 4 - 3 . 5
r t s t r t s t r t s t r t s t PDTE PDTE PDTE ' PDTE POTE/a PDTE/a

3 . 2 - 3 .  3
RTST RT3T RTST r t s t r o a r r a a r PDTE PDTE PDTE PDTE

3 . 0 - 3 . 1
RTST RT3T RTST RTST r a a r r a a r r a a r r a a r PDTE/

r a a r
PDTE/
r a a r

2 . 8 - 2 . 9
RR6T R R t T R R t T R R t T R R t T RSSR r a a r r a a r PDTE/

r a a r
PDTE/
r a a r

2 . 6 - 2 , 7
RRtT R R t T R R t T R R t T R9SR RSSR RS 9R RSSR r a a r PDTE/

r a a r

2 . 4 - 2 . 5
n n i T R R t T R R t T R R t T R33 R RSSR R 3 3 R R 3 9R r a a r r a a r

2 . 2 - 2 . 3
RRtT R R t T R R t T R R t T RS9R RSSR RS9R RSSR r a a r r a a r

<2.1
RRtT R R t T R R t T R R t T RSSR ROSR RSSR RSSR r a a r r a a r

N o t e s :
A-  Admit
USSR- R e j e c t ,  S e c o n d a r y  S ch oo l  Re cor d  
RRtT-  R o j e c t ,  S e c o n d a r y  S c h o o l  R e c o r d  and T e a t  
PDTE- P o s t p o n e  D e c i s i o n  
RTST- R e j e c t ,  T e a t  S c o r e

Ut1fi 0 0 5 7 3 6

Dold Caps f o r  A 4 R“ A u t o m a t i c  by c l e r k s ;  l o w e r  c a s e  a i r  d e c i s i o n s  by c o u n s e l o r s .
“ Admit  i f  H . S . P . R .  l a  9 9 t h  p e r c e n t i l e
De v e r y  c o n a e r v a t l v e  i n  a w a r d i n g  SCUGA p o l n t a :  A l l  a t u d e n t a  a r e  e x p e c t e d  t o  e l e c t  a d e m a nd i ng  p r o g r a m .
A p p l i c a t l o n a  f a l l i n g  o u t s i d e  t h e  g u i d e l i n e s  s h o u l d  be r e f e r r e d  t o  MH b e f o r e  a d m i s s i o n  i s  o f f e r e d .



123

CO NFIDENTIAL LSA Freshman Guidelines 1995 All Term s
Flrat-RavlftK -- INSTATE (M I N O R I T Y ) TABLE III

0-1? 11-20 21-22 23-24 25-24 27-11 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-34

100-110 120-150 160-940 430-1020 1030-1100 1110-1190 1200-1210 1240-1370 1310-1410 1490-1600

>4
* A/ACSP/

ABR/DSF
A/ACSP
DSF

A/ACSP A A A A A A

3 . 8 - 3 . 9
a A/ACSP/

ABR/DSF
A/ACSP
DSF

A/ACSP A/ACSP A A A A A

3 . 6 - 3 . 7
a A/ACSP/

ABR/DSF
A/ACSP
DSF

A/ACSP A/ACSP A A A A A

3 . 4 - 3 . 5
a A/ACSP/

ABR/DSF
A/ACSP
DSF

A/ACSP A/ACSP A A A A A

3 . 2 - 3 . 3
a A/ACSP/

ABR/DSF
A/ACSP
DSF

A/ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP A A A

3 . 0 - 3 . 1
a A/ACSP/

ADR/DSF
ACSP
DSF

ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP A/ACSP

2 . 8 - 2 . 9
a DGSF

(DR)
DGSF
(ACSP)

DGF
(ACSP)

DGF
(ACSP)

DGF
(ACSP)

DGF
(ACSP)

DGF
(ACSP)

DGF
(ACSP)

DCF
(ACSP)

2 . 6 - 2 . 7
a DGSF

(DR)
DGSF
(ACSP/
R-HIH)

DGSF
(DR)

DGF (DR) DGF (DR) DGF (BR) DGF (DR) DGF (BR) DGF (DR)

2 . 4 - 2 . 5

RR4T
R-MIN

RR4T
R-MIN

o e s r
(DR)

DGSF
(DR)

DCF (DR) DGF (BR) DGF (BR) DGF (BR) DGF (DR) DGF (BR)

2 . 2 - 2 . 3
RR6T
R-MIH

RR6T
R-MIH

RR4.T
R-HIN

RSSR
R-HIH

RSSR
R-MIH

RSSR
R-MIH

RSSR
R-HIH

RSSR
R-HIH

RSSR
R-MIH

RSSR
R-MIH

<2.1
RRIT
R-MIN

RR6T
R-MIH

RR6T
R-MIH

RSSR
R-MIH

RSSR
R-HIH

RSSR
R-HIH

RSSR
R-MIH

RSSR
R-HIH

RSSR
R-MIH

RSSR
R-HIH

A- A Anil
A-I1P- Admit to DHdp Program (NomedJcnl applicant! ihoutd not be offered admlnlon lo the Drldfo Program)
A-CSP* Admit to Comprtbendvt Studiei Program 
DGF- Delay for fall term grades
DSP» Deliy for aenior year SA Tior ACT« UMA 0 0 5 7 3 7
DGSF- Deley for fall term gndee and eenlor year SATi or ACTi 
(HR)* Submil [or BHdga review for on# of the options indicated 
Pen. R- Reject (not quilifitd). Send a pen on el Idler of rejection 
"Utually not to be admliled. Conmlt wlih MM prior lo • n j  edlon.
De very conrervatlve In awarding SCUGA pointr: All rtudenti ere expected lo elect a demanding program. Appticailona falling oulrlde the guldclinet should be referred to MM or ORC 
before admlniont If offered.
NiYITt THOSE ADMITTED TO SUMMER BRIDGE IN THE FIRST TWO COLUMNS ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND DURING THE SUMMER. THEY CANNOT



124

CONFIDENTIAL LSA Freshrnnn Guidelines 1995 All Terms

rlrat-novle* —  ODT3TATE (MINORITY) TABLE IV
0 - 1 ? 11-20 21-22 23-24 25-24 27-21 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-34

<00-110 420-150 140-940 950-1020 10)0-1100 1110-1190 1200-1210 1290-1370 1310-1410 1 490-1400

>4

ft A / A C S P

o s r
A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P A A A A A A

3 . 6 - 3 . 9

ft A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P A / A C S P A A A A A

3 . 6 - 3 . 7

ft A / A C S P

O S F

A / A C S P

O S F
A / A C S P A / A C S P A A A A A

3 . 4 - 3 . 5

ft A / A C S P

O S F
A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P A / A C S P A A A A A

3 . 2 - 3 . 3

ft A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P A A A

3 . 0 - 3 . 1

a A / A C S P

D S F
A / A C S P
D S F

A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P A / A C S P

2 . 8 - 2 .  9

ft D C S F
( A C S P /

R - H I H )

D C S F
(A CS P)

D C F
( A CS P)

D C F
(A CS P)

D C F
( A CS P)

D C F

( A CS P)
D C F
( A C S P )

D C F

( A C S P )
D G F
( A C S P )

2 . 6 - 2 . 7

ft D C S F
( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C S F
( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C S F

( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C F

( A C S P /

R - H I H )

D C F

( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C F
( A C S P -

R - H I N )

D C F
( A C S P -

R - H I H )

D C F

( A C S P -

R - H I N )

D C F  
( A C S P -  
n — h i m )

2 . 4 - 2 . 5
R R i T
R - M I N

R R I T
R - H I N

D C S F
( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C S F
( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C F
( A C S P /

R - H I N )

D C F
( A C S P /

n - H I N )

D C F
( A C S P -

n-Hiti)

D C F
( A C S P -

R - H I N )

D C F
( A C S P -

R - H I N )

D C F

( A C S P -
R - M T H )

2 . 2 - 2 . 3
R R I T

R - H I H

R R i T

R - H I H

R R i T

R - H I N

R S S R

R - H I N

R S S R

R - H I N

R S S R

R - H I N

R S S R

R - M I N

R S S R

R - H I N
R S S R

R - H I N
R S S R

R - M I N

< 2 . 1  

N o t a a 1

R R i T
R - H I N

R R i T

R - H I N
R R i T

R - H I N
R S S R

R - H I N
R S S R

R - H I H
R S S R

R - H I H
R S S R

R - H I N
R S S R

R - M I N
R S S R

R - H I N
R S S R

R - H I H

A- Adn l t

z v * u *hou,d not b- o,r,r,d to th* i i l i B I l l i i
s :  o i ; : ; ot ACT.. . uma 0 0 5730

3ub"“ ,ot °"c ,,vuw ,or °n* °fth * optien*
•Uj u . 11» not t o  b .  . d n l t t . d .  C o n . u l t  w i t h  m  p r i o r  t o  any a c t i o n .

B .  v . r y  c o n . a r v a t l v a  In a w . r d l n 9 5CUCA p o i n t . .  M l  a tudan ta  . r .  a . p . c t . d  t o  o l . c t  .  
o u t . I d .  t h .  9u ld a l l n a a  . h o u ld  b .  r o l . r r . d  t o  MH b . f o r a  a d n la a lo n a  I f  o f f . r . d .

demanding p rogram . A p p l i c a t i o n !  f a l l i n g

*•**«•• HA-Llft Chart •/!-)f>tl .



125

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE. SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 
GUIDELINES FOR ALL TERMS OF 1995 
CONFIDENTIAL

I. ADMISSION OF FRESHMEN

A. DEFINITION OF A FRESHMAN APPLICANT: 
FTIAC (first time in any college). A freshm an  
is  d efin ed  as an en ter in g  stu d en t w ho has  
n ever  a tten d ed  any co lleg e  fo llow in g  h igh  
sch oo l graduation . This definition includes 
students enrolling in the fall term  who take col
lege classes as guest students in the sum m er 
im m ediately preceding the fall semester. The 
definition also applies to students who enter 
w ith advanced standing by earning college 
credit through Advanced Placem ent Exam ina
tions, or courses taken a t a college prior to high 
school graduation.

All o ther students will be designated as tran s
fer s tuden ts (Type 4) w ith Level (1 , 2 , 3 , 4) be
ing determ ined by the am ount of transferable 
credit projected for the term  of entry. This will 
include those freshm an level students who a t
tend college in the fall and apply for admission 
to LS&A for the w inter sem ester. They will be 
coded as transfer students (Type 4) a t the 
freshm an level (Level 1 ) and be evaluated ac
cording to transfer guidelines for W inter 1995

B. OVERVIEW OF ADMISSION POLICIES (F irst 
Review)

1. TERMS OF ADMISSION

Admission to LS&A will be highly selective 
for all four sem esters of the academic cal
endar. Adm ission  is granted to applicants 
w ith very competitive credentials ON A



126

ROLLING BASIS from early fall to No
vember 1 for w inter sem ester, and until 
February 1 for spring, sum m er, and fall 
sem esters.

W inter applicants who m eet competitive 
criteria based on the Fall 1995 guidelines, 
or who were previously adm itted, did not 
accept admission, and did not enroll in an
other institu tion  for the fall term , will be 
adm itted on a rolling basis through the No
vember 1 equal consideration deadline.* All 
o ther applicants with lower credentials will 
be denied admission. There will be no post
poned group for the w inter term . (Note: It 
is necessary to delay for a final high school 
transcrip t if  it has not been previously 
subm itted. A decline in the senior year 
grades is cause to deny admission even if 
the s tuden t was admissible based on 10th  
and 11th year GPA.)

*Students w ith the same credentials who 
do enroll in another college for the fall se
m ester will be coded as transfer students 
and adm itted if there was is no problem 
with senior year grades.

Spring admissions standards require the 
sam e competitive criteria as for all other 
term s. Applications will be accepted 
through the February 1 equal consideration 
deadline. S tudents who do not m eet the 
competitive guidelines will be denied ad
mission. There will be no postponed pool for 
spring sem ester.



127

The sum m er and fall group of applicants 
whose credentials fall in the range desig
nated  as qualified / non-competitive will be 
postponed  for a second review following the 
February  1 equal consideration deadline.

Sum m er and fall applicants whose creden
tials fall below the guidelines set for post
poned  applicants will be denied  admission 
on the first review.

2. ASSIGNED REVIEWER

a. Autom atic Review. Applicants whose 
credentials are a t a pre-determ ined 
level will be processed by an Automatic 
Adm it clerk from Central Services 
w ithout counselor review and either 
adm itted or denied admission. All 
autom atically adm itted students will 
have their essays and extracurricular 
activities reviewed by the counselor as
signed to their high school following 
admission to identify any outstanding 
achievement. Because of the extremely 
strong academic credentials of these 
autom atically adm itted students, the 
essay and extracurricular information 
will not be a factor in admission.

b. Counselor Reviewer.

(1) Applications with GPA1 and test 
scores outside the Automatic Re
view ranges will be reviewed by a 
counselor.

(2) All applications from private high 
schools where the class rank has to



f

be estim ated or adjusted will re
ceive counselor review.

(3) All applications from underrepre
sented minority groups will be re
viewed by counselors.

c. SCUGA Guidelines. SCUGA stands for 
School, Curriculum , U nusual, Geo
graphic, and Alumni factors th a t are 
taken  into consideration when review
ing applications. A combination of the 
SCUGA factors resu lt in the GPA2 or 
Index which is used in determ ining 
w hat action to take on the  studen t’s 
application in the first review process. 
The SCUGA instructions and guide
lines are located in a separate  docu
m ent and no longer p art of the LS&A 
guidelines because other units also use 
them  in developing the GPA2 Index.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Decisions will be based on the  following
criteria:

a. High School Graduation.

(1 ) all freshm an students are required 
to earn  a high school diploma (or 
GED equivalent for older students) 
prior to enrolling in the College.

(2) Exceptions to the  graduation 
requ irem ent may be m ade for ex
trem ely gifted and b rillian t s tu 
dents who m eet YSEP standards 
and are adm itted under those 
conditions. (Look in Table of

128



129

Contents for YSEP location in 
guidelines)

b. Course Preparation. All students are 
expected to take a dem anding college 
preparatory  curriculum in 9th through 
12th grades. The following minimum 
preparation is suggested for all student 
applying for admission to LS&A: Eng
lish -  4 years, foreign language -  2 
years (recommended 4 years), m athe
m atics -  3 years (through interm ediate 
algebra), science -  3 years (2 labora
tory science courses), social studies -  3 
years, and 5 additional courses to earn 
a total of 20 units of study.

c. Presidents Council Requirements. Fall 
of 1995 is the year the Presidents 
Council Requirem ents go into effect. 
S tudents have been asked to list on 
page 3 of the application the num ber of 
courses they will have completed th a t 
m eet the requirem ents.

(1) Counselors are to identify students 
who they postpone and are defi
cient in m eeting the presidents 
Council Requirem ents by noting 
the deficiencies on the face of the 
application (e.g. Pres. Coun. defic.
= 1 sem/yr soc stud).

(2) A copy of the face of the applica
tion is to be forward to MM for 
evaluation when we review appli
cations from the postponed pool.

d. S A T / A C T  scores.



130

(1) All freshm an applicants are re
quired to have the ir SAT/ACT 
scores sent directly from the test
ing agencies.

(2) The highest set of scores will be 
used to m ake the admission deci
sion.

(3) A list of postponed applicants 
whose new scores bump them into 
the adm it category will be run af
te r the receipt of December test 
tapes. The applications of students 
who become admissible will be 
pulled from the files and given to 
the counselors to take action.

*  *  *



131

Office of U ndergraduate Admissions CONFIDENTIAL
In ternal Use only

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE, 
SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 

GUIDELINES FOR ALL TERMS OF 1996
OUA Liaison:

OUA Backup 

LSA Contact:

LSA Academic 
Advising

LSA
Enrollment 
Working Group

M arilyn McKinney, 936-2786
Associate Director

Jay Basten, Assistant Director 747-1456

Esrold A. N urse, A ssistant 964-7297
Dean for S tudent Academic 
Affairs

1402 Mason Hall, 1027

Charles Judge, Director of 763-1042
Academic Services

1225 Angell Hall, 1003

John  R. Cross, Associate 763-3275
Dean for Budget and 
A dm inistration

2542 LSA Bldg. 1382

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(1996 changes are double underlined 
and in italicized font)

A dm ission  o f F resh m en

Adm issions Table I -  F irs t Review In s ta te  and 
Legacy.................................................................................. 1

Adm issions Table II -  F irs t Review O u t-o f-S ta te   2

LSA: M ost F requen tly  Used A ction/Letter C odes  3

Definition of A F reshm an  A pp lican t.............................. 4

Overview of Adm ission Policies (F irs t Review)..........  4



Terms of A dm ission .................................................. 4

A ssigned R eview er....................................................  4

A utom atic R eview ...................................................  4

C ounselor R ev iew er...............................................  5

SCUGA G u id e lin e s ................................................  5

G eneral R eq u irem en ts ............................................. 5

High School G rad u atio n ........................................ 5

Home Schooled S tuden ts  .............................. 5

Course P rep a ra tio n ................................................  5

P residen ts  Council R equ irem en ts.....................  5

SAT/ACT sco res ....................................................... 5

Special P rog ram s..................................................................  6

Honors P ro g ram .........................................................  6

In tegrated  Premedical-Medical Program (INTE- 
FL E X ).........................................................................  9

R esiden tia l C o llege ...................................................  n

P referred  A dm ission.................................................. n
D ual A dm ission .......................................................■............. n

G eneral Policy.............................................................  n

E xceptions....................................................................  n

School of Music and L S A .....................................  n

E ngineering  and LSA In te f le x ...........................  11

R esidential College and In te flex ........................ 12

Honors and O ther U n i ts ......................................  12

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ....................................................... 12

S tu d en ts  W ith Foreign Academic C reden tia ls .. 12

132



133

S tuden ts  W ith Mixed (Foreign/Domestic) Ed
ucational E xperiences..........................

Guideline E xceptions...........................................

U nderrep resen ted  M inority G ro u p s ....................
O ther P rio rity  G roups..................................

Special C o n sid e ra tio n ............................

A pplicants from U naccredited S choo ls ....................
D isab ilitie s ...........................................

Postponed Group R eview .........................

Extended W ait L i s t .....................................

Inapp rop ria te  U n it D esig n a tio n ...........................

Young Scholar Education Program  (Y S E P )..........

12

12

12

13

13

13

13

14 

14 

14 

14

A dm ission  o f N ew  T ransfer S tu d en ts
Adm ission Table III -  W in te r .....................

Adm ission Table IV — Spring/Sum m er.....
A dm ission Table V -  F a l l ............................

D efinition of New T ransfer S tu d e n ts .......
T ransfer T eam .............................................

T ransfer G uideline T ab les ..........................

Sem esters of A dm ission .................................

W inter S e m e s te r ....................................

Spring and Sum m er H alf Sem esters
Fall S e m e ste r .....................................

M inim um  P rep ara tio n  for T ran s fe r...........

Previous In s t i tu t io n ...............

15

16

17

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18



134

Previous Course W ork.................................................  19

High School P re p a ra tio n ............................................ 19

Total P re p a ra tio n .........................................................  19

Concern L e tte r ............................................................  19

T ransfer from U-M D earborn and U-M F lin t C am 
p u se s .......................................................................................  19

First-Y ear T ra n s fe r ...................................................... 19

T ransfer w ith C redit E arned  a t O ther In s titu 
tions P rior to Enrolling a t U-M D earborn or 
U-M F lin t...................................................................... 20

Required C reden tials  for all U-M D earborn 
and U-M F lin t A p p lican ts ....................................... 20

LSA Residency R equirem ent of 60 H o u rs .......... 20

Application D eadlines for A pplicants from U- 
M D earborn & U-M F l in t .....................................  20

Special C onsideration for New T ra n s fe rs .................... 20

P re req u is ite s ...............................................................  20

M inim um  H ours to T ra n s fe r ....................................  21

C redit E arned  in R esidence....................................... 21

Com prehensive S tudies P ro g ra m ...........................  21

H o n o rs .............................................................................  21

Bachelor of G eneral S tu d ies ...................................... 21

Incom pletes, W ithdraw als, R e p e a ts ....................... 21

U nderrepresen ted  M inority  S tu d e n ts ..............................  21

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ......................................................  22

A d m issio n  o f R e a d m its .................................................  22

Action of Readm ission A pplications...............................  22



C ro ss -C a m p u s  T r a n s f e r .....................................  03

F irs t-^ ea r Cross-Cam pus T ran sfe r......................  23

C ross-C am pus Transfer A fter More Than One
Y e a r............................................................................. 24

Action P rocedures..........................................  94

Rejection of C ross-Cam pus T ransfer -  Special 
P ro ced u res ................................................  24

N o n d e g re e  A d m is s io n s ............................................  25

C rite ria  for N ondegree A dm issions................................  25

Dual E nro llm ent for H igh Scholl S tu d en ts .......  25

Procedures for N ondegree A dm issions..........................  26

R egistration  and Course Selection......................... 26

Advising and M aintenance of S tu d en t Academic
F ile s .....................................................................................  26

Academic Advising for ND S tu d e n ts ................... 26
Application R eco rd s ...........................................  26

In te rp re ta tio n  of College Policies for ND 
S tu d e n ts ..............................................  27

Academic Review and Renewal of A dm ission ............  27
C hange of Degree S ta tu s ................................................... 27

Second U nderg raduate  Degree A dm ission..................  27

Supplem entary  In fo rm a tio n ............................................  29

T ransfer C redit E valuation  Policy.................................  29

LSA Acceptance of C redit P o lic ies.................................  29

Courses Taken by High School S tu d e n ts .....................  30

135



136

LSA Three-Part Composition Requirem ent......................  30

T ransfer A pplicants w ith  C redits in Excess of 75 
H ours (P olicy).........................................................  g j

Q u an tita tiv e  Reasoning: College R eq u irem en t.......... 31



137

LSA Frejhnun Guideline! - All 1996 Term! - TABLE I  
CONFIDENTIAL

IniUlt mil l.ctacv: Pint Review Deeiiion!

In Cener.l, uie the lop row in etch tell for mijorlly ipplicin l! »nd (he middle and 
boflom rowi for underrepresented minorllle! and olher difadrinlaged lludents.

0-17 11-19 20-21 22-2) 24-24 27-21 2900 n o ) H O C

<00-140 B50-920 9)0-1000 1010-1090 1090-1190 1200-1370 1200-1)50 1)40-1490 1500-1400
r t s t r t a t r t a t . . P D T E PDTE . .a a A A A A

>4 * A . . ACSP. . A . .ACSP A . .A C SP A A A A A
ABP . . DSF OSP

r t a t r t a t r t a t PDTE a A A A Aa A . . A C S P . . A . .ACSP A. .ACSP A. .ACSP A A A A
ABP . .DSP OSP

r t a t r t a t r t a t PDTE PDTE PDTE a a a
) . * - ! . 7 a A . . A C S P . . A . .A C SP A. .ACSP A . .A C SP A A A A

ADP. .DSP DSP

r t a t r t a t r t a t P D T E . . r t a t PDTE PDTE PDTE a a
1 .4 - 1 . 5 * A . . A C S P . . A. .ACSP A . .A C SP A. .ACSP A A A A

A B P . .0 S P DSP

ATBT B T f lT RT • T r t a t PDTE..OSSA PDTE..DSSR PDTE..DSSR PDTE..DSSR PDTE..DSSR
3.2  - 3 . 3 • A . . A C S P . . A . .A C SP A. .ACSP A. .ACSP A . .ACSP A . .A C SP A A

a d p . . o s r OSP

AT B T R T ST RT ST r r A t r a a r r a a r r a a r r a a r PDTE..DSSR
3 .0 -3 .1 * A . . A C S P . . ACSP ACSP A . .ACSP A. .ACSP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP

ADP. .DSP o s r

A A A T A B i T R A A T r r A t r a a r r a a r r a a r r a a r PDTE..DSSR
l . B - l . J a d c s p DCSP o c r OCP DCP DCP DCP- DCP

( B P ) (ACSP) (ACSP) (ACSPI (ACSP) (ACSP) (ACSP) (A c s r i

A A 4T A A AT A A AT AA AT ABBA RS S A Rflf l A AB BA r a a r
J . 4 -1 .7 • DCSP DCSP o e s r o c r  (DPI DCF (DPI DCP (DPI DCP (BP) DCP |DP|

( B P ) (A C S P . . (B P )
R/MIHI

A A A T A A AT ARAT AA AT ABBA ABBA ABB  A AB BA r a a r
2. 4 -2 .5 ABIT ABAT o e s r DCSP DCP |BP) DCr (DP) DCP (BP| o c r  ( b p i DCP (BP)

B /H IH R / H I H IBP) (0P)

B A I T B A A T A A AT A A A T ABBA A(1B A ABBA AB BA r a a r
S 2 . ) AA iT RB AT k b i t RSSA RSSA RSSR RSSR RSSA RSSA

B /M IH R/MIN B /M IH A/MIH B/MIM A/MIN R/HIH R/HIH K / M I H

r.> « fn llr . l im i t  i ik J c m i  >1 it*  l i t  o> J T X  If I txn  n t  m  itH ov t ic f k lt iK W l.  0< ixnt1r . l im it  lop !%  from cotm ilci 
•  itx t  I k n  I I .U p to n . M ttetnb. O t l l i . i ,  W l l l t lC M .  ot W ifM  II Ihctt t ic  no I t l lo o l ic r k l t iK k l .
Itivcott III e ir ir t to n i lo t mi|o<ltr  ip p lic im i Him  lo ll o u l l l ic  tl«  | v i i t l i n t l  with M M .

A in n ik  m im t . w i l l ,  out to be h lm llk i .  O j i t . i t  t i l  c ic i| i l lo o i lo t mUcxIty ip f l t c io ll  Itiil M l  m i  H it  Uh  ( o lJ t l l t n l with IV. 
N O T L . A l l  idm iu  I .  Summit O lii|< . jn iu H r m u a t C i l  t l  t ilfa u  fTT IV  ftt M M  h f lm . .n U .  t o ....... r n . l,,im i,

i i i i i i n n n i i i i
unn  005774

READ IN G  T H E C D -L S

A. TOP ROW
I. Mikwllr derlilofli are rn ide hated on itir 

All ndtnit e i_  or
f»|«l B O L D  C A P  mifkitpi arc dent"  
automatically by elerki, Lowtr (i k  admit and 
reject declalona art made by counitloa. All 
dctliloni determined through S C U O A  
nd/uitmenti art made by counselor!.
2. Due to the variety of LtMcn that can be 
orderrd with a tin fie Action code. the anonym 
U  the top row of rath cell la an Action code 
other than a Letter code. Countelon need t«» 
refer to the accompanying Guide for 
Actlon/Lctter combination! to determine the 
appropriate letter to order.
3. In the past lew years, foe capedicncy. wc 
eliminated aendin| Delay for Grade! 
fDGFVDelay for Scorn (DSFyDtlay for Grade! 
and Scorn (DGSF) letten to majority itudrnii 
In LSA and Engineering units. If the student'! 
credential! fed In a ponponed cell, we alwayi 
entered a ponponed (PDTE Action codel 
markup, and aent the Delay Decision (DD) 
letter. Ihil K M .  m i M t l M  hire the option to

DQJclltf. 01 If thCT hlTC gpoccra! about the

code for this delay la DSSR. Either POTE or 
DSSR can be appropriate depending on the 
ipcdflc clrcomitancci.

1. C  own it ton m e  middle and bottom row i of a 
cell to make dcdiloni on all •adcrrrpmcnted 
minority or other diiadvantigcd ihideati.
2. The ■nderrcpreienied minority end other 
diiadvantagcd student pool h u  aeveral specific 
letten to lend depending on each onl^ve 
circumstance. and iliertfore,
3. The admit and delay acronym a on (he middle 
and bottom rowi of the ecll arc Letter code*, 
not Action codci. Connie Ion need to refer to 
the O mIJc for Acilon/Letier romblnationi to 
enter the coned Action codl acronym.
4. The reject acronym! ara Action codri with 
the A/MIN letter ai the pcraonallicd reject 
letter to be tent.
5. The acronym In parcntheili fi the Inter to 
be lent if requeued information li acceptable. 
Questions are to be icfcncd to IV.

|A*i*4 f O t U « | l M i r U k  t l  LM Om i i s  I n n a t e  t t - t l / t - M



138 i im n n M
UMA 00S77 5

LSA Freihmin Guidelines - A ll 1996 Terms - TABLE I I  
CONFIDENTIAL E E A lU N f i - n i rm i ' s  .

In Gentrbl, use Ihe lop row In n th  cell for majority applicant] anti use Ihf middle and
bullom rAW< fur limlrrrrnraf anlail mlainrlllaa ami n I It a r >l!t ail w>nl

0 0 7 18-17 20-21 2 2 0 1 24-26 27-28 21-20 J 1 -31 14-16

<00-840 050-120 7 )0 -1000 1010-1080 1010-1110 1200-1220 1280-1350 11(0-1410 1500 -1 (00
r t a t r t n t r t a t PDTB A A A A A

>1 * A . .ACSP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A A A A A
DSF DSP

r t a t r t n t r t a t PDTC PDTE A A K A
1 .1 0 . 7 • A . .ACSP A. .ACSP A . .A C SP A. .ACSP A A A A

DSP DSP

r t n t r t n t r t n t POTt PDTC PDTB PDTE a
1 . 1 0 . 7 ' A . .ACSP A . .A C SP A. .ACSP A. .ACSP A A A A

o s r DSP

r t n t r t n t r t a t r t a t PDTC PDTB PDTB PDTE PDTB1 . 4 0 . 5 • A . .ACSP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A A A A
o s r DSP

ATdT A T d T A T dT r t n t r a a r r a a r P D T E . . DSSA PDTB . . DSSR PDTE..DSSA1 . 1 0 . 1 * A . .ACSP A. .ACSP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A . .ACSP A . .A C SP A A
o s r OSP

. AT I T A T I T A T I T A T d T m a r r a a r r a a r r a a r P D T E . . r a a r
A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A. .ACSP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP A . .A C SP
o s r o s r

A A AT A A AT AA A T AA A T RAAT A dd A r a a r r a a r P D T E . . r a a r2 . 8 0 . 7 * d o s t DGSF DGF o c r DGF DGP DGP DGP
(A C S P . . IhCSPI ( A c s n IhCSPI IAC3PI (ACSP) (ACSP) I h c s r i
A/HIN)

A A AT A A A T AA A T AA A T A 8 ■ A A d d A AB BA AB BA P D T E . . r a a r< • * 0 .7 * o e s r DGSF DGSF DGP DGF DGF DGF DGF(A C SP . . ( A C S P . . I h C S P . . (A C S P . . 1 ACSP . . ( A C S P . . ( A C S P . . ( A C S P . .A/M1NJ R/MINI R/MIH) R/MINI R/HIH) n/MINI R/HIH) R/HIH)

A A A T A A AT AAAT AAAT Ad 0 A Rdd  A A B B A A d d A< • 4 0 .5 RAlT AAIT DGSF DGSF DCF DGF DGF DCF DGFA/HIN n/HIM (A C S P . . ( A C S P . . (A C S P . . (A C S P . . ( A C S P . . ( A C S P . . ( a c s f . .A/MIMI R/H1N) A/HIN) R/HIH) A/HIH) R/HIH) R/HIH)

AA AT A A AT AAAT AAAT A dd  A A dd A A B B A A B 8A* 2.1 AAIT AAAT AAAT RSSA RSSA ASSA RSSR RSSA RSSAA/HIH n/HIN R/HIN R/HIH R/HIH A/HIH R/MIM R/HIH R/r i iN

■umn lUHicmt M Ihc t *■+ II mere arc no tciioot deficKnctet.... ' -- ----* •iinnntni,
,  in t>«r<Kxi ii» m iH i'r •ra,w*«* 'M  tan m m i  n* g.kitiinci »m, mm .

Au.iiiv • ■•••iir xh 1. 1< oJminca. u iw .it >n <t:tpiio.i i<* minority tITik ..ti  it»i fin n n k ii ih« i.u ti io t .  .Hh »v.
ti«iaifO )lt.iiM ifiii f t m i rw h i tw i.« |.|iii t i t  H iH t

A J B C 1 Q H

I. U iioUULdcd ilim ujcjn iilcJiucitoA itK  
n n u n a J a  i m  i p .  o f m h  rtn a m  aJm ii or 

B O L D  C A f  m a il.p a  a it  dottt 
automallcally b r d e l 11 Lower ra w  aJm il gn j 
re|et1 drc lilo ria  a it  n i f i  by c o g n it io n . A l l  
d e c la im  4(ttrm lnc4  ihroggh S C IIC A  
•dygaimcnta I I I  made by co g n it io n .
I .  Doc 10 ihc aariciy o f U l i c i i  itu t can be 
otdcrce » lih  a a ln |lc  Action  code. Ihc anonym  
In ihc toy row o f each ce ll la an A d lo n  code 
n ihce  than a L c llc r  code. C o g n it io n  need lu 
ic f c l M  the a ram yany lng  G o idc  for 
A d lo n / L i l i t r  com b lna lign l lo  determine ihc 
appropriate Id le r lo  aider.
J. la  ihc pan feo  yean, for capedienry. we 
elim inated tending Delay for G radei 
(O CFVD c lay  for S co rn  ID SFyD e lay  for G radn  
and S co rn  (D G SF) lc llc r . lo  mafoeliy aiodrnla 
In L S A  and Engineering ond i. If dm arodrnt l  
crcdcnlla la fe ll In a poaiponcd te ll,  we a lo a y i 
emceed a ponponed (PD T C  Action  code) 
m a i l^ .  and aenl Ihc Delay D ec la im  ( 0 0 )

nil m i .  unitifiwi hilt lht ooiion lo 
P u t  »0 c l lharf l fD T E A n ion f n lr and tend the 
D P  tau t, m  If Ihcy hare  rn n rem i .hnm ihc 
Ue t i  la I  Itad u l 'l  m dc i and nerd t a c t  
U fm B U lia .  before determ ining j^gg 
A cl iw  ghoti ld bt -  a PGP Intel ran he il 
t t g u tllla e  fa ll lem en rr ggggn The Adlon 
code foe ihla delay le D S S fL  Either POTE or 
U SSR  can bo appropriate depending on llic 
• p t t lf k  c lm m tta n c c i.

n ^ M n m i A M i i n m i D M i i Q w s
I. Cmmiclofi me middle and bottom nr*i of > 
eetl le  m e lt  dc* It lone m  a ll ondcrrep frira irJ 
m inority m  either disadvantaged itadenu.
I. The nndem pfceeMcd m inority and other 
d liadvto iaged  •'■dent pool hat a cn ra l ip ce lfc  
K fler* to tend depending on coeh tralquc 
c lm em riin ce , and therefore.
) .  The ndmlt and detajr aeronytni on the middle 
•nd bottom eowi o f the ce ll arc Letter codei. 
hot A  f t  Ion codei. Covn ieto rt need In refer la 
the Gvlde foe AetlonfLetter enmbinailont in 
eniet the coereel Aetlon code acronym.
4. The refect anonym t are A rtipn  eodn  with 
ll»e A /M IN  letter at rite perannalued icfevt 
lerter to  be cent.
J . The acronym In paremhcilt It the letter in 
be len t If requeued Information it  acceptable 
(Joe itlon i arc to be referred in  IV.



139

LSA: MOST FREQUENTLY USED ACTION,'LETTER 
CODES

Prepared Letterbook
Action! s) Letter ID [by: SECTION
A A ITD Admit
[A A NOEDR ITD Admit
A ABP ITD CSP
I
A ABP NOEDR ITD CSP
A ABPRC ITD CSP
S - ABPRCNEDR ITD CSP
A ACSP ITD CSP
A ACSPNOEDR ITD CSP
A ACSPRC ITD CSP
A ACSPRCNED ITD CSP
[a- AINT ITD Admit
A APH ITD Admit
A APHINT ITD Admit
A APHNOEDR ITD Admit
A APHRC ITD Admit
A APHRCNED ITD Admit
A APHRCINT ITD Admit
A APHRCINTNED Computer Admit
A ARC ITD Admit
A ARC NOEDR ITD Admit
A NA ITD Admit
A OTA ITD Admit
A OTA-CSP ITD CSP
A STA/CC/R ITD Admit
A STA/NT ITD Admit
{a- STA/NT NE ITD Admit
DCT/MCT,
DOTH/MOTH,
DR&T/MR&T,
DSSR/MSSR,
DTST/MTST,
DELP/MELP D Com puter

Postpone/
Delay



140

DIV, DOTH IV Computer
Postpone/
Delav

DOTH CDF ITD
Postpone/
Delav

DOTH CDT ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DOTH DAB-L Computer
Postpone/
Delav

DR&T DGSF ITD
Postpone/
Delav

DSRV DSR ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DSSR DGF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DTST DSF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

None BC Preprin t Admit
None C-L Glossary Admit
None FPD Computer Admit
None HC ITD Admit
None RES ITD Misc.
None RES-MIL Computer Misc.
None RINT ITD Reject
None YW/B ITD Admit

PDTE DD ITD
Postpone/
Delay

1
[PDTE PT ITD

Postpone/
Delay

R, RCT, RELP, 
ROTH, RFAC, 
RSSR RT ITD Reject
R, RELP, RIV, 
RR&T, RSSR, 
[RTST, RFAC R ITD Reject
R, RELP, RIV, 
RR&T, RSST, 
RTST R/MIN ITD

Reject & 
CSP



141

1RCT, ROTH CRT ITD Reject
lRFAC, RSSR FYR-L ITD — --------------Reiect
[WSSR, WCT,
WTST, WELP,
WIV, WAUD,
WPRT, WRSP,
WOTH WDW Computer

W ithdrawal/
Cancel

fahared/Guidelines/LSA 96-LSA Action & Letter Codes/9-96 :

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 
GUIDELINES FOR ALL TERMS OF 1996 
CONFIDENTIAL

L ADMISSION OF FRESHMEN

A. DEFINITION OF A FRESHMAN APPLICANT: 
FTIAC (first tim e in any college). A freshm an  
is  d efin ed  as an en ter in g  stu d en t w ho has  
n ev er  a tten d ed  any co lleg e  fo llow in g  h igh  
sch oo l graduation . This definition includes 
studen ts enrolling in the fall term  who take col
lege classes as guest students in the sum m er 
im m ediately preceding the fall sem ester. The 
definition also applies to students who enter 
w ith advanced standing by earning college 
credit through Advanced Placem ent Exam ina
tions, or courses taken a t a college prior to high 
school graduation.

All o ther students will be designated as tran s
fer studen ts (Type 4) with Level (1 , 2 , 3, 4) be
ing determ ined by the am ount of transferable 
credit projected for the term  of entry. This will 
include those freshm an level students who a t
tend college in the fall and apply for admission 
to LSA for the w inter sem ester. They will be 
coded as transfer students (Type 4) a t the 
freshm an level (Level 1) and be evaluated ac
cording to transfer guidelines for W inter 1996



142

B. OVERVIEW OF ADMISSION POLICIES (First
Review)

1. TERMS OF ADMISSION

Admission to LSA will be highly selective 
for all four sem esters of the academic cal
endar. Admission is granted to applicants 
w ith very competitive credentials on a roll
ing basis from early fall to November 1 for 
w inter sem ester, and until February 1 for 
spring, summer, and fall sem esters.

W inter applicants who m et competitive 
criteria  based on the Fall 1996 guidelines, 
or who were previously adm itted, did not 
accept admission, and did not enroll in an
other institu tion for the fall term , will be 
adm itted on a rolling basis through the No
vem ber 1 equal consideration deadline.* All 
other applicants w ith lower credentials will 
be denied admission. There will be no post
poned group for the w inter term. (Note: It 
is necessary to delay for a final high school 
transcrip t if it has not been previously 
subm itted. A decline in the senior year 
grades is cause to deny admission even if 
the s tuden t was admissible based on 10th 
and 11 th  year GPA.)

*Students with the same credentials who 
do enroll in another college for the fall se
m ester will be coded as transfer students 
and adm itted if there  was no problem with 
senior year grades.

Spring admissions standards require the 
same competitive criteria as for all other 
terms. Applications will be accepted through 
the February 1 equal consideration deadline.



143

Students who do not meet the competitive 
guidelines will be denied admission. There 
will be no postponed pool for spring semester.

The sum m er and fall group of applicants 
whose credentials fall in the range desig
nated as qualified/non-competitive will be 
postponed for a second review following the 
February  1 equal consideration deadline.

Sum m er and fall applicants whose creden
tials fall below the guidelines set for post
poned applicants will be denied admission 
on the first review.

2. ASSIGNED REVIEWER

a■ Autom atic Review. Applicants whose 
credentials are a t a pre-determ ined 
level will be processed by an Automatic 
A dm it clerk from Central Services 
w ithout counselor review and either 
adm itted or denied admission. All 
autom atically adm itted students will 
have the ir essays and extracurricular 
activities reviewed by the counselor as
signed to the ir high school following 
adm ission to identify any outstanding 
achievement. Because of the extremely 
strong academic credentials of these 
autom atically adm itted students, the 
essay and extracurricular information 
will not be a factor in admission.

b. Counselor Reviewer.

(1) Applications w ith GPA1 and test 
scores outside the Automatic Re
view ranges will be reviewed by a 
counselor.



144

(2) All applications from private high 
schools where the class rank has to 
be estim ated or adjusted will re
ceive counselor review.

(3) All applications from underrepre
sented minority groups will be re
viewed by counselors.

c. SCUGA Guidelines. SCUGA stands for 
School, Curriculum, U nusual, Geo
graphic, and Alumni factors th a t are 
taken  into consideration when review
ing applications. A combination of the 
SCUGA factors result in the GPA2 or 
Index which is used in determ ining 
w hat action to take on the studen t’s 
application in the first review process. 
The SCUGA instructions and guide
lines are located in a separate  docu
m ent and no longer p a rt of the LSA 
guidelines because other units also use 
them  in developing the GPA2 Index.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Decisions will be based on the following
criteria:

a. High School Graduation.

(1) ALL freshm an students are re
quired to earn a high school di
ploma (or GED equivalent for 
older students) prior to enrolling 
in the College.

(2) Exceptions to the graduation re
quirement may be made for ex
tremely gifted and brilliant students



145

who m eet YSEP standards and are 
adm itted under those conditions. 
(Look in Table of Contents for 
YSEP location in guidelines)

(3) Home schooled students whose 
srades do not reflect a measure o f 
accomplishment from participation 
in a typical classroom with other 
students, will have to satisfy addi
tional standards which will assure 
they are as competitively adm issi
ble as students who attend public 
or private h ish schools. See M M  for 
specific requirements.

b. Course Preparation. All students are 
expected to take a demanding college 
preparatory  curriculum  in 9th through 
12th grades. The following minimum 
preparation is suggested for all studen t 
applying for admission to LSA: English 
-  4 years, foreign language -  2 years 
(recommended 4 years), m athem atics -  
3 years (through interm ediate algebra), 
science -  3 years (2 laboratory science 
courses), social studies -  3 years, and 5 
additional courses to earn a total of 20 
units of study.

c. Presidents Council Requirements. The 
Presidents Council Requirements went 
into effect in the Fall o f 1995. S tudents  
have been asked to list on page 3 o f the 
application the number o f courses they 
will have completed that meet the re
quirements.



146

(1) Deficiencies in the Presidents 
Council Requirements will be a 
factor taken into consideration
during selection o f students from
the postponed pool.

d. SAT/ACT scores. (All SAT scores
reflect the Recentered Scale)

(1) All freshm an applicants are re
quired to have the ir SAT/ACT 
scores sent directly from the te s t
ing agencies.

(2) The highest set of scores will be 
used to make the admission deci
sion.

(3) A list of postponed applications
whose new scores bump them  into 
the adm it category will be run pe
riodically after the receipt o f fall 
test tapes. The applications of s tu 
dents who become admissible will 
be pulled from the files and given 
to the counselors to take action.

*  *  *



147

Office of U ndergraduate Admissions CO NFID EN TIA L
Internal Use only

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE,
SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 

GUIDELINES FOR ALL TERMS OF 1997
OUA Liaison M arilyn McKinney, 936-2786

Associate Director
OUA B a c k u p ________ Associate Director

LSA Liaison Esrold A. N urse, A ssistant 964-7297
Dean for S tudent Academic 
Affairs

1402 Mason Hall, 1027

LSA Contact Charles Judge, Director of 764-0311
Academic Standards 

1219 J  Angell Hall, 1003

LSA Enrollment John R. Cross, Associate 763-3275
Working Group Dean for Budget and
Representative A dm inistration

2542 LSA Bldg. 1382

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
A d m issio n  o f  F re s h m e n

Adm issions Table I -  F irs t Review In s ta te  and 
Legacy.................................................................................. 1

Adm issions Table II -F ir s t  Review O u t-o f-S ta te ......  2

LSA: Most F requen tly  Used A ction/Letter C odes.....  3

D efinition of A F reshm an  A pp lican t.............................. 4

Overview of A dm ission Policies (F irs t Review ).......... 4

Terms of A dm ission .................................................  4

A ssigned R ev iew er.................................................  4



148

A utom atic R eview ................................................... 4

Counselor R ev iew er...............................................  5

SCUGA G u id e lin es ................................................  5

G eneral R eq u irem en ts ............................................. 5

High School G rad u a tio n ........................................ 5

Home Schooled S tuden ts  .............................. 5

Course P rep a ra tio n ................................................  5

P residen ts Council R equ irem en ts.....................  5
G rade-Point A v e ra g e ............................................  5

ACT/SAT I sco res....................................................  6

Special P rog ram s..................................................................  6

Honors P ro g ram .........................................................  6

In tegrated  Premedical-Medical Program  (INTE- 
FL EX ).........................................................................  10

R esidential C o lleg e ...................................................  12

P referred  A dm ission.................................................. 12

D ual A dm ission ....................................................................  12

G eneral Policy.............................................................  12

E xceptions....................................................................  12

School of M usic and L S A .....................................  12

Engineering  and LSA In te fle x ...........................  12

R esidential College and In te flex ........................ 13
Honors and O ther U n i ts ....................................... 13

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ....................................................... 13

S tuden ts  W ith Foreign Academic C reden tia ls .. 13

S tuden ts  W ith M ixed (Foreign/Dom estic) E d
ucational E xperiences...........................................  13



149

Additional Factors Affecting Composition of Stu
dent B ody...............................................................  23

D iversity G ro u p ......................................................  23

Priority G ro up s.........................................................  24

Special Considerations............................................ 24

Applicants from Unaccredited Sch ools........................  14

D isab ilities............................................................. 24

Postponed Group R eview ..............................................  24

Extended W ait L i s t ....................................................... 25

Inappropriate Unit D esignation.......................................  25

Young Scholar Education Program (Y S E P )..................  15

A dm ission  o f N ew  T ransfer S tu d en ts
Admission Table III -  W’in te r ............................................ 26

Admission Table IV — Spring/Summer............................  17

Admission Table V -  F a l l ...................................................  28

Definition of New Transfer Students............................... 19

Transfer T eam ....................................................................  29

Transfer Guideline T ables...............................................  29

Sem esters of Adm ission........................................... 29

W inter S em ester..............................................  29

Spring and Summer H alf Sem esters..................  19

Fall Sem ester....................................................... 29

Minimum Preparation for T ran sfer..............................  19

Previous In stitu tion ................................................  29

Previous Course W ork............................................. 20



150

High School P rep aration ........................................  20

Total P reparation ...................................................... 20

Concern L etter........................................................  20

Transfer from U-M Dearborn and U-M Flint Cam 
p uses................................................................................... 20

First-Year T ra n sfe r..................................................  20

Transfer with Credit Earned at Other Institu
tions Prior to Enrolling at U-M Dearborn or 
U-M F lin t.................................................................. 21

Required Credentials for all U-M Dearborn 
and U-M Flint A p p lican ts...................................  21

LSA  Residency Requirement of 60 H ours.......... 21

Application Deadlines for Applicants from U- 
M Dearborn & U-M F lin t.......................................  21

Issues to be Considered for all New Transfer Appli
cants ...................................................................................... 21

Prerequisites................................................................. 21

Minimum Hours to T ran sfer...................................  22

Credit Earned in Residence...................................... 22

Comprehensive Studies P rogram ...........................  22

H on ors............................................................................ 22

Bachelor of General Studies.....................................  22

Incompletes, W ithdrawals, R e p ea ts......................  22

Contribution to a Diverse Student Body......................... 23

International S tu d en ts........................................................  23

Admission of R eadm its........................................................  23

Action of Readmission Applications.................................  23



151

Cross-Campus T ran sfer....................................................  24

First-Year Cross-Campus Transfer...................... 24

Cross-Campus Transfer After More Than One 
Y e a r ...........................................................................  25

Action Procedures...............................................................  25

Rejection of Cross-Campus Transfer -  Special 
Procedures........................................................................ 26

N o n d eg ree  A d m is s io n s ................................................. 26

C riteria for Nondegree Adm issions................................ 26

Dual Enrollm ent for High School Stud ents......  27

Procedures for Nondegree Adm issions.........................  28

Registration and Course Selection................................. 28

Advising and M aintenance of Student Academic 
F ile s ....................................................................................  28

Academic Advising for ND S tu d en ts ..................  28

Application R ecord s................................................. 28

Interpretation of College Policies for ND 
S tu d en ts...................................................................  29

Academic Review and Renewal of A dm ission............  29

Change of Degree S ta tu s ..................................................  29

Second Undergraduate Degree Adm ission..................  29

Supplem entary Inform ation............................................ 31

Transfer Credit Evaluation P olicy................................. 31

LSA  Acceptance of Credit P olicies.................................  31

Courses Taken by High School S tu d en ts..................... 32



152

LSA Three-Part Composition Requirement......................  32

Transfer Applicants w ith Credits in Excess of 75 
Hours (Policy)..................................................................  33

Q uantitative Reasoning: College Requirem ent.......... 33



153

LSA Freihman Guidelines • 997 Terms - T A B LE I
GONFIDbn I1AL

imuic and laacxLflnLBcilcae Dcchlotu

tJu (hr ariloo In She lop row of lh< (rid for iludcots In general.
Ux (he acllon in Ihe bottom row for students whose
(iperlcoces reflect those In Area IV of Ihe "LT'nusual factor of S C U C A .

A C T/SA T  Scores

>#l#ciion
01 - It t o i l n i l K ' i i 27-24 29-10 11-12 11-31 IS-It

liwlfi too-uo 110-1000 1010-1010 10(0-1110 1100-1170 i iao-nso neo -m o MS0-1S20 1S10-UO0

>i
d m / * d m / p d t * d m / p d t * / * 4 A A A A A

d m  /a d m / * * d m / * * a a a a a a

).«•).»
d m / * d m / p d t * d m / p d t * / a a K k a k k

d t u / t d m / * * d m / * * *• a a a a a

1.4-1.7
d m / * d m / p d t * d m / p d t * pdt*/* pdt*/* a a a a

d m  /A d t i t /* * d m / a * *• I* *• »• a* *•

).«•). s
dr I t /* d r l t / p d t* d r l t / p d t* d r l t / p d t * dss r /pd t* a a a a

d m / S d r l t /«• d r l t /* * d r l t / * * d*tr/a* *• *• *• »*

1.7-1.1
d m / * d r l t / p d t* d r l t / p d t* d r l t / p d t * dsar/pdt* dsar/pdt* dssr/pdt* d s s r /pd t* dssr/pdta

d r l t / A d r l t / * ' d r i t /» * d r l t / *  * d** r /a • ds*r/»* ds»r/»* dssr/** dssr/*  *

1.0 - l . |
d r l l / r r l t d r l t / r r l t d r l l / r r l t d r l t / p d t * dsar/pdta dsar/pdt* dssr/pdt* dsar/pdt* dssr/pdt*

d t i . l / 4 d r l t / * 1* dr l t /*** d r l t / *  * • d s s r / * * • da s r /a * • dssr/** * dssr/*** daar/a* *

) .» • ! .»
M l i T d r l t / r r l t d r l i / r r u d r l l / r r l t d i s r / r a s r d s s r / r a a r dssr/pdt* dsar/pdt* dss r /pd t*

r r u d r l l / r r l t d r l l / r r l t d r i t / r r i t d s s r / r t s r d s i r / r a s r d s s r /* ” d jar/*** d s s r / a * •

1 4-7.7
M i T a a  4? m t U H H S R r s s r RSSR RSBR Rflfl A

r r u r r u r r l t raar raar raar raar raar raar

/ . ( - l . S
H I T AA4T A1UT H H AflflR R8SR RBBR A i« A ASS A

r r u r r u r r u raar raar raar raar raar raar

i 1.1
H k T H U RISIT a a a a M a i RRflR R B I I A S fl A R88R

r r u r r u m t raar raar raar raar raa r raa r

CMMiUtr. tOsii ius<au u Ux (It •! t»t If ikcr* *i< m itriMi Atficloxlu, OcnenDr. admit lop J» from cwmJa 

oUin Iku Lita|iua, H>m V OUUod. Wuliut* «i Wijmt l( Data *r« m lukwi d<fkltnclet.

• H ia i  wail), M  II U  Idnaus. Diiruu III nuptoni (hit fill ouulfc Ox (uldrlmri with MM.
a Muai wwihf Ml II M id™.Ml Ououi iU udpimi (m Aim IV *U* f*c1<* ippUcuU IMI fill oulild* Ox |«ldtllKJ »ltfi IV , OT, MM.TJ w RS.

Insi/uctJonj

1. Ccdilom a/c made hated m ih- 
action acronym of each n-ii au 
admit or reject BOLD UPPER 
CASE markups are done ■ ■ 
automatically by clerks. Lowercase 
admit and reject decisions are made 
by counselors. All decisions 
determined through SCTJGA 
adjustments are made by counselors.
2. If there Is more than one action on 
a line within a cell, the rust option is 
usually the preferred action. If a 
delay for grades (dssr) Is not 
Indicated, a declining trend in grades 
would wanam delaying for fall term 
grades regardless of the designated 
action. Counselors need to refer to 
the accompanying Guide for 
Actlon/Letter combinations to 
determine the appropriate leuer 
markup.

Legend for Actions in T>h|r

A Automatic admit
a counselor admit
a* CSP option
»** Bridge option,
dr&t delay for secondary school 

record and test scores 
dssr delay for secondary school record
dtst delay for test scores
pdte postpone
rr&t reject secondary school record

. and test scores
rssr reject for secondary school record
rtst rejeci for test scores



154

LSA Freihmin Guidelines - All 1997 Terms - t a j b l i  i i  
CONFIDENTIAL

Out-of-Statc: First Review Decision!

l)«  lb* action Is  lb* lop  row of- lb* g rld -fo r-a tad co tifn  ■gtr»tr*l.-
llit (be action la tbc bottom row for itu d tn lj who»«
tip tf l tn c t i  reflect Iboit In Area IV of the "U "nujual factor of SCUGA.

i i i i i i i n i i i i H
UMA 0 0 5 8 1 3

ACT/SAT Scorn

S«l*ci ion
0| • It ao-ai 22*2) 74-71 27-21 2900 31*32 n o r IS- l l

lrw)*a 100-920 n o -iooo 1010*1010 1090-1190 1200-1270 I7S0-IISO n io - i r t o MSA-1570 ISIO-MOO

>1
d ra t /* dta t/pdt* dcat/pdta/a a K K K k k

d la t /A dc ic/a* dcac/a* i A A a a a

d i l l / * d ta t /p d t t dtac/pdea d ta t/pd ta k k k k k

d la t /A dlac/a* d ia c / i* A * A A a a a

I t ) . 7
dea i/a dta t/pdt* dcac/pdea pdta pdta pdta a a a

deat/A dtat/a* dtac/a* a* a* a* a* a* »•

) . ! • ) . S
d r l t / a d r l t / p d ta d r l l /p d c  a d r l t / p d t a daar/pdta daar/pdta - daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta

dr I t / A d r l t / a ' d r l t / a * d r l t / a * daar/a* a* a* a* a*

l . M . J
d r ie /a d r l l / p d t * d r l l / p d t a d r l t / p d t a daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta

d r u / A d r l t /a * d r l t /a * d r l t / a * daar/a* daar/a* daar/a* da ir /a* daar/a *

I . 0 - ) . 1
d i i i / r n t d r l t / r r i t d r l t / r r i t d r l t / p d t a daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta

d r i t / A d r l t / a * /
r r u

d r u / i ' /
r r u

d r l t / a * /
r r i t

daar/a*/
raar

daar/a*/
raar

daer/a*/
raar

daar/a*/
raar

daar/a*/
raar

- 2 -»
M I T d r i t / r t i t d r l t / r r i t d r l t / r r i t daar/raa r daar/raa r daar/pdta daar/pdta daar/pdta
f f U d r l t / r r t c d r l t / r r i t d r l t / r r i t daa r / raa r daar/raa r d aa r / raa r d aa r / raa r daa r / raa r

I - *-2.7
HRIT RRIT RR iT RflIR RflBR RflflR RflflR RflflR RflflR

r r u r r u r r l t raar raar raar raar raar raar

L t - I . S
RMiT RR4 ? R R U l i r a RflflR RflflR RflflR RflflR RflflR

r r u r r u r r i t r f  or raar raar raar raar raar

i 7.)
R U T RR4T R R U RflBR RflflR RflflR RflflR RflflR RflflR
r r I t r r u r u t raar raar raar raar raar raar

,WJ •• *** ^ u t  m  im w i Ocfcltacki.

Instructions

1. Decisions arc marie h»sr<| pn ^  
action acronym of each ceil, au 
admit or reject DOLD UPPER 
CASE markups are done - 
automatically by clerks. Lowercase 
admit and reject decisions are made 
by counselor!. All decisions 
determined through SCUGA 
adjustments are made by counselors.
2. If there Is more than one action on 
a line within a cell, the first option is 
usually the preferred action. If a 
delay for grades (dssr)lsnot 
Indicated, a declining trend In grades 
would wanant delaying for fall term 
grades regardless of the designated 
action. Counselors need to re f a  to 
the accompanying Guide for 
Actlon/Letier combinaiions to 
determine the appropriate lena  
markup.

Lttcnd for Actions In Tahir

A Automatic admit 
a counselor admit 
a* CSP option 
dr&t delay for secondary school 

record and test scores 
dssr delay far secondary school recoid 
dtst delay far test scores 
pdte postpone
rr&t reject secondary school record 

and lest scores
rssr • reject for secondary school record 
nst reject for test scores



155

LSAS: MOST FREQUENTLY USED ACTION/LETTER 
CODES

Prepared ILetterbook
Action! s) Letter ID (by: SECTION
A A ITD Admit
A A NOEDR ITD Admit
A ABSUM ITD CSP

!A ABSUMNEDR ITD CSP
A ABSUMRC ITD CSP
A ABSUMRCNE ITD CSP
A ACSP ITD CSP
A ACSPNOEDR ITD CSP
A ACSPRC ITD CSP
A~~ ACSPRCNED ITD CSP
A AINT ITD Admit
A APH ITD Admit
A APHINT ITD Admit

APHNOEDR ITD Admit
APHRC ITD Admit

A APHRCNED ITD Admit
A APHRC INT ITD Admit
A ARC ITD Admit
\a ~ ARC NOEDR ITD Admit
Ia NA ITD Admit
A OTA ITD Admit
A OTA-CSP ITD CSP
A STA/CC/R ITD Admit
A STA/NT ITD Admit
A STA/NT NE ITD Admit
DCT/MCT,
DOTH/MOTH,
DR&T/MR&T,
DSSR/MSSR,
DTST/MTST,
DELP/MELP D Computer

Postpone/
Delay



156

DIV. DOTH IV Com puter
Postpone/
Delay

DOTH CDF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DOTH CDT ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DOTH DAB-L Computer
Postpone/
Delay

DR&T DGSF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DSRV DSR ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DSSR DGF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DTST DSF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

None BC Preprin t Admit
None C-L Glossary Admit
None FPD Com puter Admit
None HC ITD Admit
None RES ITD Misc.
None RES-MIL Com puter Misc.
None RINT ITD Reject
None YWB ITD Admit

PDTE DD ITD
Postpone/
Delay

PDTE PT ITD
Postpone/
Delay

R, RCT, RELP, 
ROTH, RFAC, 
RSSR RT ITD Reject
R, RELP, RIV, 
RR&T, RSSR, 
RTST, RFAC R ITD Reject
RCT. ROTH CRT ITD Reject
RFAC, RSSR FYR-L ITD Reject



157

fWSSR, WCT, 
[WTST, WELP, 
|WIV, WAUD,
f\X7TDt)'T' \ i r O C T D W ithdrawal/ 

Com puter Cancel_____
iShared/Guidelines/LSA 97-LSA Action & Letter Codes/10-96 j

I. ADMISSION OF FRESHMEN

A. DEFINITION OF A FRESHMAN APPLICANT: 
FTLAC (first time in any college). A freshm an  
is d efin ed  as an en ter in g  stu d en t w ho has  
n ever  a tten d ed  any co lleg e  fo llow in g  h igh  
sch oo l graduation . This definition includes 
students enrolling in the fall term  who take col
lege classes as guest students in the sum m er 
im m ediately preceding the fall semester. The 
definition also applies to students who enter 
with advanced standing by earning college 
credit through Advanced Placem ent Exam ina
tions, or courses taken a t a college prior to high 
school graduation.

All o ther students will be designated as tran s
fer studen ts (Type 4) w ith Level (1 , 2 , 3, 4) be
ing determ ined by the am ount of transferable 
credit projected for the term  of entry. This will 
include those freshm an level students who a t
tend college in the fall and apply for admission 
to LSA for the w inter sem ester. They will be 
coded as transfer students (Type 4) a t the 
freshm an level (Level 1 ) and be evaluated ac
cording to transfer guidelines for W inter 1997



158

B. OVERVIEW OF ADMISSION POLICIES (First
Review)

1. TERMS OF ADMISSION

Admission to LSA will be highly selective 
for all four sem esters of the academic cal
endar. Admission is granted to applicants 
w ith verv competitive credentials on a roll
ing basis from early fall to November 1 for 
w inter sem ester, and until February 1 for 
spring, summer, and fall semesters.

W inter applicants who m et competitive 
criteria  based on the Fall 1997 guidelines, 
or who were previously adm itted, did not 
accept admission, and did not enroll in an
other institu tion for the fall term , will be 
adm itted on a rolling basis through the No
vember 1 equal consideration deadline.* All 
other applicants w ith lower credentials will 
be denied admission. There will be no de
ferred group for the w inter te rm . (Note: It 
is necessary to delay for a final high school 
transcrip t if it has not been previously 
subm itted. A decline in the senior year 
grades is cause to deny admission even if 
the  studen t was admissible based on 10th  
and 11th year GPA.)

*Students w ith the same credentials who 
do enroll in another college for the fall se
m ester will be coded as transfer students 
and adm itted if there is no problem with 
senior year grades.

Spring admissions standards require the 
same competitive criteria as for all other 
terms. Applications will be accepted through 
the February 1 equal consideration deadline.



159

Students who do not meet the competitive 
guidelines will be denied admission. There 
will be no postponed pool for spring semester.

The sum m er and fall group of applicants 
whose credentials fall in the range desig
nated as qualified/non-competitive wrill be 
postponed for a second review following the 
February  1 equal consideration deadline.

Sum m er and fall applicants whose creden
tials fall below the guidelines set for post
poned applicants will be denied admission 
on the first review.

2. ASSIGNED REVIEWER

a. Automatic Review. Applicants whose 
credentials are a t a pre-determ ined 
level will be processed by an Automatic 
A dm it clerk from Central Services 
w ithout counselor review and either 
adm itted or denied admission. All 
autom atically adm itted students will 
have th e ir essays and extracurricular 
activities reviewed by the counselor as
signed to th e ir high school following 
admission to identify any outstanding 
achievement. Because of the extremely 
strong academic credentials of these 
autom atically adm itted students, the 
essay and extracurricular information 
will not be a factor in admission.

b. Counselor Reviewer.

(1) Applications w ith GPA1 and test 
scores outside the Automatic Re
view ranges will be reviewed by a 
counselor.



1 6 0

(2) All applications from private high 
schools where the class rank has to 
be estim ated or adjusted will re
ceive counselor review.

(3) All applications from underrepre
sented minority groups will be re
viewed by counselors.

c. SCUGA Guidelines. SCUGA stands for 
School, Curriculum, U nusual, Geo
graphic, and Alumni factors th a t are 
taken  into consideration w hen review
ing applications. A combination of the 
SCUGA factors result in the Selection 
Index (S.I.) which is used in determ in
ing w hat action to take on the s tu 
dent’s application in the first review 
process. The SCUGA instructions and 
guidelines are located in a separate 
document.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Decisions will be based on the following
criteria:

a. H igh Sch ool G raduation.

(1) A ll freshm an students are re
quired to earn a high school di
ploma (or GED equivalent for 
older students) prior to enrolling 
in the College. 2

(2) Exceptions to the graduation re
quirem ent may be made for ex
trem ely gifted and brilliant 
s tuden ts who m eet YSEP s tan 
dards and are adm itted under



161

those conditions. (Look in Table of 
Contents for YSEP location in 
guidelines)

(3) Home schooled students whnsp 
erodes do not reflect a measure n f 
accomplishm ent from participation 
in a typical classroom with other 
students, w ill have to prnvidp adrti-

such as earning scores on snprifir 
S A T  II  S u hiprt exams at a level 
which will assure they are as com
petitively adm issible as studpnts 
who attend public or private hiph 
schools. See M M  for snprifir rp- 
auirements.

b- Course Preparation. All students are 
expected to take a dem anding college 
preparatory  curriculum  in 9th through 
12th grades. The following minimum 
preparation is suggested for all student 
applying for admission to LSA: English 
-  4 years, foreign language -  2 years 
(recommended 4 years), m athem atics -  
3 years (through interm ediate algebra), 
science -  3 years (2 laboratory science 
courses), social studies -  3 years, and 5 
additional courses to earn a total of 20 
units of study.

Presidents Council Requirements The 
Presidents Council Requirements went. 
into effect in the Fall o f 1995. Students  
have been asked to list the number o f 
courses they will have completed that, 
meet the requirements on



162

application. Deficiencies in the Presi
dents Council Requirements will be a 
factor taken into consideration during  
selection o f students from the postponed 
pool.

c. Grade-Point Average. Grades earned 
in academic courses taken during the 
sophomore and junior years will be 
used in the first review of the applica
tion. Senior fall sem ester grades will 
be a factor for students who are post
poned (deferred) for M arch review.

d. ACT/SAT I scores. (All SAT I scores 
reflect the Recentered Scale)

(1) All freshm an applicants are re
quired to have the ir ACT/SAT I 
scores sent directly from the te s t
ing agencies.

(2) The highest set of scores will be 
used to m ake the admission deci
sion. 3

(3) A list of postponed applications 
whose new scores bump them into 
the adm it category will be run  pe
riodically after the receipt o f fall 
test tapes. The applications of s tu 
dents who become admissible will 
be pulled from the files and given 
to the counselors to take action.

* * *



163

UNDERGRA U OF M ADMISSION SYSTEM

TRANSACTION: APPLICATION INFORMATION RE
TRIEVE 10/28/97 14:55:02

OPTION: TRX: 6QU KEY: 3839841281AOA 
150400890aa106962

QUESTION MARKS MEAN THAT A TABLE TRANSLA
TION CANNOT BE FOUND.

383 98 4128 1 GRATZ, JEN N IFER, DENISE,/ S: F B: 
09/03/77 C/V: US/GEOG: 281 WAYNE RES: 1 MICH RES 
EFFYYT:

CIVTLRTS: 5 OPP: MIGRANT: ATHLETE: 00 ALUMNI- 0 
MT: APPL RECEIVED: 01/12/95 ?

ENTRYTP 1 FRESH UNIT/SUB 5040 LSAIFX FIELD 
0890 BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES

REG YYT: 962 FALL 95 PGM LVLl/2: 1 1 SUBFIELD- 
000

1TERM: DUALDEG: PRF ADMIT:

RPRTSCH: 233464 SOUTHGATE-ANDERSON HIGH S 
CEEB AP: N HONORS: PILOT:

UNIT ACT/MOD: RFAC R SPACE ACT DATE- 04/25/95 
L/W PREF: 2 FEE HOLD:

SUBU ACT/MOD: EDR STAT: DATE: /  /

COND ADM: SAT:V 000 M 000 TOT: 0000 00/00

GPA1/QL: 3.700 CAL HS%/QL: 96 CAL ACT:E 25 M 23 
RD 27 SR 25 C 25: 06/94



GPA2/QL: 3.800 CRED: LTRS: R/EWLO RINT 

12757 CHESTNUT DD

SOUTHGATE MI 48195 RODATE: 00/00/00 

HOYYT: 000 OFAYYT: 000

164



165

UNDERGRA U OF M ADMISSION SYSTEM

TRANSACTION: APPLICATION INFORMATION RE
TRIEVE 10/28/97 15:24:51

OPTION: TRX: 6QU KEY: 3670230431AOA 
150100910AA106982

367 02 3043 1 HAMACHER, PATRICK, H /  S: M B: 
03/30/79 C/V: US/GEOG: 224 GENESEE RES- 1 MICH 
RES EFFYYT:

CIVILRTS: 5 OPP: MIGRANT: ATHLETE: 00 ALUMNI: 1

APPL RECED ED: 10/23/96 S. CARRANZA

ENTRYTP 1 FRESH UNIT/SUB 5010 LS & A FIELD 0910 
BIOCHEMISTRY

REG YYT: 982 FALL 97 PGM LVLl/2: 1 1 SUBFIELD-

1TERM: DUALDEG: PRFADMIT:

RPRTSCH: 231490 L M POWERS CATHOLIC HIGH 
CEEB AP: N HONORS: PILOT:

UNIT ACT/MOD: RFAC R SPACE ACT DATE- 04/15/97 
LAV PREF: 6 FEE HOLD:

SUBU ACT/MOD: EDR STAT: DATE: / /

COND ADM: SAT: V 000 M 000 TOT: 0000 00/00

GPA1/QL: 2.800 CAL HS%/QL: 56 CAL A C TE 25 M 27 
RD 28 SR 30 C 28: 04/96

GPA2/QL: 3.000 CRED: LTRS: R/EWLO/AL PF



166

2428 NORBERT STREET

FLINT MI 48504 RODATE: 00/00/00 HOYYT: 000 
OFAYYT: 000



167

Office of U ndergraduate Admissions CONFIDENTIAL
In ternal Use only

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE,
SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 

GUIDELINES FOR ALL TERMS OF 1998
OUA Liaison M arilyn McKinney, 936-27S6

Associate Director
OUA Backup Sally Lindsley, Assistant Director 936-2463
LSA Liaison Esrold A. Nurse, A ssistant 964-7297

Dean for S tudent Academic 
Affairs

1402 Mason Hall, 1027

LSA Contact Charles Judge, Director of 764-0311
Academic Standards 
1219 J  Angell Hall, 1003

LSA Enrollment John R. Cross, Associate 763-3275
Working Group Dean for Budget and
Representative Adm inistration

2542 LSA Bldg. 1382

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
A dm ission  o f F resh m en

Selection Index Action C h a r t...........................................  i

LSA: Most F requen tly  Used A ction/Letter C odes..... 2
Definition of A F reshm an  A pplican t.............................. 3

Overview of Adm ission Policies (F irs t Review).......... 3

Terms of Adm ission .................................................  3

Assigned R ev iew er.................................................... 3

A utom atic Review ................................................... 3

Counselor R eview er...............................................  4



168

G eneral R eq u irem en ts ................................................  4

High School G rad u atio n .......................................  4

Home Schooled S tuden ts .............................. 4

Course P rep a ra tio n ................................................  4

G rade-Point A v e rag e ............................................. 4

ACT/SAT I sco res....................................................  4

Selection Index ............................................................ 5

Special P rog ram s.................................................................. 5
Honors P ro g ram .........................................................  5

C om prehensive S tudies Program  (C S P )............  8

In tegrated  Premedical-Medical Program (INTE- 
FL E X ).........................................................................  9

R esidentia l C o lleg e ...................................................... 11

Preferred  A dm ission....................................................  11

D ual A dm ission .......................................................................  11

G eneral Policy................................................................ 11

E xceptions.......................................................................  11

School of M usic and L S A ........................................  11

E ngineering  and LSA In te fle x ..............................  12

R esidential College and In te flex ..........................  12

Honors and O ther U n i ts .........................................  12

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts .........................................................  12

S tuden ts  W ith Foreign Academic C reden tia ls .. 12

S tuden ts  W ith Mixed (Foreign/Domestic) Ed
ucational E xperiences..............................................  12

A dditional Factors Affecting Composition of S tu 
den t Body..............................................................................  13



169

Priority  G ro u p s ......................................

Special C onsidera tions..........................

A pplicants from U naccredited Schools
D isab ilitie s ...................................

Postponed Group R eview ....................

Extended W ait L i s t .....................................

Inapp rop ria te  U nit D esig n a tio n .................

Young Scholar Education Program  (YSEP)

A d m issio n  o f N ew  T ra n s fe r  S tu d e n ts
A dm ission Table I -  W in te r.............

Adm ission Table II — Spring/Sum m er..........
A dm ission Table III -  F a ll .....................

Definition of New T ransfer S tu d e n ts ............
T ransfer T eam ..........................

T ransfer G uideline T ab les ............................

Sem esters of A dm ission............................

W inter S e m e s te r ...............................

Spring and Sum m er H alf Sem esters ...
Fall S em este r........................

M inim um  P rep ara tion  for T ransfer
Previous In s t i tu t io n ..............................

Previous Course W ork......................

High School P re p a ra tio n .........................
Total P re p a ra tio n ............................

Concern L e tte r ............

13

13

13

13

14 

14 

14

14

15

16

17

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 
19 

19 

19 

19 

19



170

T ransfer from U-M D earborn and U-M Flin t C am 
p u se s ............................................................................•........ 19

First-Y ear T ra n s fe r ...................................................  19

T ransfer w ith C redit E arned  a t O ther In s titu 
tions P rior to E nrolling  a t U-M D earborn or 
U-M F lin t...................................................................  20

Required C reden tia ls  for all U-M D earborn 
and U-M F lin t A p p lican ts ....................................  20

LSA Residency R equirem ent of 60 H o u rs .......... 20

A pplication D eadlines for A pplicants from U- 
M D earborn & U-M F l in t .....................................  20

Issues to be Considered for all New T ransfer Appli
can ts  ..................................................................................... 20

P re req u is ite s ...............................................................  20
M inim um  H ours to T ra n s fe r .................................  21

C red it E arned  in R esidence....................................  21

H o n o rs ........................................................................... 21

Bachelor of G eneral S tu d ies ...................................  21

Incom pletes, W ithdraw als, R e p e a ts ....................  21

Socioeconomically D isadvantaged  or U nderrep re
sented  R acial/E thnic M inority Iden tity  or E duca
tion .......................................................................................  21

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ....................................................... 22

Adm ission of R ea d m its ....................................................... 22

Action of Readm ission A pplications...............................  23

C ross-C am pus T ra n s fe r .....................................................  23

F irst-Y ear C ross-C am pus T ran sfe r......................  24



171

Cross-Cam pus Transfer A fter More Than One 
Y e a r.........................................

C ross-Cam pus Transfers From  N ursing With 
Academic H o ld ...............................

Action P rocedures.........................

Rejection of Cross-Cam pus T ransfer -  Special 
P ro ced u res ...............

24

24

uo

25

N o n d eg ree  A d m iss io n s .........................

C rite ria  for Nondegree A dm issions.....................

Dual E nrollm ent for H igh School S tu d e n ts ......
Procedures for Nondegree A dm issions......................

R egistration  and Course Selection .........

Advising and M aintenance of S tuden t Academic 
F ile s ...................................

Academic Advising for ND S tu d e n ts ..................
Application R eco rd s ..............

25

26 

26

27

28

28

28

28
In te rp re ta tio n  of College Policies for ND 

S tu d e n ts .....................................

Academic Review and Renewal of A dm ission ............
Change of Degree S ta tu s ..........................

Second U nderg raduate  Degree A dm ission..................

Supplem entary  In fo rm a tio n ............................

T ransfer C redit Evaluation  Policy........................

USA Acceptance of C redit P o lic ies ..................

Courses Taken by High School S tu d e n ts .........

28

28

28

29

30

30

31 

31



»

LSA English Composition: Requirem ent...........................  32

T ransfer A pplicants w ith  C redits in Excess of 75 
H ours (P o licy)...................................................................  32

Q u an tita tiv e  Reasoning: College R eq u irem en t.......... 33

Race and E thnicity : College R eq u irem en t................... 33

172

C ollege  o f L itera tu re , S c ien ce , an d  th e  Arts 
S e le c t io n  In d ex  A ction  C hart 

1998

Instruc tions

Use s tuden t’s individual Selection Index num ber from 
Selection Index W orksheet to determ ine action on the 
chart.

If there  is more th an  one action listed, the first option is 
usually  the preferred action.

W here actions are separated  by “or” the counselor may 
choose whichever action he/she deems m ost appropriate. 
W here there is a choice of DSSR/PDTE, if declining grades 
or previous weak program , select DSSR; if the academic 
record has been consistent, select PDTE as the appropri
ate  action. Be comfortable th a t the s tuden t is “qualified” 
when you postpone, since th e ir application may be consid
ered for admission from the postponed group later in the 
process. Counselors need to refer to the LSA Guide for 
A ction/Letter combinations to determ ine the appropriate 
le tte r m arkup.

In -S tate:

• Generally, adm it students a t the 98% or 99% if there 
are no serious deficiencies.



173

Generally adm it top 5% from counties other than  
Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, W ashtenaw  or Wayne if 
there are no serious deficiencies.

O ut-of-State:

• Generally, adm it students at the 997c if there are no 
serious deficiencies.

Sel. Ind. # Action
150

1
100

Admit

99
1

95
A/PDTE

I 94

90
PDTE/A

89 DSSR
or
DTST
or
DR&T
or

75______ PDTE
DSSR 
or
DTST 
or
RSSR 
or
RTST 
or
RR&T

74
i

K ey
A=

DR&T=

DSSR=

DTST=

PDTE=
RR&T=

RSSR=

RTST=

Admit

Delay for secondary school 
record and test scores.

Delay for secondary school 
record.

Delay for test scores. 
Postpone

Reject for secondary school 
record and test scores

Reject for secondary school 
record

Reject for test scores



174

LSAS: MOST FREQUENTLY USED ACTION/LETTER 
CODES

Prepared Letterbook
Actionfsj L e tte r ID (by: iSECTION
1a - A ITD Admit
[a- A NOEDR ITD Admit

ABSUM ITD CSP

A ABSUMNEDR ITD CSP
\a ~ ABSUMRC ITD CSP
A ABSUMRCNE ITD CSP

ACSP ITD CSP
A ACSPNOEDR ITD CSP
A ACSPRC ITD CSP
a ACSPRCNED ITD CSP
A AINT ITD Admit
A APH ITD Admit
A APHINT ITD Admit
A APHNOEDR ITD Admit
A APHRC ITD Admit
A APHRCNED ITD Admit
(A APHRCINT ITD Admit
A ARC ITD Admit
[a - ARC NOEDR ITD Admit
A NA ITD Admit
lA- OTA ITD Admit
A OTA-CSP ITD CSP
A STA/CC/R ITD Admit
A STA/NT ITD Admit
!a~ STA/NT NE ITD Admit
S - TA ITD Admit
DCT/MCT,
|DOTH/MOTH,
DR&T/MR&T,
DSSR/MSSR,
IDTST/MTST, Postpone/
IDELP/MELP D Com puter Delay



175

DIV. DOTH IV Com puter
Postpone/
Delay

DOTH CDF ITD
Postpone/
Delav

DOTH CDT ITD
Postpone/
Delav

DOTH DAB-L Computer
Postpone/
Delav

DR&T
1---------- --------

DGSF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

[DSRV DSR ITD
Postpone/
Delav

DSSR DGF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

DTST DSF ITD
Postpone/
DelayNone BC P reprin t AdmitNone C-L Glossary AdmitNone FPD Computer Admit|None HC ITD Admit

UNone RES ITD Misc.None RES-MIL Com puter Misc.
11None RINT ITD Reiect11None YWB ITD Admit

I3DTE PF ITD
Postpone/
Delay

T>DTE PT ITD
Postpone/
Delay

IK, RCT, RELP, 
fROTH, RFAC, 
1RSSR RT ITD Rejecta
R
IR

KELP, RIV, 
R&T, RSSR, 
TST, RFAC R ITD RejectIKCT, ROTH CRT ITD Reject

K r AC, RSSR FYR-L ITD Reject



176

[WSSR, WCT,
1WTST, WELP,
(WIV, WAUD, 
jWPRT, WRSP, 
IWOTH WDW

W ithdraw al/ 
Com puter Cancel______

!Shared/Guidelines/LSA 98-LSA Action & Letter Codes'9-22-91 I.

I. ADMISSION OF FRESHM EN

A. DEFINITION OF A FRESHMAN APPLICANT: 
FTL.A.C (first tim e in any college). A freshm an  
is d efin ed  as an  en ter in g  stu d en t w ho has  
n ever  a tten d ed  any co lleg e  fo llo w in g  h igh  
sch oo l grad u ation . This definition includes 
students enrolling in the fall term  who take col
lege classes as guest students in the sum m er 
im m ediately preceding the fall sem ester. The 
definition also applies to students who enter 
w ith advanced standing by earning college 
credit through Advanced Placem ent Exam ina
tions, or courses taken  a t a college prior to high 
school graduation.

All other students w'ill be designated as tran s
fer students (Type 4) w ith Level (1, 2, 3, 4) be
ing determ ined by the am ount of transferable 
credit projected for the term  of entry. This will 
include those freshm an level students who a t
tend college in the fall and apply for admission 
to LSA for the w inter sem ester. They will be 
coded as transfer studen ts (Type 4) a t the 
freshm an level (Level 1) and be evaluated ac
cording to transfer guidelines for W inter 1998



177

B. OVERVIEW OF ADMISSION POLICIES (First
Review)

1. TERMS OF ADMISSION

Admission to LSA will be highly selective 
for all four sem esters of the academic 
calendar. Admission is granted to appli
cants w ith very competitive credentials on 
a rolling basis from early fall to November 
1 for w inter sem ester, and until February 1 
for spring, sum m er, and fall semesters.

W inter_applicants who m et competitive
criteria based on the Fall 199R guidelines, 
or who were previously adm itted, did not 
accept admission, and did not enroll in an
other institu tion for the fall term , will be 
adm itted on a rolling basis through the No
vember 1 equal consideration deadline.* All 
other applicants with lower credentials will 
be denied admission. There will be no post
poned group for the w inter term. (Note: It 
is necessary to delay for a final high school 
transcrip t if it has not been previously 
subm itted. A decline in the senior year 
grades is cause to deny admission even if 
the studen t was admissible based on 10th 
and 11th year GPA.)

*Students with the same credentials who 
do enroll in another college for the fall se
m ester will be coded as transfer students 
and adm itted if there was no decline in sen
ior year grades.

Spring_admissions standards require the
same competitive criteria as for all other 
terms. Applications will be accepted through 
the February 1 equal consideration deadline.



178

Students who do not meet the competitive 
guidelines will be denied admission. There 
wall be no postponed pool for spring semester.

The sum m er and fall group of applicants 
whose credentials fall in the range desig
nated  as qualified/non-competitive will be 
postponed for a second review following the 
February  1 equal consideration deadline.

Sum m er and fall applicants whose creden
tials fall below the guidelines set for post
poned applicants will be denied admission 
on the first review.

2. ASSIGNED REVIEWER

a. Autom atic Review. Applicants whose 
credentials are a t a pre-determined 
level will be processed by an Automatic 
Admit clerk from C entral Services 
w ithout counselor review and either 
adm itted or denied admission. All 
autom atically adm itted students will 
have th e ir essays and extracurricular 
activities reviewed by the counselor as
signed to th e ir high school following 
adm ission to identify any outstanding 
achievement. Because of the extremely 
strong academic credentials of the 
autom atically adm itted students, the 
essay and extracurricular information 
will not be a factor in admission.

b. Counselor Reviewer.

(1 ) Applications with UM computed 
GPA (hereafter called GPA) and 
te s t scores outside the Automatic



179

Review ranges will be reviewed by 
a counselor.

(2) All applications from private high 
schools where the class rank has to 
be estim ated or adjusted will re
ceive counselor review.

(3) All applications from underrepre
sented m inority identity or educa- 
toin and from socioeconomically 
disadvantaged background or edu
cation groups will be reviewed by 
counselors.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Decisions will be based on the following 
criteria:

a - High School Graduation.

(1) -AIL freshman students are required 
to earn a high school diploma (or 
GED equivalent for older students) 
prior to enrolling in the College.

(2) Exceptions to the graduation 
requirem ent may be made for ex
trem ely gifted and brilliant s tu 
dents who m eet YSEP standards 
and are adm itted under those con
ditions. (Look in Table of Contents 
for YSEP location in guidelines)

Home schooled students whmtp 
grades do not reflect a measure n f 
accomplishment from oarticinntinr 
in a typical classroom with other 
students, will have to provide addi
tional evidence o f nrevaratinn.



180

such as earning scores on specific 
S A T  II Subject exams at a level 
which will assure they are as com- 
neti.tirelv admissible as students 
who attend public or private hish  
schools. Home schooled students 
will be assigned to QUA liaisail, 
Marilyn McKinney.

b. Course Preparation. All students are 
expected to take a dem anding college 
p reparatory  curriculum  in 9th through 
12th grades. The following minimum 
preparation is suggested for all student 
applying for admission to LSA: English 
-  4 years, foreign language -  2 years 
(recommended 4 years), m athem atics -  
3 years (through interm ediate algebra), 
science -  3 years (2 laboratory science 
courses), social studies -  3 years, and 5 
additional courses to earn a total of 20 
units of study.

c. G rade-Point Average. Grades earned 
in academic courses taken  during the 
sophomore and junior years will be 
used in the first review of the  applica
tion. Senior fall sem ester grades will 
be a factor for students who are post
poned (deferred) for M arch review.

d. ACT/SAT I scores. (All SAT I scores 
reflect the Recentered Scale) 1

(1) All freshm an applicants are re
quired to have their ACT/SAT I 
scores sent directly from the  te s t
ing agencies.



181

(2) The highest set of scores will be 
used to make the admission deci
sion.

(3) A list of postponed applicants 
whose new scores bump them into 
the adm it category will be run pe
riodically after the receipt o f add i
tional test tapes. The applications 
of students who become admissible 
will be pulled from the files and 
given to the counselors to take ac
tion.

4. SELECTION INDEX

Admission is based on several factors th a t 
combine to produce a freshm an class th a t 
provides a m ixture of a ttributes and char
acteristics valued by the University. The 
process for building the class is found in 
the  Guidelines for the Calculation of a Se
lection Index 1998. The guidelines are to be 
used to determ ine a Selection Index num 
ber which will be matched to the action 
column on the 1998 College of LSA S p W -  

tion Index Action C hart to determ ine the 
appropriate action to take on each applica
tion. An appropriate le tter m arkup is to be 
selected from the LSA: Most Frequently 
Used Action/Letter Codes sheet on page 2 
of the LSA Guidelines or by referring to the 
L etter Book.

* * *



182

1998 G u id elin es for th e C alcu lation  o f a 
S e lec tio n  In d ex  for all Sch ools and C olleges  

E xcep t E n g in eer in g

T he G u id e lin e s  fo r  th e  C a lc u la tio n  o f  a S e lec tio n  
In d e x  are an a ttem pt to give some standardization to 
decisions made by m any different counselors on many 
different applications. We recognize th a t all communities, 
schools, populations, course offerings, grading practices, 
personal circum stances, etc. are not the same. We w ant to 
m ake justifiable decisions th a t blend the consistency of a 
form ula w ith the flexibility of a review th a t is ultim ately a 
m a tte r of hum an judgm ent and which m ust adapt to a 
“rolling adm issions” process.

Admissions is more a rt th an  science, and these guidelines 
should not be read otherwise. These guidelines contain 
lim ited descriptions of the rationales behind the Index 
categories and factors. Obviously, the rationales and the 
appropriate application of these factors in all situations 
are too complex to be completely described by th is type of 
document. If you require a more detailed discussion of the 
rationales or the application of a factor is troublesome in 
any particu lar case, you should discuss the m atte r with 
your team  leader.

The Selection Index has a maximum value of 150 points, 
w ith the final score for an applicant representing the 
cum ulative a ttribu tes th a t the individual will bring to the 
incoming freshm an class. Fully 2/z of the points of the 
Selection Index are a ttribu tab le  to academics. When test 
scores are added to the academics, only 27% of the maxi
m um  possible points are derived from other factors th a t 
assist in enrolling studen ts who will provide a m ixture of



183

attribu tes and characteristics valued by the University. It 
is our sincere belief th a t this mixture contributes to the 
education of our students, as well as fulfills the Univer
sity’s mission to prepare society’s fu ture citizens and 
leaders.

The Selection Index for an applicant is a summation of 
points assigned to factors in one of three categories: Test 
Score, Academic, and O ther Factors. The Test Score 
category consists of up to 12 points based on the appli
can t’s best ACT or SAT test score from any one sitting. Up 
to 98 points can be received in the Academic category, 
based on the academic unweighted Grade Point Average 
(GPA), the category of school attended (“S” factor), and the 
streng th  or w eakness of the curriculum  (“C” factor). 
Lastly, an applicant may receive up to 40 points in the 
O ther Factors category, w ith the individual factors de
scribed in la ter sections of this document. Thus, a student 
can receive up to 110 points on factors in the Test Score 
and Academic categories of his or her application and up 
to 40 points from the O ther Factors component.

The Selection Index reflects a variety of factors in the 
applicant’s file th a t are not considered in the UM- 
computed academic unweighted GPA. Both the UM- 
computed GPA and the Selection Index will be entered 
into the system and can be accessed on the QU screen on 
DSC.

C oun selors m ust a lw ays c irc le  or en ter  th e  appro
p r ia te  p o in ts for th e variou s factors on th e coding  
w o rk sh eet and th e sum  as the S e lectio n  Index. Any  
u n u su a l c ircu m stan ce  sh ou ld  be n oted  and stap led  
to  th e ap p lica tion  in  a prom in en t p lace.



184

ACADEMIC

The Academic category is comprised of the GPA, school, 
and curriculum  factors.

G rade P o in t A verage

The UM-computed GPA (calculated from 10th and 
11th grade academic courses) is multiplied by 20 to deter
m ine the applicant’s score for th is factor. The Selection 
Index W orksheet has a table of the multiples of 20 from a 
1.7 to 4.0 GPA. Note th a t an applicant can score up to 80 
points, which constitutes 53% of the possible 150 points an 
applicant can receive.

S (sch o o l) F a ctor

Schools are not ranked throughout the sta te  or coun
try  but are given a classification based on the ir school 
profile and academic information. The school factor ac
knowledges th a t we do consider various factors in our 
decisions th a t reflect the differences among schools.

Keep a disk and hard copy of your schools and their 
respective classifications. Counselors should add new 
schools to the list as the year progresses and collect the 
high school profiles of schools th a t are already on the list. 
The sam e S factor should normally be applied to all 
applicants from the same school, unless an applicant has 
attended schools w ith different S factors. At the end of the 
application review season, update your S factor list based 
on the high school profiles. Turn in the additions and 
revisions to the secretary responsible for updating the 
entire file for the next season of application review.



185

The S factor is based on the num ber of AP/IB courses 
offered a t the school, the percentage of students attending 
two and four year colleges, and average SAT/ACT scores. 
The school profile is the prim ary source of such data. 
Resist the tem ptation of being generous when the school is 
ju s t  a little  short of the expected level. There will be some 
schools in every category (S factor) th a t ju st m ake a 
certain  level and some th a t ju s t miss a higher level. 
Additional inform ation such as above average academic 
performance of a school s students based on UM first year 
follow-up reports could move the school upward. A code  
o f  “E” w ill be en tered  on th e M aster Chart in d ica t
in g  such  an excep tion .

The guide below is based on the averages of over 300 
schools. Each counselor should be able to exercise judg
m ent as to the S factor for schools in their territory. 
Remember the S factor relates to the strength  of the school 
-  not ju s t a special group within th a t school. In most cases, 
the A P / IB figure is the starting point. Then, you should 
determ ine if the College Bound and SAT/ACT statistics 
substan tia te  the S points. A strong record a t UM, SAT II 
Subject tests, AP/IB scores, the school’s curriculum guide, 
and other inform ation will help in m aking an appropriate 
decision. Schools with a factor of 4 or 5 m ust be exception
ally strong and are very rare  in general, and more so 
among public schools. Conversely, there  are many private 
schools th a t should be less than  a factor of 2.

Note: The 1996 High School Profiles and SAT I scores 
listed below are based on R ecen tered  scores. S

S = 0 Very few or no Honors or AP courses. Less than  
50% attend  college. SAT I average below 1040 and 
ACT below 22.



186

S = 1 At least 7 AP/IB courses. Seventy-five percent 
a ttend  college. SAT I average range of 1050-10SO 
and ACT below 23.

S = 2 At least 9 AP/IB courses. Strong honors or ad
vanced courses. Eighty-five percent attend  college. 
SAT I average range of 1130-1160 or ACT average 
of 25.

S = 3 At least 11 AP/IB courses. Many Honors or rigor
ous courses. SAT II subject scores of > 610 and/or 
im pressive results on AP exams support high level 
of learning. Ninety-five percent attend college. SAT
I average range of 1200-1230 or ACT average of 27.

S = 4 At least 12 AP/IB. Strong AP record even when 
courses are not ahvays called AP. Look for exams 
taken. Course grades tend not to cluster a t the 
h ighest end of the scale. Look a t distribution of 
grades and scores. M any records include SAT II 
subject scores th a t tend to be in the 710+ range. 
N inety-nine percent attend  college. L ist would in 
clude m any competitive colleges. SAT I average 
range of 1240-1270 or ACT average of 28. S

S = 5 At least 13 AP/IB. Im pressive num ber of high SAT
II subject scores. M any National M erit w inners. 
Curriculum  reads like the 1st and 2nd year a t a 
typical liberal a rt college. Students receive 4’s & 
5’s on AP. Grades tend to cluster in the  mid-range 
of the scale. Counselor comments indicate real dif
ferences in a PLUS/MINUS grading system. S tu 
dents have gone in depth into an area of study. 
Often including foreign study ra th e r than  ju s t 
travel. N inety-nine percent attend  college. List 
would include m any highly competitive/selective 
colleges. SAT I average range of 1320+ or ACT av
erage of 30.



187

If you need help in determ ining an appropriate S 
factor due to wide variations in selection criteria, bring 
your data to MM, and we will assign an appropriate S 
factor.

The conversion of S factors to Selection Index points is 
on the Selection Index W orksheet.

C (cu rricu lu m ) F actor

Given the wide disparity in high school course selec
tion and offerings, it is im perative th a t the choice of strong 
courses, particularly  clearly identified Honors and AP/IB, 
be considered in the review process. It is unfair to reward 
a studen t w ith admission who has elected a mediocre 
curriculum  (sometimes for as m any as four years during 
high school), while punishing by postponements those with 
stronger programs. Achievement of a respectable GPA in a 
dem anding and challenging program more often repre
sents high motivation and commitment than  a contrived, 
inflated GPA in a weak curriculum. The strong program 
also better prepares the studen t for the quality of work 
expected a t the University of Michigan. All students are 
expected to elect at least four traditional college prepara
tory subjects each semester. Those with less should be 
deferred upon first review even if GPA and test score place 
them  in the Adm it range.

The starting  point for any applicant is zero points for 
a strong academic program, consisting of 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12. Do not include art, business, 
com puter application, drafting, engineering, music, typing, 
or vocational courses as academics. Only count English, 
foreign languages, m athem atics, science, social science,



188

and com puter program m ing (Fortran, Basic, C, Pascal) 
courses as academics.

Make sure th a t there  is a reasonable degree of integ
rity  in the school’s definition of “Honors” courses. In 
general, you can calculate 2 honors and/or accelerated 
courses to equal 1 AP/IB course, so long as the honors 
courses a t th a t school are not equal to or as dem anding as 
the AP/IB courses. A sta tem en t from the high school such 
as “This would be Honors a t another school” or “Faculty 
policy precludes such a label” does not qualify for our 
inclusion as an “honors” course and should not be counted. 
Use your knowledge (not assum ptions) about w hat differ
ent labels used by the schools m ean in th is area. Tracks, 
phase, core, level, advanced, etc. do not always m ean 
“advanced” when th inking  of such courses as being for 
those whose course background has been strong, have 
received high grades, or are selected to participate and 
w rite the AP Exams.

W hen m aking your com putation of num ber of academ 
ics and honors/AP: Do NOT round up! Also, take into 
consideration a downward trend  in grades and/or weak 
course selection.

C = -2 Very weak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, less than  15 academic courses 
in grades 9-12. Three or fewer academics in senior 
year. No honors or AP. Use judgm ent. Admission 
doubtful.

C = -1 W eak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, no honors or AP, 15-18 aca
demics in grades 9-12. Use judgm ent.



189

C -  0 Average to strong academic program, one AP/IB or 
1-3 honors, at least 19 academic courses in grades 
9-12.

C = 1 For a very strong program. 2-3 AP/IB or 4-7 honors 
in year long courses and a t least 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12.

C = 2 For an unusually strong program. 4-5 AP/IB or 8- 
11 honors in year long courses and  a t least 19 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 3 For a superior program. 6 or 7 AP/IB or 12-15 
honors in year long courses and  a t least 20 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 4 A fantastic  program. 8+ AP/IB or 16+ honors in 
year long courses and  a t least 20 academic courses 
in grades 9-12.

The conversion of C factors to Selection Index points is
on the Selection Index Worksheet.

TEST SCORE

An applicant may receive one of five established point 
totals for the best score of the ACT or SAT from any one 
exam. Do not add the best verbal and best m ath subscores 
from two different exam dates together. The points are 
assigned to the following ranges of scores:

Points ACT SAT
0 01-19 400-920
6 20-21 930-1000
10 22-26 1010-1190
11 27-30 1200-1350
12 31-36 1360-1600



190

Note th a t an applicant having a te st score in the zero 
points range for the Test Score category, even if admissible 
due to a very strong score in the Academic category, is 
likely to have a difficult tim e succeeding w ithout substan
tia l academic assistance. Thus, the counselor should 
consider such an applicant as a candidate for the Summ er 
Bridge Program. Sum m er Bridge is open to Michigan 
residents only.

OTHER FACTORS

W hen reviewing an applicant’s file, please circle and/or 
aw ard all points th a t apply to the factors constituting the 
O ther Factors category. H ow ever, a tota l o f 40 p o in ts is  
th e  m axim um  th at can  be add ed  to th e  S e lection  
In d ex  score  for th e  O ther F actors category . M ore
over, no ap p lican t can  rece iv e  p o in ts for m ore than  
on e  o f  th e fo llo w in g  factors: socioecon om ica lly  
d isa d van taged  stu d en t or ed u cation , u n d errep re
sen te d  ra c ia l/eth n ic  m in ority  id en tity  or ed u cation , 
an  o ffic ia lly  recru ited  a th lete , P ro v o st’s d iscretion , 
or p ro fession a l d iversity .

G eograp h y

An applicant m ay receive points for residency in one 
or more of three special geographic areas. An insta te  
s tu d en t may receive a maxim um  of 16 points, while an 
out-of-state s tuden t may receive only 2 points, if residing 
in a designated state.

M ichigan Residency: As a public institu tion supported 
by the citizens of Michigan, it is im portant th a t our incom
ing freshm an class have a large representation of students



191

from Michigan. To achieve th a t goal, each Michigan 
resident is aw arded 10 points.

Residency in an U nderrepresented County: The vast 
m ajority of enrolling incoming freshmen are from the 
southern counties of Michigan. To promote interaction 
among students from all parts of the state, applicants from 
northern  M ichigan (defined as counties including and 
north of Oceana, Newaygo, Mecosta, Clare, Gladwin, and 
Arenac counties), ru ral areas, and small communities th a t 
are separated geographically and/or culturally from more 
populated areas, will be awarded 6 points. Applicants from 
the following areas should receive these points:

Lower Peninsula
Alcona Gladwin Montmorency
Alpena G rand Traverse Newaygo
A ntrium Iosco Oceana
Arenac K alkaska Ogemaw
Benzie Lake Osceola
Cheboygan Leelaunau Oscoda
Charlevoix M anistee Otsego
Clare Mason Presque Isle
Crawford Mecosta Roscommon

Upper Peninsula
Alger Gogebic Mackinac
Baraga Houghton Menominee
Chippewa Iron Ontonagon
Delta Keweenaw Schoolcraft
Dickinson Luce

Residency in a sta te  from a region which is underrep
resented a t the University of Michigan: Applicants from 
w estern states (beyond Missouri, Iowa, M innesota) except



192

California and southern states below Virginia and Tennes
see (except for Florida and Texas) are awarded 2 points.
Students who are residents of the 
receive these points:

following states can

Alabam a Kansas North Dakota
Alaska Louisiana Oklahoma
Arizona M ississippi Oregon
A rkansas M ontana South Carolina
Colorado N ebraska South Dakota
Georgia Nevada U tah
Hawaii New Mexico W ashington
Idaho N orth Carolina Wyoming

International students are not awarded any geographic 
factor points.

A lum ni R e la tio n sh ip s

To recognize the continuing service and support 
provided to the University, points will be awarded for 
certain alum ni relationships:

Legacy -  The applicant, whose parent or step-parent 
attended UM-Ann Arbor as degree-seeking students, should 
be awarded 4 points.

or

O ther Alumni Relationships — The applicant, whose 
grandparents, siblings, or spouse attended UM-Ann Arbor 
as degree seeking students, should be awarded 1 point.

Points cannot be awarded for both categories.



193

E ssay

The essay is required. If the essay is missing, the 
application is incomplete and cannot be m arked up for 
admission. The essay will be evaluated for content, style, 
originality, and risk. One point may be awarded for an 
outstanding essay.

P erso n a l A ch iev em en t

Points for Personal Achievement will be based on 
inform ation provided on page 3 of the application, item 31, 
“Activities, W ork Experience and Awards”, as well as 
other inform ation provided w ith the application. The 
applicant m ust dem onstrate a state, regional, or national 
level of achievem ent in academic competitions, art, a th le t
ics (applies to non-recruited ath letes only), music, profes
sional theater, or science. Remember, most applicants to 
UM are very active students in leadership positions, sports 
activities, social clubs, etc. in their high schools and local 
communities. Involvement in these activities is not un 
usual and is norm al for the applicant pool. The Personal 
Achievement factor is not to be u sed  as compensation for 
w eaker academic achievem ent attribu ted  to overinvolve
m ent in non-academic activities.

Examples of personal achievements include a N a
tional Science Foundation Award; W estinghouse Scholars; 
state, regional, or national recognition in an academic 
competition (e.g., forensics); state, regional, or national 
recognition as an athlete; placing in a state, regional, or 
national a rt show; having w riting published in a state, 
regionally, or nationally recognized m agazine or journal; 
or professional th ea te r experience. Do not award points for



194

personal achievement a t the local level -  th a t level of 
accomplishment is norm al w ithin the applicant pool.

Counselors should have some validation of the 
achievem ent such as high school counselor confirmation, 
copy of award certificate, new spaper clipping, etc.

Points
1 S tate  level achievem ent

3 Regional level achievement

5 N ational level achievement

L ea d ersh ip  an d  S e r v ice

Points for Leadership will be based on information 
provided on page 3 of the application, item 31. “Activities, 
Work Experience and A w ards”, as well as other informa
tion provided with the application. The applicant m ust 
dem onstrate a state, regional, or national level of 
achievement. Remember, m ost applicants to UM are very 
active students in leadership positions, sports activities, 
social clubs, etc. Active involvement in these activities is 
not unusual and is norm al for the applicant pool. The 
Leadership and Service factor is n o t to be u sed  as 
compensation for w eaker academic achievem ent a ttributed  
to over-involvement in non-academic activities.

Exam ples of strong leadership include elected posi
tions a t G irls’ or Boys’ State, a unique initiative in a 
community endeavor resulting  in special recognition, state  
or service club award, or successful entrepreneurship.

Points
1 S tate  level achievem ent

3 Regional level achievement

5 N ational level achievement



195

S o c io e co n o m ic a lly  D isa d v a n ta g ed  S tu d en t or 
E d u ca tio n

The U niversity is committed to a rich educational 
experience for its students, which should include in terac
tion with studen ts of all socioeconomic backgrounds. A 
diverse, as opposed to a homogeneous, student population 
enhances the education experience for all students. Conse
quently, 20 points will be awarded to an applicant who:

is socioeconomically disadvantaged, w ith indicators 
such as p a ren ts’ occupations, single parent upbring
ing, a deceased parent, necessary excessive work 
hours while attending school, overcoming extraordi
nary  obstacles, such as abuse, or homelessness; or

is a studen t educated in a high school serving a popu
lation th a t is predom inantly socioeconomically disad
vantaged.

U n d errep resen ted  R a c ia l/E th n ic  M in ority  
Id e n tity  or E d u ca tio n

The University is committed to an educational experi
ence th a t involves students in teracting w ith other s tu 
dents of different races and ethnicities than  their own. 
Consequently, 20 points wall be aw arded to an applicant
who:

is a m em ber of a federally recognized underrepre
sented race or ethnicity, which is also underrepre
sented on the  UM Ann Arbor campus; or

is a studen t educated in a high school serving a popu
lation th a t is predom inantly comprised of federally 
recognized underrepresented races and/or ethnicities, 
which are also underrepresented on the UM Ann Ar
bor campus.



196

S ch o la rsh ip  A th lete

In anticipation of their contributions to the University 
and in recognition of the tradition and national prominence 
of Michigan intercollegiate athletics, applicants being 
officially recruited and considered for athletic scholarships 
should have 20 points added to their score.

P r o v o s t’s D iscr e tio n

At the discretion of the Provost (only), up to an addi
tional 20 points may be awarded to an applicant.

P r o fe ss io n a l D iv e rs ity

Over time, some professions have become composed 
predom inantly of one gender or another. The School of 
N ursing has identified a need to enroll more members of 
an underrepresented gender to enhance its educational 
environm ent and to improve the diversity w ithin its 
profession. A counselor should aw'ard 5 points to those 
applicants who are men apply to the School of Nursing. 
(See the Guidelines for Calculation of an Engineering 
Selection Index for the Professional Diversity points 
aw arded for women applicants to the College of Engineer
ing.)



Place student label here or fill m the  
following information
N am e ________________________________
S IN  _________________________________
U n it  _____ __________________________
Term  ________

GPA

School
Factor

C u rricu 
lum

F actor

ACT/ 
SA T  I

Points
(circle)

40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80

0
2
4
6
8
10

-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8

Points
(circle
one)

0
6
10
11
12

ACADEMIC
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2 .5
2.6
2 .7
2.8
2.9
3 .0
3 .1
3 .2
3.3
3.4
3 .5
3 .6
3 .7
3 .8
3 .9  
4.0

0
1 ; 
2
3
4
5

-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4

TEST SCORE

01-19
20-21
22-26
27-30
31-36

4 0 0 -9 2 0
9 3 0 -1 0 0 0
1010-1190
1200-1350
1360-1 6 0 0

C o n f i d e n t i a l
S e l e c t i o n  I n d e x  W o r k s h e e t

(For LS&A and selected Schools and 
Divisions, other than Engineering)

_____ For Internal Use Only
Points
(circle)
G eography

10
6
2

A lu m n i 
4

1

Assign 
only 1 
option

OTHER FACTORS
(Maximum 40 points)

M ich igan  R esid en t  
U nderrepresented M ichigan County 
U nderrepresented  S ta te

L egacy (parents/ stepparents) 
or

_Other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)

E ssa y
1 O u tsta n d in g  E ssa y

P erson al A ch ievem en t
1
3
5

Assign 
only 1

S ta te  
R egion al

option __N a tio n a l

L ead ersh ip  & Serv ice
1
3
5

Assign 
only 1 
option

M isce llan eou s
20
20

Assign 
5 only 1

20 option

20

S ta te
R egion al
N a tio n a l

Socio-econom ic D isa d v a n ta g e  
Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic 

Minority Identification or Education 
M en in N u rs in g  
Scholarship Athlete 

(assigned by athletic counselor on ly) 
P rovost’s D iscretion

Add points in 
this column for 
sub score 2

TOTAL

Sub score 1 + Sub score 2 Selection Index

! Add points in 
I this column for 
\ sub score 1



198

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FO R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ, and 
PATRICK HAMACHER, and 
all o thers sim ilarly  s itu a ted ,

P lain tiffs,

vs.

LEE BOLLINGER, JAM ES 
DUDERSTADT, THE U N I
VERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 
and  THE UNIVERSITY OF 
M ICHIGAN COLLEGE OF 
LITERATURE, ARTS, AND 
SCIENCE,

D efendants,

and

EBONY PATTERSON, 
RUBEN MARTINEZ, 
LAURENT CRENSHAW, 
KARLA R. WILLIAMS, 
LARRY BROWN, TIFFANY 
HALL, KRISTEN M.J. 
HARRIS, M ICHAEL SM ITH, 
KHYLA CRAINE, NY AH 
CARMICHAEL, SHANNA 
DUBOSE, EBONY DAVIS, 
NICOLE BREWER, KARLA 
HARLIN, BRIAN HARRIS, 
KATRINA GIPSON, CAN- 
DICE B.N. REYNOLDS, by 
and th rough  th e ir  p a ren ts  
or guard ians, DENISE

Civil Action No. 97-75231 
Hon. P atrick  J . Duggan

ANSWER



199

PATTERSON, MOISE 
MARTINEZ, LARRY 
CRENSHAW, HARRY J. 
WLLIAMS, PATRICIA 
SWAN-BROWN, KAREN A. 
MCDONALD, LINDA A. 
HARRIS, DEANNA A. 
SM ITH, ALICE BRENNAN, 
IVY RENE CHARMICHAEL, 
SARAH L. DUBOSE, INGER 
DAVIS, BARBARA DAW
SON, ROY D. HARLIN, 
WYATT G. HARRIS, 
GEORGE C. GIPSON, 
SHAWN R. REYNOLDS, 
AND CITIZENS FOR AF
FIRMATIVE ACTION’S 
PRESERVATION,

D efendant-Intervenors.

ANSW ER OF INTERVENING DEFENDANTS

NOW COME intervening defendants, Ebony P a tte r
son, Ruben M artinez, L aurent Crenshaw, Karla R. Wil
liams, Larry Brown, Tiffany Hall, K risten M.J. H arris, 
Michael Smith, Khyla Craine, Nyah Carmichael, Shanna 
DuBose, Ebony Davis, Nicole Brewer, K arla H arlin, Brian 
H arris, K atrina Gipson, Candice B.N. Reynolds1, and

1 The individual applicants are minors who move to intervene by 
the ir paren ts or guardians, respectively, Denise Patterson, Moises 
M artinez, Larry Crenshaw , Harry J. W illiams, Patricia Swan-Brown, 
Karen A. McDonald, Linda A. H arris, Deanna Sm ith, Alice B rennan, 
Ivy Rene Carm ichael, Sarah  L. DuBose, Inger Davis, B arbara Dawson, 
Roy D. H arlin, W yatt G. H arris, George C. Gipson, and Shawn R. 
Reynolds.



200

Citizens for Affirmative Action's Preservation CCAAP") 
and answ er the Complaint. Except as hereafter expressly 
adm itted, qualified, or otherwise adm itted, intervening 
defendants specifically deny each and every allegation 
contained in the Complaint. Intervening defendants 
respond to the num bered allegations in the Complaint on 
personal knowledge or on information and belief as to 
other m atters, as follows:

1. No response is required to the allegations in 
paragraph  1 of the  complaint, which are the p la in tiff’s 
characterizations of th e ir clients.

2. In tervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph  2 of the Complaint.

3. Intervening defendants adm it tha t, to the extent 
th a t the  Court has subject-m atter jurisdiction, venue is 
proper in th is Court. Intervening defendants deny all of 
the  rem aining allegations in paragraph 3 of the Com
plaint.

4. In tervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the  allegations in paragraph  4 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof.

5. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the allegations in paragraph  5 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof. 6

6. Intervening defendants adm it the allegations in 
the first sentence of paragraph  6 of the Complaint. 
In tervening defendants neither adm it nor deny the 
rem aining allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, 
lacking knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a



201

belief as to the tru th  or falsity thereof, but state  th a t the 
College of L iterature, Science and the Arts is a college of 
the University of Michigan.

7. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof.

8. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the allegations or paragraph 8 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof.

9. Intervening defendants adm it th a t plaintiffs 
purport to bring th is action as a class action. No response 
is necessary to the plaintiffs’ characterization of their 
claims in the rem ainder of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Intervening defendants adm it plaintiffs seek to 
m ain tain  a class. No response is necessary to the plaintiffs’ 
characterization of th e ir claims in the rem ainder of p a ra 
graph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof.

12. Intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph 13 of the Complaint, except th a t intervening 
defendants neither adm it nor deny the allegations regard
ing the competence and experience of plaintiffs’ counsel,



202

lacking knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a 
belief as to the tru th  or falsity thereof.

14. Intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph  14 of the Complaint.

15. Intervening defendants state  th a t the University 
of M ichigan is an entity  created by the Michigan State 
Constitution. Intervening defendants state  upon inform a
tion and belief th a t the U niversity of Michigan receives 
federal funds. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor 
deny the  rem aining allegations in paragraph 15 of the 
Complaint, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to 
form a belief as to the tru th  or falsity thereof.

16. Intervening defendants adm it th a t the Univer
sity of M ichigan’s Application for U ndergraduate Admis
sions perm its applicant to indicate their race. Intervening 
defendants deny all of the rem aining allegations in para
graph 16 of the Complaint.

17. Intervening defendants neither adm it or deny 
the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof.

18. In tervening defendants state  upon information 
and belief th a t the U niversity of Michigan uses race as a 
factor in admissions, as p a rt of a broad array  of qualifica
tions and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is 
but a single though im portant element. Intervening 
defendants deny all of the rem aining allegations in para
graph 18 of the Complaint.

19. Intervening defendants state  upon information 
and belief th a t the U niversity of Michigan applies rigorous 
adm issions standards to all applicants; and th a t all



203

adm itted students are fully qualified to succeed a t the 
University. Intervening defendants fu rther state  upon 
inform ation and belief th a t the University of Michigan 
uses race as a factor in admissions, as part of a broad 
array  of qualifications and characteristics of which racial 
or ethnic origin is bu t a single though im portant element. 
Intervening defendants deny all of the rem aining allega
tions in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. Intervening defendants deny all the allegations 
in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or inform ation sufficient to form a belief as to 
the tru th  or falsity thereof.

22. Intervening defendants sta te  upon information 
and belief th a t high school grades in academic courses 
represent the predom inant factor used for determ ining 
admissions to the University of Michigan, College of 
L iterature, Science and the Arts. Intervening defendants 
s ta te  upon inform ation and belief th a t the University of 
M ichigan uses race as a factor in admissions, as p a rt of a 
broad array  of qualifications and characteristics of which 
racial or ethnic origin is bu t a single though im portant 
elem ent. Intervening defendants deny all of the rem aining 
allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

23. Paragraph 23 of the Complaint states a conclu
sion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent 
th a t  a response is deemed necessary, intervening defen
dants deny the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Com
plaint.



204

24. Intervening defendants neither adm it nor deny 
the allegations in paragraph  24 of the Complaint, lacking 
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 
the  tru th  or falsity thereof.

25. Intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
the first sentence of paragraph  25 of the Complaint. 
In tervening defendants ne ither adm it nor deny the allega
tions in the second sentence of paragraph 25 of the Com
plaint, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form 
a belief as to the tru th  or falsity thereof. Intervening 
defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of 
paragraph  25 of the Complaint.

26. Intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph  26 of the Complaint.

27. Intervening defendants state  upon information 
and belief th a t the U niversity of Michigan has a current 
in tention to continue to use race as a factor in admissions, 
as p a rt of a broad array  of qualifications and characteris
tics which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though 
im portan t element. In tervening defendants deny all of the 
rem aining allegations in paragraph  27 of the Complaint.

R ESPO N SE TO P L A IN T IFF’S FIRST CT.ATM

28. In tervening defendants incorporate by reference 
the ir responses to the allegations of paragraphs 1-27 of the 
Com plaint se t forth above.

29. Paragraph 29 sets forth a conclusion of law to 
which no response is required. To the extent a response is 
required, intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph  29 of the Complaint.



205

30. Paragraph  30 sets forth a conclusion of law to 
which no response is required. To the extent a response is 
required, intervening defendants deny the allegations in 
paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

R ESPO N SE TO PL A IN T IFF’S SECOND CLAIM

31. Intervening defendants incorporate by reference 
th e ir responses to the allegations of paragraphs 1-30 of the 
Com plaint as set forth above.

32. Intervening defendants sta te  th a t the U niversity 
of Michigan is an entity  created by the Michigan S tate  
Constitution. Intervening defendants state  upon inform a
tion and belief th a t the U niversity of Michigan, which 
includes the  College of L iterature, Science and the Arts, 
receives federal funds. Intervening defendants deny the 
rem aining allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

No response is required to the rem ainder of the 
Complaint, which sets forth plaintiffs’ prayer for relief. To 
the  extent th a t a response is required, intervening defen
dants deny the rem aining allegations in the Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE D EFEN SES

Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses 
based on the ir curren t knowledge and information. 1 2

1. The Com plaint fails to s ta te  a claim upon which 
relief may be granted.

2. This Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over 
the Complaint because the plaintiffs lack standing.



206

3. P lain tiff s claims for injunctive relief are barred 
by the doctrine of mootness.

4. The Regents of the U niversity of Michigan are 
perm itted under the F ourteenth  Amendment to the United 
States C onstitution to use race as one of the m an3T factors 
considered in admissions in order to remedy the present 
effects of past and present discrim ination and to foster a 
diverse educational environm ent.

5. Intervening defendants s ta te  th a t they assert 
these affirm ative defenses on the basis of knowledge or 
inform ation presently available and in order to avoid 
“Waiver. In tervening defendants reserve the right to 
w ithdraw  any of these affirm ative defenses or to assert 
additional affirm ative defenses as fu rther information 
becomes available.

W herefore, intervening defendants pray for judgem ent 
dism issing the Com plaint w ith prejudice and awarding 
them  the costs and disbursem ents of this action, together 
with attorneys’ fees, and such additional relief as the 
Court m ay deem ju s t and proper.

Respectfully subm itted,
Dated: October 7, 1999

ELAINE R. JONES 
DIRECTOR-COUNSEL
/s/ Theodore M. Shaw 

Theodore M. Shaw 
O latunde C.A. Johnson 
NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, NY 10013



207

Godfrey J. Dillard 
Milton R. Henry 
Reginald M. Turner 
Citizens for Affirmative 

Action's Preservation 
2500 Buhl Building 
Detroit, MI 48226
C hristopher A. Hansen 
E. Vincent W arren 
American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation 
125 Broad St.
New York, NY 10004
B rent E. Simmons 
ACLU Fund of Michigan 
217 S. Capitol Avenue 
P.O. Box 13038 
Lansing, MI 48901

Michael J. Steinberg 
ACLU Fund of Michigan 
1249 Washington, Blvd.,

Suite 2910 
Detroit, MI 48226

Patricia Mendoza 
Ruperto Alba
Mexican American Legal Defense 

& Educational Fund 
188 W. Randolph St.
Suite 1405 
Chicago, IL 60605

[Certificate Of Service Om itted In Printing]



208

1999 G uidelin es for th e C alcu lation  o f a 
S e le c tion  Index for a ll Sch ools and C o l l e g e s  

E xcep t E n g in eer in g

The G u id e lin es  fo r  th e  C a lcu la tio n  o f  a S election  
In d ex  are an a ttem pt to give some standardization to 
decisions m ade by m any different counselors on many 
different applications. We recognize th a t all communities, 
schools, populations, course offerings, grading practices, 
personal circum stances, etc. are not the same. We w ant to 
m ake justifiable decisions th a t blend the consistency of a 
form ula with the flexibility of a review th a t is ultim ately a 
m atte r of hum an judgm ent and which m ust adapt to a 
“rolling adm issions” process.

Admissions is more a rt th an  science, and these guidelines 
should not be read otherwise. These guidelines contain 
lim ited descriptions of the  rationales behind the Index 
categories and factors. Obviously, the rationales and the 
appropriate application of these factors in all situations 
are too complex to be completely described by th is type of 
document. If you require a more detailed discussion of the 
rationales or the application of a factor is troublesome in 
any particu lar case, you should discuss the m atte r with 
your team  leader.

The Selection Index has a maximum value of 150 points, 
w ith the final score for an applicant representing the 
cum ulative a ttribu tes  th a t the  individual will bring to the 
incoming freshm an class. Fully 2/3 of the points of the 
Selection Index are a ttribu tab le  to academics. When test 
scores are added to the academics, only 27% of the m axi
mum possible points are derived from other factors th a t 
assist in enrolling studen ts who will provide a m ixture of 
a ttribu tes  and characteristics valued by the University. It 
is our sincere belief th a t th is  m ixture contributes to the



209

education of our students, as well as fulfills the U niver
sity’s mission to prepare society’s fu ture citizens and 
leaders.

The Selection Index for an applicant is a sum m ation of 
points assigned to factors in one of three categories: Test 
Score, Academic, and O ther Factors. The Test Score 
category consists of up to 12 points based on the appli
can t’s best ACT or SAT test score from any one sitting. Up 
to 98 points can be received in the Academic category, 
based on the academic unweighted Grade Point Average 
(GPA), the category of school attended US” factor), and the 
streng th  or w eakness of the  curriculum  (“C” factor). 
Lastly, an applicant may receive up to 40 points in the 
O ther Factors category, w ith the individual factors de
scribed in la ter sections of this document. Thus, a student 
can receive up to 110 points on factors in the Test Score 
and Academic categories of his or her application and up 
to 40 points from the  O ther Factors component.

The Selection Index reflects a variety of factors in the 
applicant’s file th a t  are not considered in the UM- 
computed academic unweighted GPA. Both the UM- 
computed GPA and the Selection Index will be entered 
into the system and can be accessed on the QU screen on 
DSC.

C ounselors m ust a lw ays c irc le  or en ter  th e app ro
p ria te  po in ts for th e various factors on the cod in g  
w ork sh eet and th e  sum  as th e  S e lectio n  Index. Any  
u n u su a l c ircu m stan ce shou ld  be n oted  and stap led  
to  th e ap p lica tion  in  a prom in en t place.



210

ACADEMIC

The Academic category is comprised of the GPA, school, 
and curriculum  factors.

G rade P o in t  A verage

The UM-computed GPA (calculated from 10th and 
11th grade academic courses) is multiplied by 20 to deter
mine the applicant's score for th is factor. The Selection 
Index W orksheet has a table of the m ultiples of 20 from a 
1.7 to 4.0 GPA. Note th a t an applicant can score up to 80 
points, which constitutes 53% of the possible 150 points an 
applicant can receive.

S (sch o o l) F a ctor

Schools are not ranked throughout the sta te  or coun
try  bu t are given a classification based on the ir school 
profile and academic information. The school factor ac
knowledges th a t we do consider various factors in our 
decisions th a t reflect the differences among schools.

Keep a disk and hard  copy of your schools and their 
respective classifications. Counselors should add new 
schools to the  list as the year progresses and collect the 
high school profiles of schools th a t are already on the list. 
The same S factor should norm ally be applied to all 
applicants from the same school, unless an applicant has 
attended schools w ith different S factors. At the end of the 
application review season, update your S factor list based 
on the high school profiles. Turn in the additions and 
revisions to the secretary responsible for updating the 
entire file for the next season of application review.



211

The S factor is based on the num ber of AP/IB courses 
offered at the school, the percentage of students attending 
two and four year colleges, and average SAT/ACT scores. 
The school profile is the prim ary source of such data. 
Resist the tem ptation of being generous when the school is 
ju s t a little short of the expected level. There will be some 
schools in every category (S factor) th a t ju s t m ake a 
certain  level and some th a t ju s t miss a higher level. 
Additional inform ation such as above average academic 
performance of school’s students based on UM first year 
follow-up reports could move the  school upward. A code  
o f  “E” w ill be en tered  on th e M aster Chart in d ica t
in g  such  an excep tion .

The guide below is based on the averages of over 300 
schools. Each counselor should be able to exercise judg
m ent as to the S factor for schools in their territory. 
Remember the S factor relates to the strength of the school 
-  not ju s t a special group w ithin th a t school. In most cases, 
the A P /IB  figure is the starting point. Then, you should 
determ ine if the SAT I or ACT statistics substan tia te  the S 
points. Use the te st th a t is taken by the greater num ber of 
students in the high school in your deliberations. In the 
midwest, the ACT will be the te st to use, the SAT I will 
likely be the test to use for schools on both coasts. A strong 
record a t UM, SAT II Subject tests, AP/IB scores, the 
school’s curriculum  guide, and other information will help 
in m aking an appropriate decision. Schools with a factor of 
4 or 5 m ust be exceptionally strong and are very rare  in 
general, and more so among public schools. Conversely, 
there  are m any private schools th a t should be less than  a 
factor of 2.



212

Note: The 1997 High School Profiles and SAT I scores
listed below are based on R e c e n te re d  scores.

S = 0 Very few or no Honors or AP courses. Less than 
50% attend  college. SAT I average 1040 or below 
and ACT 22 or below.

S -  1 At least 7 AP,TB courses. Seventy-five percent 
a ttend  college. SAT I average range of 1050-1120 
and ACT 23 or 24.

S = 2 At least 9 AP/IB courses. Strong honors or ad
vanced courses. Eighty-five percent attend  college. 
SAT I average range of 1130-1190 or ACT average 
of 25 or 26.

S = 3 At least 11 AP/IB courses. Many Honors or rigor
ous courses. SAT II subject scores of > 610 and/or 
im pressive results on AP exams support high level 
of learning. Ninety-five percent attend college. SAT
I average range of 1200-1230 or ACT average of 27.

S -  4 At least 12 AP/IB. Strong AP record even when 
courses are not always called AP. Look for exams 
taken. Course grades tend not to cluster a t the 
h ighest end of the scale. Look a t distribution of 
grades and scores. Many records include SAT II 
subject scores th a t tend to be in the 710+ range. 
N inety-nine percent attend college. L ist would in
clude m any competitive colleges. SAT I average 
range of 1240-1310 or ACT average of 28 or 29. S

S = 5 At least 13 AP/IB. Impressive num ber of high SAT
II subject scores. Many National M erit winners. 
Curriculum  reads like the 1st and 2nd year a t a 
typical liberal a rt college. Students receive 4’s & 
5’s on AP. Grades tend to cluster in the mid-range 
of the scale. Counselor comments indicate real dif
ferences in a PLUS/MINUS grading system. S tu
dents have gone in depth into an area of study.



213

Often including foreign study ra th e r than  ju s t 
travel. N inety-nine percent attend  college. List 
would include m any highly competitive/selective 
colleges. SAT I average range of 1320+ or ACT av
erage of 30+.

If you need help in determ ining an appropriate S 
factor due to wide variations in selection criteria, bring 
your data  to MM, and we will assign an appropriate S 
factor.

The conversion of S factors to Selection Index points is 
on the Selection Index W orksheet.

C (cu rr icu lu m ) F a cto r

Given the wide disparity in high school course selec
tion and offerings, it is im perative th a t the choice of strong 
courses, particularly  clearly identified Honors and AP/IB, 
be considered in the review process. It is unfair to reward 
a studen t w ith admission who has elected a mediocre 
curriculum  (sometimes for as m any as four years during 
high school), while punishing by postponements those w ith 
stronger programs. Achievement of a respectable GPA in a 
dem anding and challenging program more often repre
sents high m otivation and commitment than  a contrived, 
inflated GPA in a weak curriculum. The stronger program 
also better prepares the studen t for the quality of work 
expected a t the  University of Michigan. All students are 
expected to elect a t least four traditional college p repara
tory subjects each semester. Those with less should be 
deferred upon first review even if GPA and test score place 
them  in the Adm it range.

The starting  point for any applicant is zero points for 
a strong academic program, consisting of 19 academic



2 1 4

courses m grades 9-12. Do not include art. business 
c m puter application, drafting. engineering, music, t v p T  
or vocational courses as academ.cs. Only count English' 
fo ragn  languages, m athem atics, science, social science' 
and com puter program m ing (Fortran, Basic C Pascal) 
courses as academics. ’ ’

ritv  I?nalr Ur\ thar  there  iS a degree of integ-
ity in the schools definition of “Honors" courses. In

genera , you can calculate 2 honors and/or accelerated
courses to equal 1 AP/IB course, so long as the honors

Z a p ™  SCh° ° ' ^  n0t 6qUal “  or as dem anding as
as A s ta tem en t * e  high school such

This would be Honors a t another school” or “Faculty
policy precludes such a label" does not quality for <Jr 
inclusion as an “honors" course and should not be counted 
Use your knowledge (not assum ptions) about w hat differ) 
en labels used by the schools mean in this area. Tracks 
phase, core, level, advanced, etc. do not always mean
t "  When th ink ing of such courses as being for 
those whose course background has been strong, have

:z th£hz^ or are se,ected to -

When m aking your com putation of num ber of academ
.cs and honors/AP: Do NOT round up! Also, take into
consideration a downward trend in grades and/or weak 
course selection.

C = -2 Very weak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, less than  15 academic courses 
in grades 9-12. Three or fewer academics in senior

S t f u ?  rS °r AP' Use JUdement Ad” i-inn



215

C = -1 W eak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, no honors or AP, 15-18 aca
demics in grades 9-12. Use judgm ent.

C = 0 Average to strong academic program, one AP/IB or 1- 
3 honors, a t least 19 academic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 1 For a very strong program. 2-3 AP/IB or 4-7 honors 
in year long courses and a t least 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12.

C = 2 For an unusually strong program. 4-5 AP/IB or 8- 
11 honors in year long courses and  at least 19 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 3 For a superior program. 6 or 7 AP/IB or 12-15 
honors in year long courses and  a t least 20 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 4 A fantastic  program. 8+ AP/IB or 16+ honors in 
year long courses and  a t least 20 academic courses 
in grades 9-12.

The conversion of C factors to Selection Index points is 
on the Selection Index W orksheet.

T E S T  SC O R E

An applicant may receive one of five established point 
totals for the best score of the ACT or SAT from any one 
exam. Do not add the best verbal and best m ath subscores 
from two different exam dates together. The points are 
assigned to the following ranges of scores:

Points ACT SAT
0
6
10
11
12

20-21 930-1000
22-26 1010-1190
27-30 1200-1350
31-36 1360-1600

01-19 400-920



216

h o te  th a t an applicant having a test score in the zero 
points range for the Test Score category, even if admissible 
due to a very strong score in the Academic category is 
ikely to have a difficult tim e succeeding w ithout substan

tial academic assistance. Thus, the counselor should 
consider such an applicant as a candidate for the Summ er
Bridge Program. Sum m er Bridge is open to Michigan 
residents only. &

O T H E R  FA C TO R S

When reviewing an applicant's file, please circle and/or
Othe'rF \ P°lntS th a t  aPP'-v t0 * e  factors constituting the 

her Factors category. H ow ever, a tota l o f  40 p o in ts  is
th e  m axim um  th at can be added  to th e S e lectio n  
Index  sco re  for th e  O ther F actors category. M ore, 
over, no  a p p h can t can r ec e iv e  po in ts for m ore than
Z a d  fo llo w in g  factors: so c io eco n o m ica lly
d isad van taged  stu d en t or ed u cation , u n d e r r e p j

an  o ffic ia lly  recru ited  a th lete , P ro v o st’s d iscretio n  
or p ro fession a l d iversity . ’

G eograp h y

An apphcant may receive points for residency in one

dent may receive a maximum of 16 points, while an 
out-of-state s tuden t may receive only 2 points, if  residing 
m a designated state. °

Michigan Residency: As a public institu tion supported 
by the citizens of Michigan, it  is im portant th a t our L orn -  

g reshm an class have a large representation of students



p

from Michigan. To achieve th a t goal, each Michigan 
resident is awarded 10 points.

Residency in an U nderrepresented County: The vast 
m ajority of enrolling incoming freshmen are from the 
southern counties of Michigan. To promote interaction 
among students from all parts  of the state, applicants from 
northern  Michigan (defined as counties including and 
north of Oceana, Newaygo, Mecosta, Clare, Gladwin, and 
Arenac counties), ru ral areas, and small communities tha t 
are separated geographically and/or culturally from more 
populated areas, will be aw arded 6 points. Applicants from 
the following areas should receive these points:

217

Lower Peninsula

Alcona Gladwin Montmorency
Alpena G rand Traverse Newaygo
Antrium Iosco Oceana
Arenac K alkaska Ogemaw
Benzie Lake Osceola
Cheboygan Leelaunau Oscoda
Charlevoix M anistee Otsego
Clare Mason Presque Isle
Crawford Mecosta Roscommon

U pper Peninsula

Alger Gogebic Mackinac
Baraga Houghton Menominee
Chippewa Iron Ontonagon
Delta Keweenaw Schoolcraft
Dickinson Luce

Residency in a sta te  from a region which is underrep
resented a t the University of Michigan: Applicants from 
w estern states (beyond Missouri, Iowa, M innesota) except



21S

California and southern s ta tes  below Virginia and Tennes
see (except for Florida and Texas) are awarded 2 points 
S tudents who are residents of the following states can 
receive these points:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
A rkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho

K ansas 
Louisiana 
M ississippi 
M ontana 
N ebraska 
Nevada 
New Mexico 
N orth Carolina

North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
U tah
W ashington
Wyoming

In ternational students 
factor points.

are not awarded any geographic

A lu m n i R e la tio n sh ip s

To recognize the continuing service and support 
provided to the University, points will be awarded for 
certain  alum ni relationships:

Legacy -  The applicant, whose paren t or step-parent 
attended UM-Ann Arbor as degree-seeking students, 
should be aw arded 4 points.

or

O ther Alumni Relationships -  The applicant, whose 
g randparen ts, siblings, or spouse attended UM-Ann Arbor 
as degree seeking students, should be awarded 1 point.

Points cannot be aw arded for both categories.



219

E ssay
The essay is required. If the essay is missing, the 

application is incomplete and cannot be m arked up for 
admission. The essay will be evaluated for content, style, 
originality, and risk. One point may be awarded for an 
outstanding essay.

P erso n a l A ch iev em en t

Points for Personal Achievement will be based on 
inform ation provided on page 3 of the application, item 31, 
“Activities, W ork Experience and Awards”, as well as 
other inform ation provided w ith the application. The 
applicant m ust dem onstrate a state , regional, or national 
level of achievem ent in academic competitions, art, a th le t
ics (applies to non-recruited ath letes only), music, profes
sional theater, or science. Remember, most applicants to 
UM are very active students in leadership positions, sports 
activities, social clubs, etc. in the ir high schools and local 
communities. Involvement in these activities is not un
usual and is norm al for the applicant pool. The Personal 
Achievement factor is not to be u sed  as compensation for 
w eaker academic achievem ent attributed to over
involvement in non-academic activities.

Examples of personal achievem ents include a N a
tional Science Foundation Award; W estinghouse Scholars; 
state, regional, or national recognition in an academic 
competition (e.g., forensics); state, regional, or national 
recognition as an athlete; placing in a state, regional, or 
national a rt show; having w riting published in a state, 
regionally, or nationally recognized magazine or journal; 
or professional th eater experience. Do not award points for



220

personal achievem ent a t the local level -  th a t level of 
accom plishm ent is normal w ithin the applicant pool.

Counselors should have some validation of the 
achievem ent such as high school counselor confirmation, 
copy of award certificate, new spaper clipping, etc.

Points
1 S ta te  level achievem ent

3 Regional level achievement

5 N ational level achievement

L ea d ersh ip  and  S e r v ice

Points for Leadership will be based on information 
provided on page 3 of the application, item 31. “Activities 
Work Experience and A w ards”, as well as other informa
tion provided w ith the application. The applicant m ust 
dem onstrate a state, regional, or national level of 
achievement. Remember, m ost applicants to UM are very 
active s tuden ts in leadership positions, sports activities, 
social clubs, etc. Active involvement in these activities is 
not unusual and is norm al for the applicant pool. The 
Leadership and Service factor is  not to be u sed  as 
compensation for weaker academic achievement a ttributed  
to over-involvement in non-academic activities.

Exam ples of strong leadership include elected posi
tions a t Girls or Boys’ S tate , a unique initiative in a 
community endeavor resu lting  in special recognition, state  
or service club award, or successful entrepreneurship.

Points
1 S ta te  level achievement

3 Regional level achievement

5 N ational level achievement



221

S o c io e co n o m ic a lly  D isa d v a n ta g ed  S tu d en t or  
E d u ca tio n

The U niversity is committed to a rich educational 
experience for its students, which should include in terac
tion w ith studen ts of all socioeconomic backgrounds. A 
diverse, as opposed to a homogeneous, student population 
enhances the education experience for all students. Conse
quently, 20 points will be awarded to an applicant who:

is socioeconomically disadvantaged, with indicators 
such as p a ren ts’ occupations, single parent upbring
ing, a deceased parent, necessary excessive work 
hours while a ttending  school, overcoming extraordi
nary obstacles, such as abuse, or homelessness; or

is a s tuden t educated in a high school serving a popu
lation th a t is predom inantly socioeconomically disad
vantaged.

U n d er r ep re se n ted  R a c ia l/E th n ic  M inority  
Id e n tity  or E d u ca tio n

The University is committed to an educational experi
ence th a t involves students interacting with other students 
of different races and ethnicities than their own. Conse
quently, 20 points will be awarded to an applicant who:

is a m em ber of a federally recognized underrepre
sented race or ethnicity, which is also underrepre
sented on the UM Ann Arbor campus; or

is a s tuden t educated in a high school serving a popu
lation th a t is predom inantly comprised of federally 
recognized underrepresented races and/or ethnicities, 
which are also underrepresented on the UM Ann Ar
bor campus.



Place student label here or fill in the 
following information
Name ___________________________
SIN ___________________________
Unit ___________________________
Term ___________________________

GPA

School
Factor

Curricu
lum

Factor

P o in ts
(c irc le ) ACAD EM IC

1 9 9 9  F o rm  C o n f i d e n t i a l

S e le c t io n  I n d e x  W o r k s h e e t

(For LS&A and selected Schools and 
Divisions, other than Engineering)

F o r  I n te r n a l  U se  O n lv

ACT/ 
SAT I

j A d d  p o in ts  in  
i th is  c o lu m n  for  
I su b  score 1

40 2.0
42 2.1
44 2.2
46 2.3
48 2.4
50 2.5
52 2.6
54 2.7
56 2.8
58 2.9
60 3.0
62 3.1
64 3.2
66 3.3
68 3.4
70 3.5
72 3.6
74 3.7
76 3.8
78 3.9
so 4.0

0 0
2 1
4 2
6 3
8 4
10 5

-4 -2
-2 -1
0 0
2 1
4 2
6 3
8 4

P o in ts
(c irc le

on e) T E S T  SC O R E

0 01-19 400-920
6 20-21 930-1000
10 22-26 1010-1190
11 27-30 1200-1350
12 31-36 1360-1600

P o in ts O T H E R  FA C TO R S
(c irc le ) (M a x im u m  4 0  p o in ts )

Geography
10 Michigan Resident
6 Underrepresented Michigan County
2 Underrepresented State

Alumni
4 A s s ig n Legacy (p a r e n ts  / s te p p a r e n ts )

o n ly  1 or
1 o p tio n Other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)

Essay
1 Outstanding Essay

Personal Achievement
1 A s s ig n State
3 o n ly  1 Regional
5 o p tio n National

Leadership & Service
1 A s s ig n State
3 o n ly  1 Regional 

_National5 o p tio n

Miscellaneous
20
20

A s s ig n  
5 o n ly  1

20 o p tio n

Socio-economic Disadvantage 
Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic 

Minority Identification or Education 
Men in Nursing 
Scholarship Athlete

(assigned by a th letic  counselor only) 
Provost’s Discretion20

A d d  p o in ts  in  
th is  c o lu m n  fo r  
su b  sco re  2

TO TA L .

S u b  s c o re  1 + S u b  s c o re  2 = S e le c t io n  In d e x

222



223

CONFIDENTIAL
In ternal Use Only

2000 G u id elin es for th e C alcu lation  o f a 
S electio n  In d ex  for all S ch ools and C olleges  

E xcep t E n g in eer in g

T h e  G u id e lin e s  fo r  th e  C a lc u la tio n  o f  a S e lec tio n  
In d e x  are an a ttem pt to give some standardization to 
decisions m ade by m any different counselors on m any 
different applications. We recognize th a t all communities, 
schools, populations, course offerings, grading practices, 
personal circum stances, etc. are not the same. We w ant to 
m ake justifiable decisions th a t blend the consistency of a 
formula w ith the flexibility of a review th a t is ultim ately a 
m atte r of hum an judgm ent and which m ust adapt to a 
“phased adm issions” process.

Admissions is more a r t th an  science, and these guidelines 
should not be read otherwise. These guidelines contain 
lim ited descriptions of the rationales behind the Index 
categories and factors. Obviously, the rationales and the 
appropriate application of these factors in all situations 
are too complex to be completely described by th is type of 
document. If you require a more detailed discussion of the 
rationales or the application of a factor is troublesome in 
any particu lar case, you should discuss the m atte r with 
your team  leader.

The Selection Index has a maximum value of 150 points, 
w ith the final score for an applicant representing the 
cum ulative a ttribu tes  th a t the individual will bring to the 
incoming freshm an class. Fully 2/a of the points of the 
Selection Index are attribu tab le  to academics. When test 
scores are added to the academics, only 27% of the maxi
mum possible points are derived from other factors th a t



224

assis t in enrolling students who will provide a m ixture of 
a ttribu tes  and characteristics valued by the University. It 
is our sincere belief th a t th is  m ixture contributes to the 
education of our students, as well as fulfills the U niver
sity ’s mission to prepare society’s fu ture citizens and 
leaders.

The Selection Index for an applicant is a sum m ation of 
points assigned to factors in one of three categories: 
Academic, Test Score, and O ther Factors. The Test Score 
category consists of up to 12 points based on the appli
can t’s best ACT or SAT test score from any one sitting. Up 
to 98 points can be received in the Academic category, 
based on the academic unw eighted Grade Point Average 
(GPA), the  category of school attended (“S” factor), and the 
s treng th  or weakness of the  curriculum  (“C” factor). 
Lastly, an applicant may receive up to 40 points in the 
O ther Factors category, w ith the individual factors de
scribed in la te r sections of th is document. Thus, a studen t 
can receive up to 110 points on factors in the Test Score 
and Academic categories of his or her application and up 
to 40 points from the O ther Factors component.

The Selection Index reflects a variety of factors in the 
applicant’s file th a t are not considered in the UM- 
computed academic unw eighted GPA. Both the UM- 
computed GPA and the Selection Index will be entered 
into the system  and can be accessed on the PeopleSoft 
Overall Rating panel.

C ou n selors m ust a lw ays c irc le  or en ter  th e ap p ro
p ria te  p o in ts  for th e v ar iou s factors on th e cod in g  
w o rk sh eet and th e  sum  as th e  S e lectio n  Index. Any  
u n u su a l c ircu m stan ce  sh ou ld  be n oted  and stap led  
to  th e  a p p lica tio n  in  a p rom in en t place.



225

ACADEMIC

The Academic category is comprised of the GPA, school, 
and curriculum  factors.

G rade P o in t A verage

The UM-computed GPA (calculated from 10th and 
11th grade academic courses) is m ultiplied by 20 to deter
mine the applicant’s score for th is factor. The Selection 
Index W orksheet has a table of the m ultiples of 20 from a 
2.0 to 4.0 GPA. Note th a t an applicant can score up to 80 
points, which constitutes 53% of the possible 150 points an 
applicant can receive. If an applicant’s GPA is below 2.0, 
m ultiply the GPA X 20 to determ ine the SI points: i.e. 1.5 
X 20 = 30.

S (sch oo l) F actor

Schools are not ranked  throughout the s ta te  or 
country but are given a classification based on their school 
profile and academic information. The school factor ac
knowledges th a t we do consider variables in our decisions 
th a t reflect the differences among schools.

Keep a disk and hard  copy of your schools and their 
respective classifications. Counselors should add new 
schools to the list as the year progresses and collect the 
high school profiles of schools th a t are already on the list. 
The same S factor should be applied to all applicants from 
the same school, unless an applicant has attended schools 
w ith different S factors. At the end of the application 
review season, update your S factor list based on the high 
school profiles. Turn in the additions and revisions to the



226

secretary responsible for updating the entire file for the 
next season of application review.

The S factor is based on the num ber of AP/IB courses 
offered a t the school, the percentage of students attending 
two and four year colleges, and average SAT/ACT scores. 
The school profile is the prim ary source of such data. 
Resist the tem ptation of being generous when the school is 
ju s t a little  short of the expected level. There will be some 
schools in every category7 (S factor) th a t ju s t m ake a 
certain  level and some th a t ju s t miss a higher level. 
Additional inform ation such as above average academic 
perform ance of a school’s studen ts based on UM first year 
follow-up reports could move the school upward. A code  
o f  “E ” w ill be en tered  on  th e  M aster C hart in d ica t
in g  su ch  an excep tion .

The guide below is based on the averages of over 300 
schools. Each counselor should be able to exercise judg
m ent as to the S factor for schools in their territory. 
Rem ember the S factor re la tes to the strength  of the school 
-  not ju s t a special group w ithin th a t school. In most cases, 
the A P /IB  figure is the starting point. Next consider the 
college bound percentage of students in the school. Then, 
you should determ ine if the SAT I or ACT statistics 
substan tia te  the S points. Use the test that is taken by the 
greater num ber o f students in the high school in your 
deliberations. In the midwest, the ACT will be the te st to 
use, the SAT I will likely be the te st to use for schools on 
both coasts. A strong record a t UM, SAT II Subject tests, 
AP/IB scores, the school’s curriculum  guide, and other 
inform ation will help in m aking an appropriate decision. 
Schools w ith a factor of 4 or 5 m ust be exceptionally strong 
and are very ra re  in general, and more so among public



227

schools. Conversely, there are m any private schools th a t
should be less than  a factor of 2.

Note. The 1997 and la ter High School Profiles include 
R ecen tered  SAT I scores. Any S factors deter
mined prior to 1997 were based on original SAT 
scores.

S = 0 Very few or no Honors or AP courses. Less than 
50% attend  college. SAT I average 1040 or below 
and ACT below 22.

S = 1 At least 7 AP/IB courses. Seventy-five percent 
a ttend  college. SAT I average range of 1050-1120 
and ACT below 23 or 24.

S = 2 At least 9 AP/IB courses. S trong honors or ad
vanced courses. Eighty-five percent attend college. 
SAT I average range of 1130-1190 or ACT average 
of 25 or 26.

S = 3 At least 11 AP/IB courses. M any Honors or rigor
ous courses. SAT II subject scores of > 610 and/or 
impressive resu lts on AP exams support high level 
of learning. Ninety-five percent attend  college. SAT
I average range of 1200-1190 or ACT average of 27.

® — ^ lsas t 12 AP/IB. Strong AP record even when 
courses are not always called AP. Look for exams 
taken. Course grades tend not to cluster a t the 
highest end of the scale. Look a t distribution of 
grades and scores. Many records include SAT II 
subject scores th a t tend to be in the 710+ range. 
N inety-nine percent attend college. List would in
clude m any competitive colleges. SAT I average 
range of 1240-1310 or ACT average of 28 or 29.

S = 5 At least 13 AP/IB. Impressive num ber of high SAT
II subject scores. Many N ational M erit winners. 
Curriculum  reads like the 1st and 2nd year a t a



228

typical liberal a rt college. S tudents receive 4's & 
5’s on AP. Grades tend to cluster in the mid-range 
of the scale. Counselor comments indicate real dif
ferences in a PLUS/MINUS grading system. S tu
dents have gone in depth into an area of study. 
Often including foreign study ra th e r than  ju s t 
travel. N inety-nine percent attend college. List 
would include m any highly competitive/selective 
colleges. SAT I average range of 1320+ or ACT av
erage of 30+.

If you need help in determ ining an appropriate S 
factor due to wide variations in selection criteria, bring 
your d a ta  to MM, and we will assign an appropriate S 
factor.

The conversion of S factors to Selection Index points is 
on the Selection Index W orksheet.

C (cu rr icu lu m ) F a c to r

Given the wide disparity  in high school course selec
tion and offerings, it is im perative th a t the choice of strong 
courses, particularly  clearly identified Honors and AP/IB, 
be considered in the review process. It is unfair to reward 
a s tuden t w ith adm ission who has elected a mediocre 
curriculum  (sometimes for as m any as four years during 
high school), while deferring those w ith stronger pro
gram s. Achievement of a respectable GPA in a demanding 
and challenging program  more often represents high 
m otivation and com m itm ent than  an inflated GPA in a 
weak curriculum . The stronger program also better 
prepares the studen t for the quality of work expected at 
the U niversity of Michigan. All students are expected to 
elect a t least four trad itional college preparatory subjects 
each sem ester. Those w ith less will probably be deferred



229

upon first review. Counselors should en ter the value of 3 
in the Review Flag Rating Value field on the Overall
R ating panel, if the applicant has less than  the expected 
amount.

The starting  point for any applicant is zero points for 
a strong academic program, consisting of 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12. Do not include art, business, 
com puter application, drafting, engineering, music, typing, 
or vocational courses as academics. Only count English, 
foreign languages, m athem atics, science, social science,’ 
and com puter program m ing (Fortran, Basic, C, Pascal) 
courses as academics.

Make sure th a t there is a reasonable degree of integ
rity  in the school’s definition of “Honors” courses. In 
general, you can calculate 2 honors courses to equal 1 
AP/IB course, so long as the honors courses a t th a t school 
are not equal to or as dem anding as the AP/IB courses. A 
sta tem en t from the high school such as “This would be 
Honors a t another school” or “Faculty policy precludes 
such a label” does not quality for our inclusion as an 
honors course and should not be counted. Use your 

knowledge (not assum ptions) about w hat different labels 
used by the schools mean in this area. Tracks, phase, core, 
level, advanced, etc. do not always m ean “advanced” when 
th ink ing  of such courses as being for those whose course 
background has been strong, have received high grades, or 
are selected to participate and w rite the AP Exams.

When m aking your computation of num ber of academ
ics and honors/AP: Do NOT round up! Also, take into 
consideration a downward trend in grades and/or weak 
course selection.



230

C = -2 Very weak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, less than  15 academic courses 
in grades 9-12. Three or fewer academics in senior 
year. No honors or AP/IB. Use judgm ent. Admis
sion doubtful.

C = -1 W eak academic program, relative to w hat is 
offered in the school, no honors or AP/IB, 15-18 
academics in grades 9-12. Use judgm ent.

C = 0 Average to strong academic program, one AP/IB or 
1-3 honors, a t least 19 academic courses in grades 
9-12.

C = 1 For a very strong program. 2-3 AP/IB or 4-7 honors 
in year long courses and a t least 19 academic 
courses in grades 9-12.

C = 2 For an unusually strong program. 4-5 AP/IB or 8- 
11 honors in year long courses and  a t least 19 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 3 For a superior program. 6 or 7 AP/IB or 12-15 
honors in year long courses and  a t least 20 aca
demic courses in grades 9-12.

C = 4 A fantastic  program. 8+ AP/IB or 16+ honors in 
year long courses and  a t least 20 academic courses 
in grades 9-12.

The conversion of C factors to Selection Index points is
on the Selection Index W orksheet.

TEST SCORE

An applicant may receive one of five established point 
totals for the best score of the ACT or SAT from any one 
exam. Do not add the best verbal and best m ath subscores



2 3 1

from two different exam dates together. The points are 
assigned to the following ranges of scores:

Points ACT SAT
0 01-19 400-920
6 20-21 930-1000
10 22-26 1010-1190
11 27-30 1200-1350
12 31-36 1360-1600

Note th a t an applicant having a te s t score in the zero 
points range for the Test Score category, even if admissible 
due to a very strong score in the Academic category, is 
likely to have a difficult time succeeding w ithout substan
tial academic assistance. Thus, the counselor should 
consider such an applicant as a candidate for the Sum m er 
Bridge Program. Sum m er Bridge is open to Michigan 
residents only.

OTHER FACTORS

When reviewing an applicant’s file, please circle and/or 
award all points th a t apply to the factors constituting the 
O ther Factors category. H ow ever, a total o f  40 p oin ts is  
th e m axim um  th at can be add ed  to th e  S election  
Index score  for th e O ther F actors category. M ore
over, no ap p lican t can rece iv e  p o in ts  for m ore than  
on e  o f th e fo llo w in g  factors: socioecon om ica lly  
d isad van taged  stu d en t or ed u cation , u n d errep re
sen ted  ra c ia l/eth n ic  m in ority  id en tity  or ed u cation , 
an o ffic ia lly  recru ited  a th lete , P ro v o st’s d iscretion , 
or p ro fession a l d iversity .



2 3 2

Geography

An applicant may receive points for residency in one 
or more of three special geographic areas. An instate 
s tuden t may receive a maxim um  of 16 points, while an 
out-of-state s tuden t m ay receive only 2 points, if residing 
in a designated state.

Michigan Residency: As a public institu tion supported 
by the citizens of Michigan, it is im portant th a t our incom
ing freshm an class have an appropriate representation of 
s tuden ts from Michigan. To achieve th a t goal, each Michi
gan resident is aw arded 10 points.

Residency in an U nderrepresented County: The vast 
m ajority of enrolling incoming freshm en are from the 
southern  counties of M ichigan. To promote interaction 
among students from all parts  of the state, applicants from 
northern  M ichigan (defined as counties in c lu d in g  and  
n orth  of Oceana, Newaygo, Mecosta, Clare, Gladwin, and 
Arenac counties), ru ra l areas, and small communities th a t 
are separated geographically and/or culturally from more 
populated areas, will be awarded 6 points. Applicants from 
the following areas should receive these points:

Lower Peninsula
Alcona Gladwin Montmorency
Alpena G rand Traverse Newaygo
Antrium Iosco Oceana
Arenac K alkaska Ogemaw
Benzie Lake Osceola
Cheboygan Leelaunau Oscoda
Charlevoix M anistee Otsego
Clare Mason Presque Isle
Crawford Mecosta Roscommon



r

2 3 3

Alger
Baraga
Chippewa
Delta
Dickinson

Upper Peninsula

Gogebic
Houghton
Iron
Keweenaw
Luce

Mackinac
Menominee
Ontonagon
Schoolcraft

Residency in a state  from a region which is underrepre
sented a t the University of Michigan. S tudents who are 
residents of the following states can receive these points:

Alabama M aine Oregon
Alaska M ississippi Rhode Island
A rkansas M ontana South Carolina
Hawaii N ebraska South Dakota
Idaho Nevada U tah
Kansas New Mexico Vermont
Louisiana N orth Dakota 

Oklahoma
W est Virginia 
Wyoming

International students are not awarded any geographic 
factor points.

A lum ni R e la tio n sh ip s

To recognize the continuing service and support provided 
to the University, points will be awarded for certain 
alum ni relationships:

Legacy -  The applicant, whose parent or step-parent 
attended UM-Ann Arbor as degree-seeking students, 
should be awarded 4 points.

or

O ther Alumni Relationships — The applicant, whose 
grandparents, siblings, or spouse attended UM-Ann Arbor 
as degree seeking students, should be awarded 1 point.



2 3 4

Points cannot be awarded for both categories.

E ssa y

The essay is required. If the essay is missing, the applica
tion is incomplete and cannot be m arked up for review. 
The essay will be evaluated for content, style, originality, 
and risk. An applicant m ay receive up to 3 points for the 
essay depending on w hether it is rated  outstanding (3 
pts.), excellent (2 pts.), or very good (1 pt.).

In ra tin g  the essay, counselors should consider the follow
ing criteria:

• C ontent

The applicant’s w ritten  m aterials should be clear, well- 
organized and susta in  a well-focused discussion.

• S ty le

The applicant’s use of language should be fluent and 
effective, w ith varied sentence structure  and vocabu
lary appropriate to the subject.

The applicant should dem onstrate faculties with the 
conventions (gram m ar, usage, and mechanics) of s tan 
dard w ritten English.

• O rig inality /R isk  tak in g

The applicant should display an extraordinary ability 
to explore ideas w ith insightful reasoning, persuasive 
examples, a m atu re  out look and/or deep concern for 
society.

If  the studen t’s essay is average or below average points 
should not be given.



2 3 5

P erso n a l A ch iev em en t

Points for Personal achievement will be based on the 
information provided in “Activities, Work Experience and 
Awards,” as well as other information provided with the 
application.

Applicant m ay receive up to 5 points for personal 
achievem ent depending on w hether it is rated outstanding 
(5 pts.), excellent (3 pts.), or very good (1 pt.). When 
evaluating personal achievement, counselors should look 
prim arily for evidence of persistence, character and 
com m itm ent to high ideals and the level of awards. In 
addition, counselors should consider the following general 
criteria:

• E v id en ce o f  p ersisten ce

• The applicant’s application reflects barriers over
come and a desire to succeed in all his/her high 
school endeavors.

• The applicant was employed during the school year 
while m aintain ing academic excellence and service 
in school and community activities. (Can be re
flected in essay and/or high school counselor’s rec
ommendation)

• In addition, some applicants may have overcome 
adverse family, social or economic conditions and 
still achieved academically.

• C haracter and C om m itm ent to h igh  ideals.

• The applicant’s m aterials should dem onstrate a 
strong respect for others and their perspectives. •

• The applicant’s application m aterials should reflect 
a strong ability to work effectively with others.



2 3 6

• The applicant's application m aterials should show 
considerable evidence of having taken advantage of 
opportunities, by displaying m aturity  in commit
m ent, initiative and responsibility.

• The applicant’s application should also show evi
dence of being a self-starter and role model.

• A w ards

The applicant’s aw ards should include outstanding 
high school, s tate , regional or national honors. The 
applicant’s m aterials should illustra te  the highest level 
of achievem ent and special ta lents, in academic 
competition, art, a th letes (applies to non-recruited 
ath letes only), music, theater, or science.

• R ecom m en d ation s

High school counselors or other school officials should 
include recom m endations to provide additional infor
m ation about the  applicant’s achievement and to 
validate the level of participation for personal achieve
ment.

If the applicant’s personal achievement is average or 
below average points should not be given.

L ea d ersh ip  and S erv ice

Points for leadership and service, will be based on infor
m ation provided in “Activities, Work Experience and 
A w ards”, as well as other inform ation provided with the 
application.

Applicant may receive up to 5 points for leadership and 
service depending on w hether it is rated  outstanding 
(5 pts.), excellent (3 pts.), or very good (1 pt.). When



2 3 7

evaluating leadership and service, counselors should use 
the following general criteria.

• M eaningful activities and experiences, which reflect a 
commitment to school activities through continued par
ticipation across the four years in a variety of activities.

• Leadership positions, elected or appointed, with an 
increase in responsibility and leadership across the 
four years as reflected by increasingly higher elected 
office held. (High school counselor often substantiates 
this level of involvement and passion.) In addition, the 
applicant m ust show meaningful contributions to the 
high school.

• The applicant m ust have forged frontiers in activities -  
not simply a laundry list of activities. The breadth and 
quality of activities is critical, especially quality of ac
complishment. For example, community activities 
should show evidence of meaningful contributions to 
the ir community.

• A w ards

The applicant’s aw ards should include outstanding high 
school, state, regional or national honors. The applicant’s 
m aterials should illustra te  the highest level of achieve
m ent and special ta len ts, in academic competition, art, 
a th letes (applies to non-recruited athletes only), music, 
theater, or science.

• R ecom m en d ation s

High school counselors or other school officials should 
include recommendations to provide additional infor
m ation about the applicant’s achievement and to 
validate the level of participation for personal achieve
ment.



2 3 8

If the applicant's leadership and sendee, is average or 
below average points should not be given.

S o c io e co n o m ic a lly  D isa d v a n ta g ed  S tu d en t or E d u 
ca tio n

The U niversity is committed to a rich educational experi
ence for its students, which should include interaction 
w ith s tuden ts of all socioeconomic backgrounds. A diverse, 
as opposed to a homogeneous, studen t population en
hances the  education experience for all students. Conse
quently, 20 points will be aw arded to an applicant who:

is socioeconomically disadvantaged, w ith indicators such 
as p a ren ts’ occupations, single parent upbringing, a 
deceased parent, necessary excessive work hours while 
a ttend ing  school, overcoming extraordinary obstacles, such 
as abuse, or homelessness; or

is a s tuden t educated in a high school serving a population 
th a t is predom inantly socioeconomically disadvantaged.

U n d er r ep re se n ted  R a c ia l/E th n ic  M in ority  Id en tity  
or E d u ca tio n

The U niversity is committed to an educational experience 
th a t involves studen ts in teracting  with other studen ts of 
different races and ethnicities than  the ir own. Conse
quently, 20 points will be awarded to an applicant who:

is a m em ber of a federally recognized underrepresented 
race or ethnicity, which is also underrepresented on the 
UM Ann Arbor campus; or

is a s tuden t educated in a high school serving a population 
th a t is predom inantly comprised of federally recognized



239

underrepresented races and/or ethnicities, which are also 
underrepresented on the UM Ann Arbor campus.

S ch o la rsh ip  A th le te

In anticipation of the ir contributions to the University and 
in recognition of the tradition  and national prominence of 
M ichigan intercollegiate athletics, applicants being offi
cially recruited and considered for athletic scholarships 
should have 20 points added to the ir score.

P r o v o st’s D iscre tio n

At the discretion of the Provost (only), up to an additional 
20 points m ay be aw arded to an applicant.

P r o fe ss io n a l D iv e rs ity

Over time, some professions have become composed 
predom inantly of one gender or another. The School of 
N ursing has identified a need to enroll more members of 
an underrepresented gender to enhance its educational 
environm ent and to improve the diversity w ithin its 
profession. A counselor should award 5 points to those 
applicants who are men applying to the School of Nursing. 
(See the Guidelines for Calculation of an Engineering 
Selection Index for the Professional Diversity points 
awarded for women applicants to the College of Engineer
ing.)



P la c e  s tu d e n t  la b e l  here  o r  f i l l  in the  
fo l lo w in g  in fo rm a tio n

N a m e ________________________________
SIN __________________________
U n it  ________________________________
Term

ACT/ 
SA T I

C o n f i d e n t i a l  
I n t e r n a l  U s e  O n ly  

S e le c tio n  In d e x  W o rk sh e e t
(For L S & A  a n d  se lec ted  Schools  a n d  
D iv is io n s ,  o th er  th a n  E n g in eer in g )

P o in ts P o in ts O T H E R  FA C TO R S
(c irc le ) ACAD EM IC (c irc le ) (M a x im u m  4 0  p o in ts )

40 2.0 Geotrraphv
42 2.1 10 M ich igan  R esid en t
44 2.2 6 U nderrepresented M ichigan County
46 2.3 2 U nderrepresented  S ta te
48 2.4
50 2.5 A lum ni
52 2.6 4 A ss ig n L egacy ( p a r e n t s / s tep p a ren ts )
54 2.7 only  1 or

GPA 56 2.8 1 option Other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)
58 2.9
60 3.0 E ssa v
62 : • 3.1 1 A ss ig n V ery Good
64 3.2 2 on ly  l E x cellen t
66 3.3 3 option __O u tsta n d in g
68 3.4
70 3.5 P erson a l A ch iev em en t
72 3.6 1 A ss ig n V ery Good
74 3.7 3 only 1 E x cellen t
76 3.8 5 option O u tsta n d in g
78 3.9
80 4.0 L ead ersh ip  & S erv ice

1 A ss ig n V ery Good
0 0 3 on ly  1 E xcellen t

School 2 ' 1 5 option O u tsta n d in g
F actor 4 2

6 3 M isce llan eou s
8 4 20 Socio-econom ic D isa d v a n ta g e

10 5 20 Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic
A ss ig n Minority Identification or Education

-4 -2 5 on ly  1 M en in N u rsin g
C urricu- -2 -1 20 option Scholarship Athlete

lum 0 0 (assigned by athletic counselor only)
F actor 2 1 20 P rovost’s D iscretio n

4 2 A d d  p o in ts in
6 3 th is  co lum n for
8 4 su b  score 2

P o in ts w’- ■ ' TO TA L
(c irc le U -i;.:: U •. > •:

one) T E S T  SC O R E S u b  s c o re  1 + S u b  s c o re  2 = S e le c t io n  In d e x

0
6
10
11
12

01-19
20-21
22-26
27-30
31-36

4 0 0 -9 2 0
9 3 0 -1 0 0 0
1010-1190
1200-1350
1360-1600

A d d  po in ts  in 
th is  colum n for  
sub  score 1

240



241

THE UNIVERSITY OF M ICHIG A N
Office of
U ndergraduate
Admissions

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Counselors and O thers

FROM: Ted Spencer/s/ Ted Spencer 
RE: Reason for Diversity

DATE: Septem ber 25, 1996

This sta tem en t can be used by counselors to help explain 
our com m itm ent to diversity:

O ur com m itm ent to excellence m eans th a t we will 
continue to adm it students as individuals, based on 
th e ir m erits; especially w hat they have achieved aca
demically. We also look a t the ir character, their par
ticipation, their energy, curiosity, and determ ination 
as it  contributes to the whole person profile of the ap
plicant.

I t is also our goal to adm it applicants who are willing 
to en terta in  the idea th a t tolerance, understanding 
and m utual respect are goals worthy of a person who 
has been truly educated.

D iversity creates tolerance and m utual respect. It 
also creates opportunity to hear, and view directly, 
face to face, from people who believe and who have 
lived the  experience. Formal academic study cannot 
always provide th a t same level of experience and un
derstanding with others who are different from our
selves.

Our admission guidelines continue to use a high 
standard  of admission for all entering students. But



p

242

because there are still many more candidates th a t 
m eet our competitive guidelines, than  there  are 
spaces available, our admission policies try  to adm it 
not only individuals, but also an en tire  entering class 
th a t  can collectively add to the diversity and academic 
vitality  of the University.

So as we look a t applications th is year, we will review 
the  essay, ex tracurricu lar involvement and academic 
achievem ents to enhance our ability to identify these 
qualities in all our applicants.



243

Office of U ndergraduate CONFIDENTIAL
Admissions Internal Use only

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE  
AND THE ARTS GUIDELINES  

FOR ALL TERMS OF 2000

OUA Liaison M arilyn McKinney, 
Associate Director 
1220 Student Activity 

Building, 1316

OUA Backup Sally Lindsley,
A ssistan t Director 
1220 Student Activity 

Building, 1316

LS&A Contact C harles Judge,
D irector of Academic 

S tandards 
1219 JA ngell Hall, 

1003

LS&A John R. Cross,
Enrollment Associate Dean 
Working Group for Budget and 
Representative Adm inistration

2542 LS&A Bldg. 1382

LS&A Liaison Robert Owen,
Associate Dean Of
U ndergraduate
Curriculum
2508 LS&A Bldg. 1382

LS&A Liaison Esrold A. Nurse
A ssistant Dean for 

S tudent Academic 
Affairs

1402 Mason Hall, 1027

Fax Phone
647-8759 936-2786 
e-mail:
mmckinne@umich.edu

936-0740 936-2463 
e-mail:
sallyhl@umich.edu

764-2772 936-3222 
e-mail:
cjudge@umich.edu

964-2697 763-3275 
e-mail:
jcross@umich.edu

764-2697 764-0320 
e-mail:
rowen@umich.edu

647-5577 964-7297 
e-mail:
eanurse@umich.edu

mailto:mmckinne@umich.edu
mailto:sallyhl@umich.edu
mailto:cjudge@umich.edu
mailto:jcross@umich.edu
mailto:rowen@umich.edu
mailto:eanurse@umich.edu


»

TA BLE O F C O N TEN TS 
A d m issio n  o f F re s h m e n

D efinition of A F reshm an  A pp lican t.............................. 1

Overview of Adm ission Policies (F irs t Review)..........  1

Terms of A dm ission ................................................... 1

A ssigned R ev iew er....................................................  1

G eneral R eq u irem en ts ............................................. 2

High School G ra d u a tio n .................................  2

Home Schooled S tu d en ts ..........................  2

Course P rep a ra tio n ...........................................  2

G rade-Point A v erag e ........................................ 2

ACT/SAT I s c o re ................................................  2

Selection Index ............................................................ 2

Special P ro g ram s.................................................................. 2

Honors P ro g ram .........................................................  2

C om prehensive S tudies Program  (C S P )............  4
R esidential C o llege ................................................... 4

P referred  A dm ission.................................................. 5

D ual A dm ission ....................................................................  5

G eneral Policy ............................................................. 5

E x cep tio n ...................................................................... 5

School of M usic and LS&A or R esidential 
College................................................................  5

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ....................................................... 6

Students With Foreign Academic Credentials.......  6

Students With Mixed (Foreign/Domestic) Educa
tional Experiences

244

6



245

A dditional Factors Affecting Composition of S tu 
dent Body...........................................................................  6

P rio rity  G ro u p s ..........................................................  6

Special C onsidera tions............................................  7

A pplicants from U naccredited S choo ls ......................... 7

D isab ilitie s ............................................................................. 7

D eferred Group R ev iew .....................................................  7

Extended W ait L i s t ............................................................  8

Inappropria te  Academic C areer D esignation .............. 8

Young Scholar Education Program  (Y S E P )................  8

A dm ission  o f N ew  T ransfer S tu d en ts

Adm ission Table I — W in te r .............................................. 9

Adm ission Table II -  Spring/Sum m er...........................  10

Adm ission Table III -  F a ll ................................................  11

D efinition of New T ransfer S tu d e n t .............................. 12

T ransfer T eam ......................................................................  12

T ransfer G uideline T ab les ................................................  12

Sem esters of A dm ission .....................................................  12

W inter S e m e s te r .......................................................  12

Spring and Sum m er H alf S em este rs ................... 12

Fall S e m e s te r .............................................................. 12

M inim um  P rep ara tion  for T ra n s fe r...............................  12

Previous In s t i tu t io n .................................................  13

Previous Course W ork.............................................. 13

High School P re p a ra tio n ......................................... 13



Total P re p a ra tio n ....................................................... 13

Concern L e tte r ....................................................  13

T ransfer From  U-M D earborn and U-M Flin t 
C a m p u se s ..........................................................................  13

First-Y ear T ra n s fe r ...................................................  13

T ransfer w ith C redit E arned  a t O ther In s titu 
tions P rio r to Enrolling a t U-M D earborn or 
U-M F lin t ...................................................................  14

R equired C redentials for all U-M D earborn 
and U-M F lin t A p p lican ts ....................................  14

LS&A Residency R equirem ent of 60 H o u rs ......  14
Application Deadlines for Applicants from U-M 

D earborn & U-M F l in t ..........................................  14

Issues to be Considered for all New T ransfer A ppli
cants ....................................................................................  14

P re req u is ite s ...............................................................  14

M inim um  H ours to T ra n s fe r .................................  15

C redit E arned  in R esidence....................................  15

H o n o rs ..........................................................................  15

Bachelor of G eneral S tu d ie s ................................... 15

Incom pletes, W ithdraw als, R e p e a ts ....................  15

Socioeconomically D isadvantaged or U nderrep re
sented R acial/E thnic M inority Iden tity  or Educa
tion .......................................................................................  15

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ....................................................... 16

A d m issio n  o f  R e a d m its .................................................. 16

Academic S ta n d in g ..............................................................  16

Action of R eadm ission A pplications...............................  17

246



r

C ross-C am pus T ra n sfer ................................................  17

First-Y ear Cross-Cam pus T ran sfe r......................  18

Cross-Cam pus Transfer A fter More Than One 
Y e a r ............................................................................. 18

Cross-Cam pus T ransfers from N ursing With 
Academic H o ld ......................................................... 18

Action P rocedures................................................................  19

D enial of C ross-Cam pus T ransfer -  Special Proce
d u re s ....................................................................................  19

G u est A d m iss io n s ............................................................. 19

C rite ria  for G uest A dm issions......................................... 20

Application D ead lin e ..........................................................  20

Procedures for G uest A dm issions................................... 20

A pplication ................................................................... 20

R e g is tra tio n ................................................................  21

N o n d eg ree  A d m is s io n s .................................................  21

C rite ria  for N ondegree A dm issions................................  22

Procedures for N ondegree A dm issions.......................... 23

R egistration and Course Selection.................................  24

Advising and M aintenance of S tu d en t Academic 
F ile s .....................................................................................  24

Academic Advising for ND S tu d e n ts ..................  24

Application R eco rd s .................................................  24

In te rp re ta tio n  of College Policies for ND 
S tu d e n ts ....................................................................  24

Academic Review and Renewal of A dm ission ............  24

Change of Degree S ta tu s ................................................... 25

247



248

S eco n d  U n d erg ra d u a te  D eg ree  A d m iss io n ......... 25

S u p p lem en ta ry  In fo r m a tio n .................    26

T ransfer C redit E valuation  Policy.................................  26

LS&A Acceptance of C red it P o lic ies .............................. 27

C ourses Taken by High School S tu d e n ts .....................  28

LS&A English Composition: College Requirement.......... 28

T ransfer A pplicants w ith  C redits in Excess of 75 
H ours (Policy)...................................................................  28

Q u an tita tiv e  Reasoning: College R equ irem en t.......... 29

Race and E thnicity: College R eq u irem en t................... 29

O :\A lice\G uidelines 2000\ALL LSA Guidelines 2000.doc

I. ADMISSION OF FRESHMEN

A. DEFINITION OF A FRESHMAN APPLICANT: 
FTIAC (first tim e in any college).

A fresh m an is  defin ed  as an en ter in g  
stu d en t w h o  has never  a tten d ed  any co l
lege  fo llo w in g  h igh  school graduation . This 
definition includes students enrolling in the fall 
term  who take college classes as guest students 
in the sum m er immediately preceding the fall 
semester. The definition also applies to s tu 
dents who en ter with advanced standing by 
earning college credit through Advanced 
Placem ent Exam inations, or courses taken a t a 
college prior to high school graduation.

All other studen ts will be designated as tran s
fer students (Type 4) with Level (1, 2, 3, 4) be
ing determ ined by the am ount of transferable



r

credit projected for the term  of entry. This will 
include those freshm an level students who a t
tend college in the fall and apply for admission 
to LS&A for the w inter semester. They will be 
coded as transfer students (Type 4) a t the 
freshm an level (Level 1) and be evaluated ac
cording to transfer guidelines for W inter 2000

B. OVERVIEW OF ADMISSION POLICIES (First 
Review)

1. TERMS OF ADMISSION

Admission to LS&A will be highly selective 
for all four sem esters of the academic cal
endar. Adm ission  is granted to applicants 
w ith very competitive credentials from early 
fall to November 1 for wdnter semester, and 
until February 1 for spring, summer, and 
fall semesters.

Winter applicants who m et competitive 
criteria  based on the Fall 1999 guidelines, 
or who were previously adm itted, did not 
accept admission, and did not enroll in an
other institution for the fall term , will be 
adm itted through the November 1 equal 
consideration deadline.* All other appli
cants with lower credentials will be denied 
admission. There w ill be no deferred group 
for the winter term. (Note: It is necessary to 
delay for a final high school transcrip t if it 
has not been previously subm itted. A de
cline in the senior year grades is cause to 
deny admission even if the studen t was 
admissible based on 10th and 11th year 
GPA.)

*Students with the same credentials who 
do enroll in another college for the fall

249



250

sem ester will be coded as transfer students 
and adm itted if there was no decline in sen
ior year grades.

Spring adm issions s tandards require the 
sam e competitive criteria as for all other 
term s. Applications will be accepted 
through the February  1 equal consideration 
deadline. S tudents who do not meet the 
competitive guidelines will be denied ad
mission. There will he no deferred pool for 
spring semester.

The sum m er and fa ll group  of applicants 
whose credentials fall in the range desig
nated as qualified / non-competitive will be 
deferred for a second review following the 
F ebruary  1 equal consideration deadline.

Sum m er and fall applicants whose creden
tials fall below the guidelines set for de
ferred  applicants will be denied  admission 
on the first review.

2. ASSIG NED REVIEWER

a. Each high school is assigned to a 
counselor who will read all the LS&A 
applications from the school. A Selec
tion Index will be calculated based on 
the s tu d en t’s accomplishments and the 
factors on the Selection Index W ork
sheet.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

a. H igh Sch ool G raduation

(1) ML freshm an students are re
quired to earn  a high school di
ploma (or GED equivalent for



251

older students) prior to enrolling 
in the College.

(2) Exceptions to the graduation 
requirem ent may be made for ex
trem ely gifted and brilliant s tu 
dents who m eet YSEP standards 
and are adm itted under those con
ditions. (Look in Table of Contents 
for YSEP location in guidelines)

(3) Home schooled students whose trades 
do not reflect a measure o f accom
plishm ent from participation in a 
typical classroom with other stu
dents. will have to provide addi
tional evidence o f preparation, such 
as earning scores on specific SA T  TT 
Subject exams at n level which mill 
assure they are as competitively 
adm issible as students who attend  
public or private hish schools 
Home schooled s tudents will he as
signed to QUA liaison. Marilyn 
McKinney.

b. C ourse P rep a ra tio n . All students are 
expected to take a dem anding college 
preparatory  curriculum in 9th through 
12th grades. Beginning with the 
freshm an class entering in the Sum
m er or Fall of 2000, the following 
minim um  preparation is required for 
all students applying for admission to 
LS&A: English -  4 years, foreign lan
guage -  2 years (4 years recommended), 
m athem atics — 3 years (through in te r
m ediate algebra), science -  2 years (3 
years recommended), history and social



252

sciences -  3 years, and 5 additional 
courses to earn a total of 20 units of 
study.

c. G ra d e-P o in t A verage. Grades earned 
in academic courses taken during the 
sophomore and jun ior years will be 
used in the first review of the applica
tion. Senior fall sem ester grades will 
be a factor for students who are post
poned (deferred) for M arch review

d. A C T /SA T I  scores. (All SA T  I  scores  
re f lec t th e  R ecen tered  S ca le)

(1) All freshm an applicants are 
required  to have their ACT/SAT I 
scores sent directly from the te st
ing agencies.

(2) The highest set of scores will be 
used to make the admission deci
sion.

(3) A list of applicants w ith new 
scores th a t reflect a higher test 
range will be run after the receipt 
o f December test tapes. Counselors 
will update the S.I. to reflect the 
increase in test scores.

4. SELECTION INDEX

Admission is based on several factors th a t 
combine to produce a freshm an class th a t 
provides a m ixture of a ttribu tes and char
acteristics valued by the University. The 
process for building the class is found in 
the  Guidelines for the Calculation o f a Se
lection Index 2000. The guidelines are to be 
used to determ ine a S.I. num ber which will



253

be entered on the students record by the 
reviewing counselor. This Selection Index 
num ber will be the factor used to select 
students for admission, deferral, or denial 
a t each phase of the review process.

* * *



254

CONFIDENTIAL 
For In te rn a l Use only

P ro ced u res  for R e v iew in g  LS&A (in c lu d in g  
R e sid en tia l C o llege) and  E n g in eer in g  

F resh m an  A p p lica tio n s  for all T erm s o f 2000.

I. Peruse the application and compare information to 
the Applicant Profile for accuracy.

II. Review each segm ent of the application in relation 
to the Selection Index variables.

A. G rades: Does the GPA posted by data entry
accurately reflect the grades on the high school 
transcrip t?  Does consistency exist between the 
GPA and HSPR?

B. School F actor: Check the high school profile
(if provided in the application) to determ ine if the 
“S” factor reflects the current characteristics of the 
school. If you need to m ake changes in the “S” fac
tor, be sure you use the same information to evalu
ate all of the  studen ts from th a t school. If an 
updated profile comes la ter in the year after you 
have already started  evaluating students and the 
statistics indicate a change in the “S” factor, con
tinue to use the factor you have been using and 
m ake your changes for the following year.

C. Curriculum  Factor: Look carefully a t the
studen t’s course selections for 9th through 12th 
grades. Look for strength  and rigor of curriculum 
in relation to num ber of honors, Advanced Place
m ent and/or In ternational Baccalaureate courses 
offered. Look for num ber of academics taken all 
four years and look a t the trend of grades earned.

D. Test Scores: If the existing te s t scores are
low and the studen t has indicated a future te s t



255

date, delay for the test scores. Do not enter the Se
lection Index until the new test scores arrive. If the 
student does not intend to retest, use existing test 
scores to evaluation the application.

Engineering applicants with less than a 
19 A C T  English or 480 S A T  Verbal 
score or less than a 28 A C T  M ath or 640 
S A T  M ath score m ust be referred to 
Steve Parsons or Sheri Sam aha.

E. Residency: If there is reason to question a
s tuden t’s in sta te  residency based on instructions 
from the Residency Classification Office (RCO) 
you m ust assum e the s tuden t is a non-resident for 
admission purposes until determ ined otherwise by 
the RCO. When a determ ination is made, notifica
tion will be sent to the OUA and the application 
will be updated if a change in classification has 
been made. The application will be sent to the re
viewing counselor to recalculate the SI and update 
the database. If the studen t was deferred under 
the non-resident guidelines in the initial Mass Ac
tion, re-evaluation of the application will occur at 
the next M ass Action. If the RCO grants residency 
sta tu s to the s tuden t beyond the equal considera
tion date of February  1, the application will be re
evaluated using the residency guidelines.

F. A lum ni: Points are only given to direct
family line of parents (stepparents), grandparents 
or siblings.

G. Essay: Look for outstanding content and 
creativity. Be comfortable th a t this is an essay th a t 
is the product of the student.

O utstanding accomplishments and a o h ip v p -  
ments: The expectation is th a t students do par
ticipate in extracurricular activities and leadership



256

functions in high school. Points are to be given 
when the activities reflect recognition a t state, re
gional and national levels.

I. M iscellaneous: Points are to be awarded
for students who m eet the specific qualifications 
outlined in the Selection Index Worksheet.

III. Selection Index W orksheet: Fill out the sections of 
the w orksheet and calculate the SI. Refer to document 
“Counselor Instructions: for step-by-step instructions for 
en tering  the Selection Index on the database.

IV. Delay for Additional Information: If additional 
inform ation is needed prior to finalizing the review of the 
application (additional te s t scores, fall grades, or other 
inform ation the counselor wishes to receive), the counselor 
can add up the points in all appropriate categories of the 
SI, bu t cannot en ter the SI on the database. The SI Rating 
Value m ust rem ain 0.00 on the Overall Rating panel and 
blank on the Application Evaluation panel until the 
application is ready for a decision or it wall autom atically 
and erroneously be included in the next Mass Action. V.

V. Review Flags: R efer to sep arate  docum en t 
“C oun selor In stru ctio n s” for step-by-step  in stru c
tio n s on h ow  to en ter  th e  R ev iew  F lag  va lu es on the  
database. EWG will set an SI cutoff above which all 
applicants will be offered adm ission subject to the Review 
Flag = 3 Caution Review Pool procedure described in 
section C below. EWG will then  direct Admissions to 
adm it a certain  num ber of applicants from the Review 
Pool, assem bled as described below. For each Mass Action, 
the  Admissions Office will choose the applicants to be 
adm itted  from the Review Pool through committee proc
esses w here the qualities and characteristics of those in



r

the Pool can be compared along a num ber of dimensions. 
This committee will also decide if an applicant chosen for 
the Pool should be recommended for admission to CSP or 
the Summer Bridge Program. As with the other components 
for our admission process, the overall goal is to adm it a class 
of qualified students who best serve our educational 
mission both individually and as a group.

A. Review Flag = 0

This is the default value for the review flag, and 
indicates th a t there is not an unusual circum
stance relevant to this application. The counselor 
does not have to en ter th is default value.

B. Review Flag = 1 Positive Review Pool

Counselors m ay set th is review flag if the applicant 
m eets the following th ree criteria: (1) is academi
cally prepared to do the level of work required a t 
Michigan; (2) possesses some other positive quali
ties and characteristics th a t would contribute to 
the freshm an class as defined in item s 1-7 below; 
and (3) has an SI as indicated below.

LS&A Resident: SI >_80,
LS&A Non-Resident: SI >_75,
Engineering Resident: SI >_85,
Engineering Non-Resident: SI>80.

If the  counselor decides an applicant should be 
assigned a Review Flag = 1, th is flag m ust be set 
for all SI values equal to or greater than  the Selec
tion Indexes designated above because counselors 
will not know w hat the EWG SI threshold for ad
mission will be when reviewing applications.

Assigning Review Flag = 1 requires counselor 
discretion and judgm ent. If there are particular 
circum stances where the counselor believes th a t a

257



r

258

studen t w ith an SI below the designated level 
should be included in the Positive Review Pool, he 
or she should consult w ith the LS&A or Engineer
ing liaison before assigning the flag. F urther 
evaluation will take place in the committee proc
ess. Applicants flagged for the Review Pool will not 
necessarily be adm itted.

1. Top o f the Class

a) LS&A and R esid en tia l C ollege

(1) The counselor will set the 
Review Flag to “1” if the LS&A 
or RC applicant has the follow
ing credentials:

(a) Michigan Resident H SPR  >
98% or Non-resident H SPR  
= 997c

and

• no declining grades,

• 18 solid academic courses, 
including a strong senior 
year course load •

• high ratings from the high 
school counselor.

OR

(b) Michigan Resident and  
Non-resident GPA >3.9

and

no declining grades,



259

• 18 solid academic courses, 
including a strong senior 
year course load

• SAT 1 total > 1380 or ACT 
Composite >31

• high ratings from the high 
school counselor.

(2) The Review Flag may also be set 
to “1” if the student resides in a 
county in Michigan other than  
Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, 
W ashtenaw  or Wayne and has 
all of the following:

• HSPR > 95%

• GPA > 3.7

• no declining grades

• 18 solid academic courses, 
including a strong senior 
year course load

• SAT 1 total > 1270 or ACT 
composite > 28 •

• high ratings from the high 
school counselor

b) E n g in eer in g

(1) The counselor will set the Review 
Flag to “1” if the Engineering app
licant has all of the following:

• GPA > 4.0

• no declining grades



260

• 18 solid academic courses, 
including one year of chem
istry

• strong senior year course 
load

• SAT I m ath score > 740 or 
ACT m ath score > 32

• SAT I verbal score > 640 or 
ACT English score > 29

• high ratings from the high 
school counselor.

2. Unique life experiences, challenges, circum
stances, interests or talents

3. D isadvantaged background, e.g. socio
economic status, educated in a disadvantaged  
school setting

4. Underrepresented race or ethnicity or 
geography

5. Im portant connections to our University 
community, e.g. donor relations, faculty and  
s ta ff relationships

6. Recruited Athletes

7. Applications received through "on-the- 
spot” adm ission program

C. Review Flag = 3 Caution Review Pool

For an applicant whose SI does not capture some 
significant concern, the Review Flag should be set 
to “3” by the reviewing counselor. W ritten docu
m entation regarding the reasons for the RF=3 is to 
be placed in the application. All RF=3 applications



r

will be reviewed by committee processes to deter
mine the  appropriate action. Examples of such 
concerns could include a pa ttern  of declining 
grades, a less dem anding curriculum , the senior 
year w ith three or less academic courses or coun
selor comments, or a positive response to question 
35 on the application.

D. O ther Review Flags Not Equal to 0. 1. or 3

The M ass Action SQR will add 10 to the Review 
Flag value every tim e the application is processed 
by the program. For example, a Top of the Class 
“1” who is adm itted will have a Review Flag of “11” 
after the program is run. Counselors should not 
ad just Review Flags th a t have values greater than  
“3”. If  a counselor has an situation in which a Re
view Flag needs to be adjusted, please bring the 
application to the attention of MM or PH.

Top Scholars: To expedite the admission of top
scholars to the College of L iterature, Science, and 
the A rts and to the College of Engineering so th a t 
each college may have access to the students in a 
timely m anner for recruiting purposes, a team  of 
designated readers will review all applications 
with credentials a t or above a GPA of 3.8 and an 
SAT I of 1400 or ACT of 32 as quickly as the appli
cations are ready for review. If admissible according 
to the EWG designated threshold, the applications 
will be processed through Mass Action on a weekly 
basis.

261



262

Office of U ndergraduate CONFIDENTIAL
Admissions In ternal Use only

COLLEGE OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE  
AND THE ARTS GUIDELINES

F O R  A LL TE R M S OF 1999

fax phone
OUA Liaison M arilyn McKinney, 

Associate Director 
1220 Student Activities 

Building

647-8759 936-2786 
e-mail:
mmckinne@umich.e
du

OUA Backup Sally Lindsley, 
A ssistan t Director 
1220 Student Activities 

Building

936-0740 936-2463 
e-mail:
sallyhl@umich.edu

LS&A Contact Charles Judge,
Director of Academic 

S tandards
1219 JA ngell Hall, 1003

764-2772 936-3222 
e-mail:
cjudge@umich.edu

LS&A John G. Cross, 964-2697 763-3275
Enrollment Associate Dean e-mail:
Working Group for Budget and 
Representative A dm inistration

2542 LS&A Bldg. 1382

jcross&umich.edu

LS&A Liaison Robert Owen, 
Associate Dean of 

U ndergraduate 
Curriculum  

2508 LS&A Bldg. 1382

764-2697 764-0320 
e-mail:
rowen@umich.edu

LS&A Liaison Esrold A. N urse 
A ssistan t Dean for 

S tudent Academic

647-5577 964-7297 
e-mail:
eanurse@umich .edu

Affairs
1402 Mason Hall, 1027

mailto:sallyhl@umich.edu
mailto:cjudge@umich.edu
mailto:rowen@umich.edu


r

TABLE O F C O N TEN TS 
A d m issio n  o f F re s h m e n

Definition of A F reshm an  A p p lican t.............................. i

Overview of Adm ission Policies (F irs t Review).......... 1

Terms of A dm ission ................................................... j

Assigned R ev iew er.................................................... i

G eneral R eq u irem en ts ............................................  2

High School G ra d u a tio n .................................  2

Home Schooled S tu d en ts ..........................  2

Course P rep a ra tio n ...........................................  2

G rade-Point A v erag e .......................................  2

ACT/SAT I sco re ................................................  2

Selection Index ...........................................................  2

Special P ro g ram s.................................................................  2

Honors P ro g ram ......................................................... 2

C om prehensive S tudies Program  (C S P )............  4
R esidential C o llege ................................................... 4

P referred  A dm ission.................................................  5

Dual A dm ission ....................................................................  5

G eneral Policy ............................................................. 5

E x cep tio n .....................................................................  5

School of Music and LS&A or Residential 
College................................................................  5

In te rn a tio n a l S tu d e n ts ......................................................  5

Students With Foreign Academic Credentials.......  5

Students With Mixed (Foreign/Domestic) Educa
tional Experiences....................................................  g

2 6 3



264

A dditional Factors Affecting Composition of S tu 
den t Body...........................................................................  6

P rio rity  G ro u p s ..........................................................  6

Special C onsidera tions............................................. 6

A pplicants from U naccredited S choo ls ......................... 6

D isab ilitie s ............................................................................. 7

D eferred Group R eview .....................................................  7

Extended W ait L i s t ............................................................. 7

In app rop ria te  Academic C areer D esignation .............. 7

Young Scholar Education Program  (Y S E P )................  7

Admission of New Transfer Students

Adm ission Table I -  W in te r .............................................. 8

Adm ission Table II -  Spring /Sum m er...........................  9

Adm ission Table III -  F a ll ................................................  10

Definition of New T ransfer S tu d e n t .............................. 11

T ransfer T eam ......................................................................  n

T ransfer G uideline T ab les ................................................  11

Sem esters of A dm ission.....................................................  H
W inter S e m e s te r ........................................................ n

Spring and Sum m er H alf S em este rs ..................  11

Fall S e m e ste r .............................................................. 11

M inim um  P rep ara tio n  for T ra n s fe r ............................... 11

Previous In s ti tu tio n .................................................  12

Previous Course W ork.............................................. 12

High School P re p a ra tio n .........................................  12



265

Total P reparation .....................................................  12

Concern Letter...................................................  12

Transfer From U-M Dearborn and U-M Flint Cam 
puses................................................................................... 12

First-Year T ra n sfer.................................................. 12

Transfer with Credit Earned at Other Institu
tions Prior to Enrolling at U-M Dearborn or 
U-M F lin t.................................................................  13

Required Credentials for all U-M Dearborn 
and U-M Flint A p p lican ts...................................  13

LS& A  Residency Requirement of 60  H ou rs......  13

Application Deadlines for Applicants from U-M 
Dearborn & U-M F lin t .........................................  13

Issues to be Considered for all New Transfer Appli
cants ................................................................................... 13

Prerequisites..............................................................  13

Minimum Hours to T ran sfer................................. 14

Credit Earned in Residence...................................  14

H onors.........................................................................  14

Bachelor of General Stud ies..................................  14

Incompletes, W ithdrawals, R ep eats...................  14

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged or Underrepre
sented Racial/Ethnic M inority Identity or Educa
tion .....................................................................................  14

International S tu d en ts.....................................................  15

A d m ission  o f R e a d m its ................................................  15

Action of Readmission Applications..............................  16



266

C ro ss -C a m p u s  T r a n s f e r ................................................  16

First-Y ear Cross-Cam pus T ransfer......................  17

Cross-Cam pus T ransfer A fter More Than One 
Y e a r ............................................................................. 17

Cross-Cam pus T ransfers From N ursing  With 
Academic H old .........................................................  17

Action P rocedures................................................................  18

D enial of C ross-Cam pus T ransfer -  Special Proce
d u re s ....................................................................................  18

N o n d e g re e  A d m is s io n s .................................................  18

C rite ria  for Nondegree A dm issions................................  19

D ual E nrollm ent for High School S tu d e n ts ......  20

Procedures for N ondegree A dm issions..........................  20

R egistration  and Course Selection.................................  21

A dvising and M aintenance of S tuden t Academic 
F ile s .....................................................................................  21

Academic A dvising for ND S tu d e n ts ................... 21

A pplication R eco rd s .................................................  21

In te rp re ta tio n  of College Policies for ND 
S tu d e n ts ....................................................................  21

Academic Review and Renewal of A dm ission ............  21

C hange of Degree S ta tu s ................................................... 21

S e c o n d  U n d e r g r a d u a te  D e g re e  A d m is s io n ......... 22

S u p p le m e n ta ry  I n f o r m a t io n ......................................  23

T ransfer C redit E valuation  Policy.................................  23

LS&A Acceptance of C redit P o lic ies .............................. 24



267

Courses Taken by High School S tu d e n ts ..................... 24

LS&A English Composition: College Requirem ent.......... 25

T ransfer A pplicants w ith C redits in Excess of 75 
Hours (Policy)................................................................... 25

Q uan tita tive  Reasoning: College R eq u irem en t.......... 25

Race and E thnicity : College R eq u irem en t..................  26

I. ADMISSION OF FRESHMEN

A. DEFINITION OF A FRESHMAN APPLICANT: 
FTIAC (first tim e in any college). A freshm an  
is d efin ed  as an  en ter in g  stu d en t w ho has  
n ev er  a tten d ed  any co lleg e  fo llo w in g  h igh  
sch oo l graduation . This definition includes 
students enrolling in the fall term  who take col
lege classes as guest students in the sum m er 
im m ediately preceding the fall semester. The 
definition also applies to students who enter 
w ith advanced standing by earning college 
credit through Advanced Placem ent Exam ina
tions, or courses taken a t a college prior to high 
school graduation.

All o ther students will be designated as tran s
fer studen ts (Type 4) w ith Level (1, 2, 3, 4) be
ing determ ined by the am ount of transferable 
credit projected for the term  of entry. This will 
include those freshm an level students who a t
tend college in the fall and apply for admission 
to LS&A for the w inter sem ester. They will be 
coded as transfer students (Type 4) a t the 
freshm an level (Level 1) and be evaluated ac
cording to transfer guidelines for W inter 1999



r

B. OVERVIEW OF ADMISSION POLICIES (First
Review)

1. TERMS OF ADMISSION

Admission to LS&A will be highly selective 
for all four sem esters of the academic cal
endar. Adm ission  is granted to applicants 
w ith very competitive credentials from early 
fall to November 1 for w inter sem ester, and 
until February  1 for spring, summer, and 
fall sem esters.

Winter applicants who m et competitive 
criteria  based on the Fall 1998 guidelines, 
or who were previously adm itted, did not 
accept admission, and did not enroll in an
other institu tion  for the fall term , will be 
adm itted on through the November 1 equal 
consideration deadline.* All other appli
cants w ith lower credentials will be denied 
admission. There will be no deferred group 
for the w inter term. (Note: It is necessary to 
delay for a final high school transcrip t if  it 
has not been previously subm itted. A de
cline in the  senior year grades is cause to 
deny adm ission even if the studen t was 
adm issible based on 10th and 11th year 
GPA.)

*Students w ith the same credentials who 
do enroll in another college for the fall se
m ester will be coded as transfer students 
and adm itted if there was no decline in sen
ior year grades.

Spring adm issions s tandards require the 
sam e competitive criteria as for all other 
term s. Applications will be accepted 
through the February 1 equal consideration

268



r

269

deadline. S tudents who do not meet the 
competitive guidelines will be denied ad
mission. There will be no deferred pool for 
spring semester.

The sum m er and fall group of applicants 
whose credentials fall in the range desig
nated  as qualified / non-competitive will be 
deferred for a second review following the 
February  1 equal consideration deadline.

Sum m er and fall applicants whose creden
tials fall below the guidelines set for de
ferred  applicants will be denied  admission 
on the first review.

2. ASSIGNED REVIEWER

a. Each high school is assigned to a 
counselor who will read all the LS&A 
applications from the school. A Selec
tion Index will be calculated based on 
the student's accomplishments and the 
factors on the Selection Index W ork
sheet.

3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

a. H igh School G raduation.

(1) A ll freshm an students are re
quired to earn a high school di
ploma (or GED equivalent for 
older students) prior to enrolling 
in the College. 2

(2) Exceptions to the graduation 
requirem ent may be made for ex
trem ely gifted and brilliant stu 
dents who meet YSEP standards 
and are adm itted under those



270

conditions. (Look in Table of Con
ten ts  for YSEP location in guide
lines)

(3) Home schooled students whose 
erodes do not reflect a measure o f 
accomplishment from participation 
in a typical classroom with other 
students, will have to provide add i
tional evidence o f preparation, 
such as earnine scores on specific 
S A T  II  Subject exams at a level 
which will assure they are as com
petitively admissible as students 
who attend public or private hieh  
schools. Home schooled students 
will he assiened to QUA liaison. 
M arilvn McKinney.

b. C ourse  P re p a ra tio n . All students are 
expected to take a dem anding college 
p reparatory  curriculum in 9th through 
12th grades. The following minimum 
preparation  is suggested for all student 
applying for admission to LS&A: Eng
lish -  4 years, foreign language -  2 
years (recommended 4 years), m athe
m atics -  3 years (through interm ediate 
algebra), science -  3 years (2 labora
tory science courses), social studies -  3 
years, and 5 additional courses to earn 
a to tal of 20 units of study.

c. G ra d e -P o in t A verage. Grades earned 
in academic courses taken during the 
sophomore and jun ior years will be 
used in the first review of the applica
tion. Senior fall sem ester grades will



r

be a factor for students who are de
ferred for M arch review

d. A C T /S A T  I  scores. (A ll S A T  I  scores  
re fle c t th e  R e c en te red  Sca le)

(1) All freshm an applicants are re
quired to have the ir ACT/SAT I 
scores sent directly from the te st
ing agencies.

(2) The highest set of scores will be used 
to make the admission decision.

(3) A list of applicants with new 
scores th a t reflect a higher test 
range will be run  after the receipt 
o f December test fanes. Counselors 
will update the S.I. to reflect the 
increase in test scores.

4 SELECTION INDEX

Admission is based on several factors th a t 
combine to produce a freshm an class th a t 
provides a m ixture of a ttribu tes and char
acteristics valued by the University. The 
process for building the class is found in 
the Guidelines for the Calculation o f a Se
lection Index 1999. The guidelines are to be 
used to determ ine a S.I. num ber which will 
be entered on the students record by the 
reviewing counselor. This Selection Index 
num ber will be the factor used to select 
s tuden ts for admission, deferral, or denial 
a t each phase of the review process.

271

* *



272

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ, et al., j

P lain tiffs, ) Civil Action No. 97-75231

v. j Hon. Patrick  J . Duggan

LEE BOLLINGER, et al., ) Hon. Thomas A. Carlson

D efendants. \

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEM ENTAL  
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO 

INTERROGATORY NUMBER ONE (1)

P u rsu an t to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure (the “Federal Rules”), Rule 26.1 of the 
Rules of the United S tates D istrict Court for the Eastern  
D istrict of M ichigan (the “Local Rules”), Defendants Lee 
Bollinger, Jam es J. D uderstadt, and the Regents of the 
U niversity of Michigan, through the ir undersigned coun
sel, subm it the  following Supplem ental Objections and 
Response to Interrogatory Num ber One (1) of Plaintiffs’ 
In terrogatories to Defendants (Set I), served on Plaintiffs’ 
counsel on April 7, 1998.

DEFINITIO NS

Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their 
Definitions, as originally set forth in their responses to 
P lain tiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendants (Set I).



r

SUPPLEM ENTAL OBJECTIONS AND  
R ESPO N SE TO PL A IN T IFFS’ 

INTERROGATORY NUM BER ONE m

Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their 
General Objections, as originally set forth in their re
sponses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory to Defendants (Set I), 
as though fully set forth therein, and no response shall be 
construed to waive any of those General Objections.

In te rro g a to ry  No. 1: D escrib e  in d eta il the proc
ess  by w h ich  the LSA m akes or m ade d ec isio n s to  
adm it, delay, reject, or tak e o th er  action  on ap p lica 
tion s for ad m ission  to th e LSA for each  c lass year  
from  1990 to th e  p resen t (in clu d in g  th e p rosp ective  
1998 class).

S u p p lem en ta l O bjection s a n d  R esponse to  In te r 
ro g a to ry  No. 1: Since the tim e Defendants served their 
Response to Interrogatory N um ber One (1) of Plaintiffs’ 
Interrogatories to Defendants (Set I), on April 7, 1998, the 
Office of U ndergraduate Admissions (“OUA”) process for 
adm itting students to the College of L iterature, Science 
and the Arts (“LSA”) has changed in the following m ate
rial respects:

First, the way in which admissions decisions are 
executed has changed. As under the previous OUA guide
lines for LSA admissions, counselors review application 
m aterials and use the ir professional expertise to set the 
“Selection Index” score. Counselors also have the option of 
“flagging” an application depending on the counselor’s 
judgm ent about the applicant’s ability to succeed a t the 
U niversity and to contribute to the class.

273



274

An adm issions counselor m ay flag an application if an 
applicant m eets the following th ree criteria: (1) the adm is
sions counselor has determ ined th a t the applicant is 
academically prepared to do the level of work required at 
the University; (2) the applicant possesses a quality or 
characteristic im portant to the  University’s composition of 
its freshm an class (as set forth specifically in the guide
lines): (a) they have a high class ranking (along with a 
certain threshold GPA and test score), (b) they have unique 
life experiences, challenges, circumstances, interests or 
talents, (c) they come from a disadvantaged background (e.g., 
socioeconomic status, educated in a disadvantaged school 
setting), (d) they come from an underrepresented race or 
ethnicity or geography, (e) they are a recruited athlete, or (f) 
their application was received through the “on-the-spot” 
admission program; and (3) the applicant has a Selection 
Index score of g rea ter than  or equal to 80 if he or she is a 
M ichigan resident, or a Selection Index score of greater 
th an  or equal to 75 if he or she is a non-Michigan resident. 
In addition, a t the  discretion of the Provost, an application 
m ay be flagged for fu rther review. See UMA 159352- 
159356.

An adm issions counselor m ay also flag an application 
if, notw ithstanding an applicant’s high Selection Index 
score, there  is som ething in the file th a t suggests th a t the 
applicant may not be suitable for admission (e.g., the 
applicant has a pa tte rn  of declining grades or disciplinary 
problems). Furtherm ore, in ra re  circumstances an adm is
sions counselor may also flag an applicant with a Selection 
Index score below the designated levels if the counselor 
learns som ething from reviewing the entire file th a t 
suggests th a t the Selection Index score may not reflect the 
applicant’s full promise or potential.



r

Both the SI score and any “flag” are recorded by the 
counselor in the admissions database. After counselor 
review, admissions decisions are generally executed in one 
of two ways: The Enrollm ent W orking Group (“EWG”) sets 
Selection Index param eters throughout the admissions 
season and based on these param eters an action -  admit, 
defer or deny -  is executed with respect to many applica
tions. In addition, applications which have been flagged by 
a counselor (but not adm itted based on the EWG param e
ters) are discussed by the Admissions Review Committee 
(“ARC”), which is comprised of members of OUA and the 
Office of the Provost. Each application subm itted to ARC 
is reviewed and discussed by the members of ARC and a 
determ ination is m ade by the full committee as to w hether 
the application should be adm itted, deferred, or denied.

Second, OUA now may defer the applications of 
underrepresented minorities, in contrast to its prior 
practice of undertak ing  to m ake im m ediate decisions to 
adm it or deny such applicants.

Third, OUA no longer adm its any applicants through 
w hat was known as an “autom atic adm it” process w ithout 
an extensive review of the ir entire admissions file. In 
stead, all applications are now reviewed by counselors and 
assigned a Selection Index score before an admissions 
decision is made.

Fourth, OUA has discontinued the use of “protected 
categories.” This change was made notw ithstanding the 
U niversity’s historical experience of receiving applications 
from m inority groups la ter in the admissions cycle.

Defendants sta te  th a t in addition to documents 
previously produced, additional documents from which a 
response to th is interrogatory may be ascertained have

275



r

been produced to Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors on 
February  7, 2000 and May 5, 2000. P ursuan t to Rule 33(d) 
of the  Federal Rules, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to those 
documents, including, w ithout lim itation, UMA 130380- 
130382, UMA 159288-159315, UMA 159316-159343, UMA 
159344-159351, UMA 159352-159356, and UMA 159357- 
159362.

276

/s/ Brigida Benitez 
John Payton 
Jan e  Sherburne 
Brigida Benitez 
WILMER, CUTLER 

& PICKERING 
2445 M Street, N.W. 
W ashington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 663-6000

AND

Leonard M. Niehoff 
P36695

BUTZEL LONG 
350 South Main Street, 

Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 
(734) 213-3625

Dated: June  9, 2000

[Certificate Of Service Omitted In Printing]



277

1998 GUIDELINES TRAINING
Tuesday, Septem ber 2, 1997

I. Selection Index G uidelines

A. H istory for change from 2-way Table to L inear 
Model, (an ti-affirm ative action clim ate)

1. 1995 & prior: separa te  guidelines for m ajority  
and m inority  (resident &z nonresident separate)

2. 1996. sep ara te  guidelines collapsed onto sam e 
tab le  (residen t & nonresident separate)

3. 1997: one table, two lines, top m ajority, bottom 
d iversity  applicants (residen t & nonresident 
separa te )

B. 1998: L inear model called Guidelines for the 
Calculation o f a Selection Index. One model for all 
schools and colleges except Engineering, second 
model for College of Engineering.

Goal: A dm it the  sam e class as if using old
method.

C. Developm ent of the model:

1. Random sam ple of 800 LSA applicants w ith 
firs t review  decisions, tested  additional 200 as 
sam ple w ith  new Selection Index guidelines.

2. D eterm ined w eight of each variable, e.g. te s t 
scores, GPA1, “S” & “C” factors, geography, 
legacy, diversity.

3. Based on actions taken  on 1997 guidelines, a 
linear model was developed using a 150 point 
Selection Index Scale.

4. V alues were assigned to each variable (factor) 
w ith academ ics, (GPA, “S”, “C”) receiving 2/3 of 
the points, adding te s t scores resu lted  in73% of



278

the  w eight being academic. The rem ain ing  2777 
is composed of factors valued by the  U niversity,
i.e. geography (MI residents), a lum ni relations, 
essay, personal achievem ent, leadersh ip  and 
service, socioeconomically d isadvantaged , u n 
derrep resen ted  racial/ethn ic  m inority , scholar
ship a th le tes , D irector's discertion, and 
professional diversity .

D. Reviewing the  G uidelines, factor by factor

E. U sing the  Selection Index W orksheet (overhead)

1. A S.I. W orksheet, w ith s tu d en t’s nam e, social 
security  num ber, type, un it, and term  will be 
in serted  in every freshm an application by the 
file clerks before applications are placed in 
counselors’ buckets. (Yellow for all un its  except 
E ngineering/blue for Engineering)

2. T est scores are prin ted  on the  Inform ation 
Sheet.

3. GPA (form erly called GPA1) is recorded on left 
edge of page 1 of the  application along w ith 
o ther coding th a t  used to be a t bottom  of appli
cation.

4. School factor is determ ined by each counselor 
based on high school profiles and “S” form ula.

5. C urriculum  factor is determ ined by quality  & 
q u an tity  of s tu d e n t’s classes and “C” form ula.

6. Sub score 1 = points for academ ic factors in col. 
1

7. G eography is residency factor, as well as under 
rep resen ted  MI counties and underrep resen ted
sta tes .



I

8. A lum ni factor recognizes fam ily ties to UM.

9. Essay  point can be achieved through excep
tional essay.

10. Personal A chievem ent assigned for sta te , re 
gional or na tional accom plishm ents.

11. Leadersh ip  & Service assigned for sta te , re 
gional or na tional accom plishm ents.

12. M iscellaneous factor covers socio=economic 
d isadvantaged , underrep resen ted  racial/ethnic 
m inority , underrep resen ted  gender in profes
sion, scholarship  a th le tes , director's discretion.

13. Add points in O ther Factors column and p u t 
sum  of points in sub score box 2.

14. Add two subscores together to get Selection In 
dex.

F. T ran sla tin g  Selection Index to action decisions.
(O v e rh e a d )

1. Use (U nit Selection Index Action C hart to de
te rm ine  appropria te  action to take  on applica
tion.

2. LSA.

a. Review S.I. C hart and appropriate  actions 
to take.

b. Do two or th ree  exam ple applications on 
overhead S.I. W orksheet w ith counselors 
deciding quality  S.I. points and appropriate  
action to take.

G. M arking up the Application Folder (O v e rh e a d )

1. T ransfer GPA and Selection Index num ber to 
application folder.

279



280

2. E n te r CSP designation  & in itia l if final action, 
otherw ise do not m ark  in CSP designation.

3. M ark appropria te  action in Action Column and 
appropria te  le tte r  in L e tte r Column.

4. Check m arkups for accuracy.

H. A utom atic Decisions for LSA

1. All applicants w ith  a 3.8 or h igher GPA, ACT 
composite score of 27 or higher or SAT total 
score of 1200 or h igher, and strong curriculum  
determ ined as 18 or more academic courses 
from 9th th rough  12th grades will be m arked 
up for adm ission by designated da ta  entry 
clerks.

2. A pplications w ith  above GPA and te s t scores, 
b u t w ith fewer th an  18 academic courses will 
be reviewed by the  counselors

3. Exceptions: To conform with the  model’s devel
opm ent based on 1997 process, all underrepre
sented  m inority  and private/parochial school 
applications will be reviewed by appropriate 
counselor.

1. To m onitor the  accuracy of the decisions using 
the  Selection Index model versus the 1997 
guidelines, counselors should set aside any 
nonresiden t applications which are not admits 
w ith  a GPA of 4.0/ACT of 24 or h igher or SAT 
of 1090 or higher. Also set aside any nonresi
d en t w ith a GPA of 3.6 and ACT of 31 or higher 
or SAT of 1360 or h igher th a t are not adm issi
ble according to the  S.I. Chart. 2

2. M ark the decisions according to the  1998 LSA 
S.I. C hart and th en  give the the applications to 
MM w ith a note describing the problem. The



T

281

applications will be given to MM to copy before 
going to le tte r production.

3. We will carefully m onitor the flow of decisions 
during  th is  processing year to m ake sure we 
reach the ta rg e t desired by the  LSA Deans.



282

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ and 
PATRICK HAMACHER, 
for them selves and all 
o thers sim ilarly  s itua ted ,

Plaintiffs,
v.

LEE BOLLINGER, JAM ES 
J . DUDERSTADT, THE 
BOARD OF REGENTS 
OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF MICHIGAN,

D efendants,
and

Civil Action No. 97-75231 
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 
Hon. Thomas A. Carlson

NOTICE OF APPEAL  
TO THE UNITED  
STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE 
SIXTH CIRCUIT
(Filed Feb. 26, 2001)

EBONY PATTERSON, 
RUBEN MARTINEZ, 
LAURENT CRENSHAW, 
KARLA R. WILLIAMS, 
LARRY BROWN, TIFFANY 
HALL, KRISTEN M .J. HAR
RIS, MICHAEL SMITH, 
KHYLA CRAINE, NY AH 
CARMICHAEL, SHANNA 
DUBOSE, EBONY DAVIS, 
NICOLE BREWER, KARLA 
HARLIN, BRIAN HARRIS, 
KATRINA GIPSON, CAN- 
DICE B.N. REYNOLDS, by 
and th rough  th e ir  p a ren ts  
or guard ians, D EN ISE PAT
TERSON, M OISE MARTINEZ, 
LARRY CRENSHAW, HARRY 
J . WILLIAMS, PATRICIA



r

SWAN-BROWN, KAREN A.
MCDONALD, LINDA A.
HARRIS, DEANNA A. SMITH,
ALICE BRENNAN, IVY RENE 
CHARMICHAEL, SARAH L.
DUBOSE, INGER DAVIS,
BARBARA DAWSON, ROY D.
HARLIN, WYATT G. HARRIS,
GEORGE C. GIPSON,
SHAWN" R. REYNOLDS, AND 
CITIZENS FOR AFFIRMA
TIVE ACTION’S PRESERVA
TION,

D efendant-Intervenors.
________________________________/

Plaintiffs Jenn ifer G ratz and Patrick Hamacher, for 
themselves and for the members of the class certified by 
the district court in its order dated December 23, 1998, 
hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Sixth Circuit from (1) the Order of the d istrict court 
filed on January  30, 2001, th a t granted defendants’ motion 
for sum m ary judgm ent and denied plaintiffs’ request for 
injunctive relief and (2) the final judgm ent (pursuan t to 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)) entered on February 9, 2001, dis
missing plaintiffs’ claims against defendants D uderstadt 
and Bollinger in their individual capacities on grounds of 
qualified immunity.

Dated: 2/23/01

Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP
By Is/ Kirk O. Kolbo____________

Kirk O. Kolbo, #151129

283



284

David F. Herr. #44441 
R. Lawrence Purdy, #88675 
330 Wells Fargo Center 
90 South Seventh Street 
Minneapolis, MN 55402 
612/672-8200

Kerry L. Morgan, #P32645 
Pentiuk, Couvreur & Kobiljak, P.C. 
Suite 230, Superior Place 
20300 Superior Street 
Taylor, MI 48180-6303 
734/374-8930

Michael E. Rosman 
Michael P. McDonald 
Center For Individual Rights 
1233 20th Street, NW 
Suite 300
W ashington, D.C. 20036 
202/833-8400

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS



285

Nos. 01-0102/0104

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: LEE BOLLINGER, et al. )

P etitioners (01-0102). ■*

----------------------------------------------  ) ORDER
In re: JEN N IFE R  GRATZ; } (Filed Mar. 26, 2001)
PATRICK HAMACHER, }

)
C ross-Petitioners (01-0104). )

Before: MARTIN, C hief Judge; DAUGHTREY and 
MOORE, C ircuit Judges.

In this action, the plaintiffs challenge the admissions 
policy of the University of M ichigan’s College of L itera
ture, Science and the Arts. The district court entered an 
opinion addressing pending motions in this action on 
December 13, 2000. Subsequently, the court granted the 
request of the plaintiffs and defendants to certify the 
following two issues for appeal:

1. W hether a public university has a compelling 
in terest in achieving the educational benefits of a 
diverse studen t body th a t will justify  the consid
eration of race as a factor in admissions, and

2. W hether the admissions systems employed 
by the University of Michigan College of L itera
ture, Science and the Arts from 1995 until 2000 
are properly designed to achieve th a t interest.

The defendants filed a timely petition for permission to 
appeal pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). W ithin seven



r'

days, as calculated by the guidelines of Fed. R. App. P. 26, 
the  plaintiffs filed an answ er and cross-petition.

This court may in its discretion accept for im m ediate 
review an order of the d istrict court certified for interlocu
tory appeal if: (1) the question involved is one of law; (2) 
the  question is controlling; (3) there is substantial ground 
for a difference of opinion respecting the correctness of the 
d istric t court's decision; and (4) an im m ediate appeal may 
m ateria lly  advance the u ltim ate term ination of the litiga
tion. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see Cardwell v. Chesapeake & 
Ohio Rv. Co., 504 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir. 1974). Review 
under § 1292(b) should be sparingly granted and then only 
in exceptional cases. Kraus v. Board o f County Road 
Commissioners for Kent County, 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th 
Cir. 1966).

Upon consideration, the petition and cross-petition for 
perm ission to appeal hereby are GRANTED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

/s/ Leonard Green_________

2 8 6

Clerk



T

287

Nos. 01-1333/1416/1418/1438/1447/1516

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JE N N IFE R  GRATZ AND PAT- ) ORDER
RICK HAMACHER FOR THEM- ) (Filed Oct. 19, 2001)
SELVES AND ALL OTHER )
SIMILARLY SITUATED, )

Plain tiffs-A ppellants *
(01-1333 and 01-1418),

Plaintiffs-A ppellees (01-1416), '

v- )

LEE BOLLINGER, ET AL., }
D efendants-A ppellees

(01-1333 and 01-1418) )

D efenadants-A ppellants >
(01-1416), }

EBONY PATTERSON, ET AL., )
D efendants-A ppellees )

(01-1333) )
(01-1416) )

In terven ing  D efendants- )
Appellees (01-1418) )

In terven ing  D efendants- )
A ppellants (01-1438 )

BARBARA GRUTTER, j

Plaintiff-A ppellee )
(01-1447 and 01-1516), )

)
)

v.



288

LEE BOLLINGER. ET AL., )
D efendants-A ppellants )

(01-1447), )
)

and )

KIMBERLY JAM ES, ET AL.,

In terven ing  D efendants- )
A ppellants (01-1516) )

BEFORE: MARTIN, C h ie f C ircu it Ju d ge; BOGGS, 
SILER, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, 
MOORE, COLE, CLAY, and GILMAN, 
C ircu it J u d g e s

The plain tiffs in these  consolidated appeals filed a 
petition  seeking in itia l en banc review of the  decisions of 
th e  two d istric t courts before whom the  cases were 
heard . The petition  w as referred  to the three-judge 
panel to which the  appeals had been assigned for oral 
a rgum en t on October 23, 2001.

The panel requested  th a t  all of the active judges of 
th e  court be polled to determ ine w hether or not the 
petition  should be g ran ted  and the appeals be presented 
in  the  first instance to the  en banc court for argum ent 
and decision. A m ajority  of the  active judges voted to 
g ra n t the  petition; therefore

IT IS ORDERED th a t  the  petition  for in itia l hearing  
en banc be, and it hereby is, GRANTED. It is FURTHER 
ORDERED the  oral a rgum en t scheduled for October 23, 
2001 is cancelled; oral a rgum en t to the  en banc court



T

289

will be on Thursday, December 6. 2001, at 1:30 P.M., 
EST, in C incinnati, Ohio.

ENTERED BY ORDER 
OF THE COURT

/s/ Leonard Green________
Leonard Green, Clerk



290

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JE N N IF E R  GRATZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, )
v. >

)
LEE BOLLINGER, et al., )

D efendants, '
and  )

EBONY PATTERSON, et a l. , )

In terven ing  D efendants. )

Case No.

PETITIO N  FOR PER M ISSIO N  TO APPEAL
Philip  K essler 
Leonard  M. Niehoff 
BUTZEL LONG 
350 South M ain S tree t 
Suite  300
A nn Arbor, MI 48104 
(734)213-3625

O f Counsel:

John  H. Pickering 
John  Payton 
B rigida Benitez 
WILMER, CUTLER 

& PICKERING 
2445 M S tree t, N.W. 
W ashington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 663-6000

Elizabeth Barry 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 
Office of the Vice P resident and 
G eneral Counsel 
4010 Flem ing Building 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 
(734) 764-0304



291

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF C O N TEN TS...........................

TABLE OF A U TH O RITIES............................
IN TRO D U CTIO N .....................................  1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
................................................... D

QUESTIONS PR ESEN TED .................................  lg
RELIEF SO U G H T............................................. lg

REASONS WHY APPEAL SHOULD BE ALLOWED.. 19
CO N C LU SIO N ...............

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES  

CASES
Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc. v. National 

Union Fire Insurance Co., 954 F.2d 1169 (6th 
Cir. 1992)................................................

Bratton v. City o f  Detroit, 704 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 
1983), modified on other grounds, 712 F 2d 222 
(6th Cir. 1983).........................................

Concrete Works o f Colorado, Inc. v. Denver 36 F 3d 
1513 (10th Cir. 1994).............

Contractors Ass n o f Eastern Pennsylvania v. City o f 
Philadelphia, 91 F.3d 586 (3d Cir. 1996).................

Gratz v. Bollinger, 122 F. Supp. 2d 811 (E D Mich 
2000 ) ........................................................................

Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999)......

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996).....

.....22

......5
6, 25 

4, 24
Johnson v. Board o f Regents o f the University o f

Georgia, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Ga. 2000)...4, 10, 24



292

Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 921 F.2d 21 (2d
Cir. 1990).......................................................................... 23, 26

Lerner v. A tlantic R ichfield  Co., 690 F.2d 203
(Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982)..............................................20

Mackey v. M ilam , 154 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 1998)................. 20

Majeske v. City o f Chicago, 218 F.3d 816 (7th Cir.
2000 ) .........................................................................................................................................................................................21

Regents o f the University o f California v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978)................................................................. 1

Sm ith  v. University o f Washington Law School, 233
F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000)................................................ 4, 25

Sokaogon Gaming Enterprise Corp. v. Tushie- 
Montgomery Associates Inc., 86 F.3d 656 (7th Cir.
1996)...........................................................................................22

Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996)............................. 4

Texas v. Lesage, 120 S. Ct. 467 (1999)..................................23

STATU TES

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).............................. 6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)............................ 23
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(f).................................... 7

Fed. R. App. P. 5 ............................................................... 3, 5, 18

Fed. R. App. P. 5(b)(2).................................................................. 2

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) passim



293

PETITIO N  FOR PERM ISSION TO APPEAL

The district court's order in this case, dated Jan u ary  
30, 2001, certified the following two issues for appeal 
pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): (1) w hether a university's 
in terest in realizing the educational benefits th a t flow 
from a racially and ethnically diverse student body is 
compelling and therefore justifies the consideration of race 
and ethnicity in admissions, and (2) in w hat m anner and 
to w hat extent a university’s properly designed admissions 
system  may take race into account to achieve th a t end.1

On the m erits, this case presents a challenge to the 
University of M ichigan’s consideration of race and ethnic
ity  as one of m any factors in m aking admissions decisions. 
The district court below held, based on “solid evidence” 
provided by the Defendants, th a t a university has a 
compelling in te rest in achieving the educational benefits 
of a racially and ethnically diverse studen t body, thereby 
recognizing the continuing vitality of Regents o f the Univ. 
o f California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and the 
correctness of the reasoning in Justice Powell’s pivotal 
opinion in th a t case. (See Ex. B a t 21.) The district court 
also held th a t the admissions policies and practices in place 
a t the University’s College of Literature, Science, and the 
Arts (“LSA”) from 1999 forward are narrowly tailored to 
achieve this compelling interest, (see id. at 39), while, be
cause of certain discontinued features, the admissions

A copy of the district court’s Order, dated January 30, 2001, is 
a ttached  as Exhibit A.

A copy of the d istrict court’s Opinion, dated December 13, 2000, is 
attached as Exhibit B and is reported a t 122 F. Supp 2d 811 (E D  
Mich. 2000).



294

systems th a t were in place from 1995-1998 ‘‘cross th a t thin 
line from the permissible to the im perm issible.” (Id. at 31). 
Defendants believe th a t the district court correctly deter
mined th a t the a tta inm en t of the educational benefits of 
diversity is a compelling in terest and th a t LSA's adm is
sions system s in place from 1999 forward are narrowly 
tailored to achieve th a t in terest. Yet, Defendants respect
fully disagree w ith the d istrict court’s ultim ate conclusion 
th a t the 1995-1998 adm issions systems fell on the uncon
stitu tional side of the line.

Plaintiffs have represented th a t they would seek an 
interlocutory appeal of the  portion of the district court’s 
order declaring th a t achieving the educational benefits of 
diversity is a compelling in te rest and th a t the LSA adm is
sions system s in place from 1999 forward are narrowly 
tailored to achieve th a t in te rest.3 (See Ex. C.) Defendants 
understand  th a t Plaintiffs intend to effectuate th a t appeal 
by filing a cross-petition on these issues wdthin seven days 
of the filing of D efendants’ petition, as provided by Fed. R. 
App. P. 5(b)(2). Therefore, on the condition th a t Plaintiffs 
do bring an interlocutory cross-appeal from the district 
court’s Jan u a ry  30, 2001 Order, pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1292(b), and  this Court agrees to hear th a t appeal, then 
Defendants seek perm ission, pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1292(b) and Fed. R A pp. P. 5, to appeal from the portion 
of the d istrict court’s order holding th a t LSA’s 1995-1998 
adm issions system s are unconstitutional. In the event th a t

A copy of the jo in t le tte r th a t the Plaintiffs and Defendants 
subm itted to the district court, requesting th a t the district court certify 
its  order for interlocutory appeal pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is 
attached  as Exhibit C.



295

Plaintiffs fail to file such a cross-petition within seven 
days after Defendants file this petition, or th a t this Court 
declines to hear th a t appeal, then Defendants’ petition 
should be deemed w ithdraw n.4 However, in light of the 
singular im portance of these issues and their significant 
consequences in th is case and beyond, Defendants and 
Plaintiffs agree th a t th is Court should accept both Defen
dan ts’ Petition and Plaintiffs’ cross-petition, pursuan t to 
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), in order to address the im portant 
legal questions th a t govern how a university may consider 
race in admissions.

Since the Suprem e Court held in Bakke th a t in s titu 
tions of higher education could constitutionally consider 
race and ethnicity in m aking admissions decisions, nearly 
all of the major colleges and universities in this country -  
including the University of Michigan -  have adopted 
admissions policies designed to achieve the educational 
benefits th a t flow from a racially and ethnically diverse 
s tuden t body. The Supreme Court has not revisited, nor 
even questioned, Bakke 's central holding. Nevertheless, 
Plaintiffs seek to overturn Bakke and to prevent colleges 
and universities from crafting their admissions policies to 
fu rther the vital educational goal of realizing -  for all 
students -  the benefits of a racially and ethnically diverse 
s tuden t body.

In the event th a t Plaintiffs file any other valid interlocutory 
appeal, over which th is Court has and exercises jurisdiction, Defen
dants respectfully request th a t the Court g ran t this petition for 
permission to appeal pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), in conjunction 
w ith Plaintiffs’ appeal.



296

W hether it is constitutional for a public college or 
g raduate  school to use race or national origin as a factor in 
its admissions process is an issue of great national impor
tance. Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996) (Ginsburg,
J., joined by Souter, J ., op. resp. den. pet. for cert.). This 
issue has been the subject of several high-profile lawsuits. 
Despite Bakke, judicial responses to these challenges have 
resulted  in a patchwork of contradictory rulings on the 
central legal questions. Compare Hopwood v. Texas, 78 
F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting diversity as a compel
ling in te rest in higher education and holding th a t only a 
narrow  rem edial rationale justifies the consideration of 
race in admissions) and Johnson v. Board o f Regents o f the 
Univ. o f Georgia, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Ga. 2000) 
(holding th a t the university  had failed to provide empirical 
evidence of the educational benefits of diversity and th a t 
those benefits were too amorphous to constitute a compel
ling in terest) (appeal pending before the Eleventh Circuit) 
with Sm ith  v. Univ. o f Washington Law Sch., 233 F.3d 
1188 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding th a t the diversity rationale 
adopted by Justice Powell in Bakke  is binding precedent as 
the  narrow est ground in support of the judgm ent to perm it 
the consideration of race in university admissions) (sua 
sponte consideration of rehearing en banc pending) and the 
decision below, Gratz v. Bollinger, 122 F. Supp. 2d 811, 822 
(E.D. Mich. 2000) (holding th a t achieving the educational 
benefits of diversity is a compelling interest, based on 
“solid” em pirical evidence).

Interlocutory appeal of all the questions certified by 
the district court in this case is warranted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b); Fed. R. App. P. 5. The district court’s certification 
of its order is proper because the order presents controlling 
questions of law, upon which there are substantial grounds



T

297

for disagreem ent, and the resolution of these issues will 
m aterially advance not only this litigation, but also the 
clarity of the nation’s jurisprudence on the consideration of 
race in admissions in higher education.

FACTU AL BACKGROUND

To assist th is Court in understanding the nature  of 
the controlling legal questions a t issue in this case, as well 
as the district court’s resolution of those questions, Defen
dants provide below a brief description of the “solid evi
dence” of the educational benefits of diversity, subm itted 
by Defendants and relied upon by the district court, as 
well as a brief explanation of the operation of LSA’s 
admissions system s from 1999 forward and from 1995- 
1998.

A. Procedural History.

On October 14, 1997, Plaintiffs Jennifer Gratz and 
Patrick H am acher brought th is action against Defendants, 
the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan and 
several individual University officials, alleging th a t the 
U niversity’s College of L iterature, Science and the Arts 
had violated Plaintiffs’ rights under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 
United States Constitution, through its consideration of 
race and ethnic origin as one of m any factors in m aking 
admissions decisions. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and 
punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive 
relief. (See Ex. B a t 2.) This Court perm itted a group of 
curren t and prospective minority undergraduate students 
to intervene a t defendants. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 188



298

F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (reversing, on interlocutory 
appeal, the district courts' denial of intervention).

On December 23, 1998, the district court bifurcated 
the proceedings into a liability phase -  which the court 
purported to lim it to Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and 
declaratory relief -  and a damages phase. For the liability 
phase only, the d istrict court certified an injunctive class, 
p u rsuan t to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), of 
non-underrepresented m inority students who applied for 
adm ission to LSA from 1995 forward, and who were denied 
admission. The district court specifically set aside the 
question of wrhether to certify a class for purposes of the 
dam ages phase5 (See Ex. B a t 2, 6.)

The district court issued its opinion on December 13, 
2000, resolving the pa rtie s’ cross-motions for sum m ary 
judgm ent Concluding th a t the University’s undisputed 
expert case, as well as the argum ents advanced by amici 
who subm itted briefs in support of the U niversity’s posi
tion, established the compelling nature  of the significant 
educational benefits th a t flow from a racially and e thni
cally diverse studen t body, the d istrict court granted 
D efendants’ motion for sum m ary judgm ent w ith respect to 
the admissions program s in effect from 1999 forward and 
denied Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. The district 
court also dismissed the claims against the individual 
defendants based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. In

In light of new case law, Defendants requested relief from the 
class certification order. The district court denied the request. This 
Court consolidated D efendants’ petition for permission to appeal under 
Rule 23(f) with a sim ilar petition filed in G r u t t e r  v. B o l l in g e r ,  and 
denied the petition as untimely.



299

addition, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for 
sum m ary judgm ent w ith respect to the admissions pro
gram s in place from 1995-1998 because, the court con
cluded, the now-defunct policies were not narrowly 
tailored to achieve th a t compelling interest. On Jan u ary  
30, 2001, in response to a request by Plaintiffs and Defen
dants, (see Ex. C), the d istrict court issued an order effec
tua ting  these holdings and certifying two questions for 
interlocutory appeal pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): (1) 
w hether a public university has a compelling in terest in 
achieving the educational benefits of a diverse student 
body th a t will justify  the consideration of race as a factor 
in admissions; and (2) w hether the admissions systems 
employed by LSA from 1995 forward are properly designed 
to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student 
body.6 (See Ex. A.)

B. The Educational Benefits of Diversity.

As the district court found, the U niversity of Michigan 
has made an academic judgm ent th a t “diversity [is] an 
integral component” of its educational mission and th a t 
diversity “increased] the intellectual vitality of the Uni
versity’s] education, scholarship, service, and communal 
life.” (Ex. B a t 3.) In order to achieve the benefits th a t a 
diverse student body will provide for all students, the 
University seeks to compose a class of students of different 
racial, ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and geographical

Defendants’ petition is timely filed w ithin the ten days allotted by 
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).



300

backgrounds, who bring w ith them  a wide range of in te r
ests, achievements, experiences, and beliefs.

The University’s determ ination tha t a diverse student 
body improves learning inside and outside the classroom 
for all students -  m inorities and nonm inorities alike -  
comports w ith the consensus reached in the larger educa
tional community. As the  district court noted, many 
educational organizations, representing over 360 in s titu 
tions of higher learning and a t least 25 education-related 
groups, filed amicus briefs in support of the University in 
th is  case, extolling the educational benefits of a diverse 
s tuden t body.7 Amicus briefs were also filed in support of 
the  U niversity’s Position by the United States; the S tate  of 
Ohio; the Attorney G eneral of Michigan; General Motors 
Corporation; Steelcase, Inc., joined by 19 other global 
corporations; and the N ational Association of Social 
W orkers. (See id. a t 22 (listing briefs).)

The district court relied on the empirical evidence 
contained in Defendants’ experts’ reports to hold th a t achiev
ing the educational benefits of a racially and ethnically 
diverse student body constitutes a compelling government

S ee  Ex. B a t 21 (listing a m i c i ,  including the American Council on 
Education and the Association of American Law Schools, National 
Association of S tate Universities and Land G rant Colleges, Committee 
on Institu tional Cooperation (an academic consortium including 
Ind iana U niversity, Michigan S ta te  University, N orthw estern U niver
sity, The Ohio S tate  University, Pennsylvania S tate  University, Purdue 
U niversity, the U niversity of Chicago, the University of Illinois, the 
U niversity of Iowa, the U niversity of Michigan, the University of 
M innesota, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Wayne 
S tate  University, together representing  over 360 institu tional members 
of the professional higher education community).



T

in terest. (See Ex. B a t 20.) The work of Defendants' na
tionally recognized experts in the fields of h istorj’, sociol
ogy, education, and psychology dem onstrates th a t there is 
a direct and provable relationship between the significance 
of race in our society and the quality of education in a 
racially and ethnically diverse setting. Furtherm ore, these 
experts prove, w ith empirical research and data, how and 
why racial and ethnic diversity on campus enhances the 
academic skills and civic preparedness of all students by 
sharpening studen ts’ ability to th ink  and analyze in more 
active and complex ways and preparing students to par
ticipate more fully in our pluralistic democracy. The 
district court concluded th a t Defendants “presented this 
Court with solid evidence regarding the educational 
benefits th a t flow from a racially and ethnically diverse 
studen t body.” (Id.) The University’s presentation and the 
d istrict court’s consideration of this extensive body of 
empirical evidence of the educational benefits of diversity 
set th is case ap art from other cases in which courts have 
concluded th a t diversity is not a compelling interest, based 
on a lack of em pirical evidence of the educational benefits 
it  produces. See Johnson, 106 F. Supp. 2d a t 1371-75 
(finding th a t the University justified diversity as a compel
ling in terest “with syllogism and speculation” and “data no 
more quantifiable than  [ ] years of teaching/adm inistrative 
experience” and characterizing th is as impermissible 
“circular, ‘it is because I say so’ logic”).

Using national and Michigan student databases, 
Patricia Y. Gurin, a Professor of Psychology a t the Univer
sity of Michigan, has proven th a t a racially and ethnically 
diverse s tuden t body provides m easurable benefits in a t 
least two areas: academic learning and civic responsibility. 
Professor G urin’s research dem onstrates th a t students

301



302

who experienced the m ost racial and ethnic diversity in 
classroom settings and in informal interactions with other 
studen ts showed the g reatest engagement in active th ink
ing processes, increase in intellectual motivation, and 
growth in intellectual and academic skills. Professor Gurin 
also shows empirically th a t students who learn and live in 
a racially and ethnically diverse environm ent are better 
equipped to understand  and consider m ultiple perspec
tives, to deal w ith the conflicts th a t different perspectives 
m ay create, to appreciate how differences can be h a r
nessed in pursu it of the common good, and to perceive 
commonalities am idst differences. (See Ex. B a t 20-22.)

In light of the historical and sociological data con
tained  in the expert reports of Professors Eric Foner, 
A lbert Camarillo, and Thom as J. Sugrue, it should come 
as no surprise th a t education th a t takes place in a racially 
and ethnically diverse atm osphere benefits all students, 
m inorities and non-m inorities alike. Race is salien t to how 
we live our lives: Americans of different races and ethnici
ties tend to live in separate  communities, to be educated in 
largely segregated schools, and to go about the ir daily lives 
w ithout m eaningful contact w ith members of other groups. 
Indeed, in some areas, such as housing and elem entary 
and secondary education, our society is as racially sepa
ra te  today as it was before Brown v. Board o f Education, 
before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, and before the  Bakke  decision. These segrega
tive p a tte rn s are particularly  strong in the S tate  of Michi
gan.

The consequences of this persistent racial separation are 
enormous, creating a profound impact on students’ experi
ences and perspectives. Most students enter college having 
had very few sustained interactions with individuals of



T

other races and ethnicities. This lack of meaningful 
contact fosters misconceptions and m istrust on all sides 
and affords little or no opportunity to disrupt the per
petuation of racial stereotypes, to discover unexpected 
commonalities, or to experience the richness of different 
racial and ethnic communities.

C. T he LSA A d m issio n s P ro cess .

The U niversity necessarily makes its admissions 
decisions against this backdrop of our diverse, but largely 
segregated, society, and in recognition of the reality of the 
consequences of this separation. Having reached the educa
tional judgm ent th a t a racially and ethnically diverse stu
dent body is essential to its mission, the University of 
M ichigan takes race and ethnic origin into account as a 
factor in m aking admissions decisions in order to enroll a 
studen t body w ith sufficient racial and ethnic diversity to 
yield these educational benefits.

Admission to the University is selective. M any more 
studen ts apply each year than  can be adm itted. (See Ex. B 
a t 3.) The University only adm its applicants whom it 
believes are qualified. (See id. a t 42.) Because a significant 
percentage of applicants are, indeed, qualified for adm is
sion. LSA has a talented and rich pool from which to 
compose a class. Of the large numbers of qualified s tu 
dents who apply to LSA each year, however, there is only a 
relatively small pool of m inority applicants nationwide, 
and these students are heavily recruited by many selective 
colleges and universities. Accordingly, w ithout considering 
race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions, LSA would 
see a precipitous drop in the num bers of minority students 
who enroll. (See id. a t 37-39).

303



304

The Office of U ndergraduate Admissions (“OUA”) is 
responsible for processing, reviewing, and acting on all 
applications to LSA. Admissions counselors evaluate every 
application received through an individualized review. 
Each of the approxim ately 20 counselors is responsible for 
a geographic territo ry  and reviews all applications from 
th a t territory. Applications from m inority students are 
assigned to counselors responsible for the relevant geo
graphic area, and are reviewed along with the applications 
of everyone else. Unlike the  “tw o-track” admissions system 
th a t was rejected in Bakke, there is no separate assign
m ent or review of m inority applications, and there are no 
num erical quotas, goals, or targets for m inority students. 
(See id. a t 35.)

Admissions decisions are based on a review of many 
factors and cannot be reduced solely to grades and test 
scores. The counselors evaluate applications using a 
“selection index” worksheet, upon w’hich counselors en ter a 
num erical value for each of a num ber of academic and 
other factors. An applicant can receive points for the 
following “academic” factors: high school academic GPA, 
standardized test scores, s trength  of high school, and rigor 
of chosen curriculum . Counselors may also award points 
for: M ichigan residency, underrepresented geographic 
sta tu s, alum ni relationships, quality of the required 
personal essay, leadership and service (based on activities, 
work experience, and awards), and personal achievement 
(evidenced by persistence, character, comm itm ent to high 
ideals, and level of awards). Applicants m ay also receive 
points for being socioeconomically disadvantaged, a



305

m ember of an underrepresented m inority group,8 from a 
predom inantly m inority high school (.regardless of race), or 
a recruited athlete. (See id. at 32-33.)

After completing the individualized review and 
tallying the selection index score, a counselor decides 
w hether or not to flag the application for consideration by 
an Admissions Review Committee (‘‘ARC”), which was 
designed to perm it debate and discussion on some of the 
more complex admissions decisions. A counselor may, in 
his or her discretion, choose to flag an application for ARC 
discussion if the applicant is academically prepared to do 
the  level of work required a t the University; has a selec
tion index score th a t exceeds a certain  level; and possesses 
a quality or characteristic im portant to the U niversity’s 
composition of its freshm an class. These attributes in 
clude, among others, high class rank; unique life experi
ences, challenges, circum stances, interests or talents; 
socioeconomic disadvantage; underrepresented race, 
ethnicity, or geography; and connections to the University 
community. (See id. a t 36.)

Counselors review applications as they receive them, 
and admissions decisions are made a t staggered intervals 
throughout the adm issions season. Admissions decisions 
are generally executed in one of two ways. First, param e
ters  are set, by selection index score, th a t determ ine w hat

* The U niversity of Michigan considers underrepresented m inori
ties to be African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Because 
the U niversity receives a substantia] pool of applications from Asian- 
A m encan students, the  U niversity is able to achieve diversity with 
respect to such studen ts w ithout the conscious consideration of an 
applicant’s sta tu s  as an  Asian-American in the admissions process.



306

adm issions action -  adm it, defer, or deny -  will be exe
cuted w ith respect to all applications th a t have received 
individualized counselor review a t tha t point in the sea
son. Periodically, these param eters are reviewed and 
adjusted to prevent over-enrollm ent and to pace the 
admissions process appropriately. Second, the ARC re
views and discusses applications th a t were flagged by the 
adm issions counselor bu t tu rn  out not to be adm itted 
based on selection index score param eters. After discus
sion, the  ARC decides w hether to admit, deny, or defer the 
applicant.

The district court correctly held th a t th is admissions 
system  is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational 
benefits of diversity and comports with the principles of 
Bakke  because it provides individualized review for every 
applicant, regardless of race; it does not isolate minority 
studen ts from competition w ith non-minority students; 
and it does not prevent non-m inority students from com
peting for every7 place in the  class. In other words, race is 
considered as a perm issible “plus” factor, consonant with 
B akke’s prescription. (See Ex. B a t 32-37, 39.)

OUA continually reviews and evaluates its admissions 
policies and practices and modifies them when appropri
ate. Throughout the period relevant to this lawsuit, OUA 
has m aintained its policy of considering race and ethnicity 
as one of m any factors in m aking admissions decisions. 
However, the mechanics of how race and ethnicity are 
taken  into account in the process have changed. (See id. at 
31.)

For applications to LSA’s entering class of fall 1997 
and earlier, counselors used grids, ra ther than  a point- 
based selection index, to guide them  in m aking admissions



307

decisions. Each grid had a vertical axis with a score 
computed from high school academic GPA, quality of 
school, strength  of curriculum, and other factors, and a 
horizontal axis w ith standardized test score ranges. Each 
cell on the grid contained various admission action options 
available to counselors. Michigan residenc}’, alum ni status, 
and underrepresented racial and ethnic sta tus were 
accounted for in different grids, as a “plus” factor, ra ther 
than  w ithin one grid or along one axis of a grid. The 
University devised the selection index in 1997 to simplify 
th is process. (See id. a t 30, 43.)

The district court concluded th a t the grids, standing 
alone, did not necessarily cross the line th a t Baake draws 
between a constitutional adm issions program and an 
unconstitutional one. (See Ex. B. a t 43.) The district court 
did, however, identify two other features of LSA’s prior 
admissions system  th a t it did not believe passed constitu
tional m uster: (1) the provision in the admissions guide
lines th a t perm itted  OUA clerks to reject non-minority 
applicants based on low grades and test scores before 
those applicants’ applications were evaluated by adm is
sions counselors, (see id. a t 42), and (2) the enrollm ent 
m anagement technique, dubbed “protected seats,” whereby 
the University projected and monitored application flow for 
certain  categories of applicants (including underrepre
sented m inorities) who have historically applied la ter in 
the admissions season. Given the dem ands of a rolling 
admissions system, the concept of protected seats was 
designed to allow the University to m anage the admissions 
process to ensure th a t it could still consider the applica
tions of attractive candidates who apply in the later stages 
of the process w ithout over enrolling the class. (See id. at 
40-41.) As the d istrict court found, the University has



30S

discontinued its use of the grids, “protected seats," and 
autom atic acceptances and rejections. (See id. at 44.)

Q UESTIO NS PR ESEN TED

1. W hether a public university  has a compelling interest 
in achieving the educational benefits of a diverse s tu 
dent body th a t will justify  the consideration of race as 
a factor in admissions.

We understand that Plaintiffs will seek 
permission to cross-appeal from the d is
trict court’s decision that such an inter
est is compelling.

2. W hether the adm issions systems employed by the 
U niversity of M ichigan College of L iterature, Science 
and the Arts from 1995 forward are properly designed 
to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student 
body.

We understand that Plaintiffs w ill seek 
permission to cross-appeal from the d is
trict court’s decision that the adm issions 
systems employed by LSA  from 1999 
forward are constitutional.

On the condition that Plaintiffs file such 
a cross-petition for permission to appeal 
on these two issues, and this Court 
agrees to hear that appeal -  and Defen
dants agree that it should -  then Defen
dants seek perm ission to appeal the 
district court's decision that the adm is
sions systems employed by L SA  from  
1995-1998 are unconstitutional.



309

RELIEF SOUGHT

On the condition th a t Plaintiffs file a timely cross
petition for permission to appeal from the district court's 
January’ 30, 2001 Order, and th a t th is Court takes th a t 
appeal, Defendants ask this Court to g ran t Defendants’ 
petition in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ cross-petition, 
pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed. R. App. P  5. 
More specifically, Defendants ask th is Court to affirm the 
d istrict court’s determ ination on the prim ary controlling 
question of law th a t achieving the educational benefits 
th a t flow from a racially and ethnically diverse student 
body is a compelling in terest th a t justifies a university's 
consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions. Defen
dants also ask th is Court to affirm the district court’s 
determ ination th a t LSA’s admissions systems from 1999 
through the present are narrowly tailored to take race into 
account in the m anner and to the extent necessary to 
achieve th is goal. Finally, Defendants ask this Court to 
reverse the d istrict court’s g rant of sum m ary judgm ent in 
favor of Plaintiffs w ith respect to the LSA admissions 
program s in existence from 1995 to 1998, as those pro
gram s were also a permissible way to achieve the Univer
sity’s compelling in te rest in diversity.

Defendants’ petition seeks relief only if this Court grants 
both parties’ petitions for permission to appeal from the 
district court’s January  30, 2001 Order, pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1292(b). If Plaintiffs do not file such a petition, or if 
this Court declines to grant tha t petition, then Defendants’ 
petition seeks no relief and should be deemed w ithdraw n.9

S e e  s u p r a  n.4.



310

REASONS WHY A PPEA L SHOULD BE ALLOWED

In light of the national significance of the questions at 
stake in this case, the recent flurry of conflicting judicial 
activity in this area, and the conservation of judicial 
resources in this particu lar case, this Court should exer
cise its discretion, pu rsu an t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), to 
accept D efendants’ petition, on the condition th a t P lain
tiffs file and this Court accepts a cross-petition for perm is
sion to appeal from the Jan u a ry  30, 2001 Order. Under 
those circum stances — once all the questions certified by 
the  district court are properly on appeal -  th is Court could 
then  decide, w ithout fu rther delay, how an institu tion  of 
h igher education m ay constitutionally consider race and 
ethnicity  in admissions.

Interlocutory appeal is appropriate because the 
d istric t court has certified th a t the order “involves a 
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial 
ground for difference of opinion and th a t an immediate 
appeal from the order m ay m aterially advance the ulti
m ate term ination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see 
also Mackey v. M ilam , 154 F.3d 648, 650 (6th Cir. 1998). 
Moreover, the issues a t stake are vitally im portant to 
colleges and universities and the ir current and prospective 
s tuden ts across the country. This case presents those 
issues squarely and comprehensively.

A. T he D is tr ic t  C ourt P ro p er ly  C ertified  Its
Order.

The district court has properly found th a t the s ta tu 
tory requisites of certification are present in th is case, and 
the  district court’s determ ination is entitled to deference 
from th is Court. See Lerner u. A tlantic Richfield Co., 690



311

F.2d 203, 209 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982) (noting tha t in 
exercising its discretion to g ran t permission to appeal, the 
appellate court should “give great weight” to the district 
court’s proper certification.

1 . C o n tro l l in g  Q u estion  o f  L a w .

The issues presented by the d istrict court's certified 
order are “questions of law,” as opposed to questions of 
fact, and “controlling,” in th a t their resolution is likely to 
affect m aterially the outcome of the litigation. First, both 
the compelling in terest question and the narrow tailoring 
question are legal questions. See Majeske v. City o f Chi
cago, 218 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2000). This is the case 
even though historical facts are relevant to the outcomes 
of these questions. As th is Court has observed, 
“[determ inations which do no more than  attach constitu
tional significance to historical facts are conclusions of 
law.” Bratton v. City o f Detroit, 704 F.2d 878, 899 (6th Cir. 
1983), modified on other grounds, 712 F.2d 222 (6th Cir. 
1983).

As the d istrict court noted, the Defendants’ empirical 
proof of the educational benefits of diversity was undis
puted, and, in fact, conceded by the Plaintiffs, (see Ex. B a t 
8, 23), leaving the district court to decide only the legal 
question of w hether the pursu it of those benefits consti
tu tes  a compelling in terest under the strict scrutiny 
standard . Similarly, the facts surrounding the operation of 
the LSA admissions process were undisputed as well, (see 
id.), leaving the d istrict court to decide the purely legal 
question of w hether the admissions programs were n a r
rowly tailored to achieve the University’s compelling 
in terest in obtaining the educational benefits of diversity.



312

See Majeske, 218 F.2d a t 820 (observing th a t whether 
there  is sufficient evidence to conclude th a t an in terest is 
compelling and w hether an affirmative action program is 
narrowly tailored are both legal questions); Contractors 
Assoc, o f E. Pa. v. City o f Philadelphia, 91 F.3d 586, 596 
(3d Cir. 1996) (same); Concrete Works o f Colo., Inc. v. 
Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1522 (10th Cir. 1994) (same). Accord
ingly, the questions presented by the d istrict court's order 
are questions of law, as required by § 1292(b).

Second, the two questions presented by the district 
court’s certified order are controlling because they are 
necessary and sufficient to determ ine the constitutionality 
of the University’s admissions process. Accordingly, those 
questions satisfy § 1292(b)’s requirem ent th a t the ir resolu
tion “could m aterially  affect the  outcome of litigation in 
the district court.” Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc. v. N a t’l 
Union Fire Ins. Co., 954 F.2d 1169, 1172 n.8 (6th Cir. 
1992). The question of w hether achieving the educational 
benefits of diversity constitutes a compelling in terest is 
the central, threshold legal question in th is case. That 
inquiry, together with the question of how a university 
m ay structure  its adm issions system to achieve such an 
in te rest will determ ine whether, and, if so, when, the 
University will ever have to defend against claims for 
dam ages by any plaintiffs (or be bound by injunction to 
a lte r their admissions policies). See Sokaogon Gaming  
Enter. Corp. v. Tushie-Montgomery Assocs. Inc., 86 F.3d 
656 (7th Cir. 1996) (deciding th a t a question of law may, be 
deemed “controlling” for purposes of § 1292(b) if  its resolu
tion is quite likely to affect the fu rther course of the 
litigation); see also Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 921 
F.2d 21, 24 (2d Cir. 1990) (observing th a t resolution of an



313

issue need not necessarily term inate an action in order to 
be “controlling” for purposes of § 1292(b)).

2 . M a te r ia l ly  A d v a n c e  th e  U lt im a te  T erm in a
t ion  o f  th e  L i t ig a t io n .

Resolution of these two questions will m aterially 
advance the u ltim ate term ination of th is litigation because 
it will ensure th a t the trial of damages claims -  if any trial 
is ever necessary -  proceeds in a m anner th a t maximizes 
judicial efficiency.

Because the d istrict court bifurcated this action, 
creating a separate  dam ages phase th a t has not yet 
commenced, the “ultim ate term ination” of this litigation 
would require a significant expenditure of judicial re
sources. To resolve the damages issues, the court would 
first have to consider w hether to certify a class under Rule 
23(b)(3). If certification were not appropriate, thousands of 
dam ages proceedings, all of them  subject to the possibility 
of a ju ry  tria l via the Seventh Amendment, would have to 
be tried in the d istrict court. Because under Texas v. 
Lesage, 528 U.S. 18 (1999), Defendants are not liable for 
dam ages if an applicant would not have been adm itted 
under a race-blind admissions system, each damages 
proceeding would entail an individualized inquiry into the 
necessary antecedent question of w hether th a t plaintiff 
would have been adm itted.

3 . S u b s ta n t ia l  G ro u n d  fo r  D ifferen ce  o f  O p in 
ion.

The substantial ground for difference of opinion on 
these questions is clear from the fact th a t courts th a t  have 
considered these issues have split, not only as to the



314

ultim ate  outcome, b u t also as to the ir reasoning. The Fifth 
C ircuit is the only court of appeals to disregard Justice 
Powell’s opinion in Bakke  and hold th a t achieving the 
benefits of diversity cannot be a compelling state  interest. 
See Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). One 
district court has also followed the Fifth Circuit's lead, 
determ ining th a t an in te rest in diversity did not and could 
not rise to the level of a compelling in terest because “the 
‘d iversity  in terest is so inherently  formless and malleable 
th a t no plan can be narrow ly tailored to fit it.” Johnson v. 
Board o f Regents o f the Univ. o f Georgia, 106 F. Supp. 2d 
1362, 1374 (S.D. Ga. 2000) (finding th a t the University of 
Georgia, in offering only the testim ony of its President, 
failed “to meaningfully show how [racial diversity] actu
ally fosters educational benefits,” and holding th a t “an 
in te rest in ‘d iversity  is am orphous a t best” and has “no 
principled stopping point”) (appeal pending before the 
E leventh Circuit). (Compare Ex. B a t 23-24.)

The N inth C ircuit sp lit with the Fifth C ircuit in 
resolving, on interlocutory appeal pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1292(b), the questions of “w hether educational diversity 
is a compelling governm ental in terest th a t m eets the 
requirem ent of ‘strict sc ru tin y  for race-conscious m easures 
under the  Fourteenth Am endm ent to the United States 
C onstitution” and “w hether race may be considered only 
for rem edial purposes.” Sm ith  v. Univ. o f Washington Law  
Sch., 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000). The N inth C ircuit held 
th a t the  diversity rationale in Justice Powell’s opinion is 
binding precedent as the narrow est ground in support of 
the  judgm ent reversing the lower court’s injunction ban
ning the  use of race in admissions. In th is analysis, the 
N inth  C ircuit’s resolution of th is question differs from the 
district court’s resolution in th is case, although both courts



T

ultim ately concluded th a t achieving the educational 
benefits of diversity is a compelling in te rest.10 (See Ex. B at
15.)

315

B. T he Q u estio n s  P r e se n t an  Im p ortan t N a
tio n a l Issu e .

Not only does the district court's order meet the 
sta tu to ry  requirem ents for certification, but the national 
significance of these questions provides an additional 
reason th a t th is Court should hear th is appeal now. The 
fact th a t a question of law th a t is controlling in the pre
sen t case also m ay be im portan t to other cases -  and to 
American higher education -  is a factor to be considered in 
exercising the discretionary power to perm it a § 1292(b) 
appeal, although it is not a necessary precondition. See 
Klinghoffer, 921 F.2d a t 24 (“the im pact th a t an appeal will 
have on other cases is a factor th a t [courts of appeals] may 
take into account in deciding w hether to accept an appeal 
th a t  has been properly certified”).

10 In addition to the cases discussed above, the same legal ques
tions are currently pending before Judge Bernard Friedm an in the 
E astern  District of Michigan in G r u tte r  v. B o ll in g e r , Case No. 97-75928, 
tria l of which is expected to conclude next week. This Court has twice 
before consolidated interlocutory appeals from th a t case and the in stan t 
case, concluding th a t the  same or sim ilar issues were presented in both. 
S ee  G r u tte r  v. B o l l in g e r , 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (consolidating 
appeals regarding intervention); Order, Nos. 00-0107/0109, (6th Cir., 
Sept. 26, 2000) (consolidating petitions for review of class certification 
orders).



r

316

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, if Plaintiffs file a timely 
cross-petition for permission to appeal from the district 
court's Jan u ary  30, 2001 Order, pursuant to 2S U.S.C. 
§ 1292(b), and th is Court g rants th a t petition, th is Court 
should also g ran t D efendants’ Petition for Permission to 
Appeal.

Elizabeth Barry 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 
Office of the Vice President 

and General Counsel 
4010 Flem ing Building 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 
(734) 764-0304

Dated: February 9, 2001

[C ertificate of Service O m itted In Prin ting]

Respectfully subm itted.

O f Counsel:

Philip Kessler 
Leonard M. Niehoff 
BUTZEL LONG 
350 South M ain S treet 
Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 
(734) 213-3625

/s/ John H. Pickering 
John H. Pickering 
John Payton 
Brigida Benitez 
WILMER, CUTLER, & 

PICKERING 
2445 M Street, N.W. 
W ashington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 663-6000



317

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEN N IFER  GRATZ and PATRICK 
HAMACHER, for them selves and 
all others sim ilarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Tem porary Case 
No. 01-102

PLA IN TIFFS’
CROSS-PETITION

LEE BOLLINGER JAMES R. 
DUDERSTADT; THE BOARD OF 
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF MICHIGAN,

Defendants,

and

EBONY PATTERSON; RUBEN 
MARTINEZ; LAURENT 
CRENSHAW; KARLA R. 
WILLIAMS; LARRY BROWN; 
TIFFANY HALL; KRISTEN M.J. 
HARRIS; MICHAEL SMITH; 
KHYLA CRAINE; NYAH 
CARMICHAEL; SHANNA 
DUBOSE; EBONY DAVIS; 
NICOLE BREWER; KARLA 
HARLIN; BRIAN HARRIS; 
KATRINA GIPSON; CANDICE 
B.N. REYNOLDS, by and through 
the ir parents or guardians; 
DENISE PATTERSON; MOISE 
MARTINEZ; LARRY CRENSHAW; 
HARRY J. WILLIAMS; PATRICIA 
SWAN-BROWN; KAREN A. 
McDONALD; LINDA A. HARRIS; 
DEANNAA. SMITH; ALICE



318

BRENNAN; IVY RENE 
CHARMICHAEL; SARAH L.
DUBOSE; INGER DAVIS;
BARBARA DAWSON; ROY D.
HARLIN; WYATT G. HARRIS;
GEORGE C. GIPSON; SHAWN R.
REYNOLDS; and CITIZENS FOR 
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION’S 
PRESERVATION,

Intervening Defendants.

Plaintiffs Jenn ifer G ratz and Patrick Hamacher, for 
them selves and on behalf of a class of other sim ilarly 
situated  applicants, subm it this Cross-Petition to the 
Petition for Perm ission for Appeal filed by Defendants in 
th is action.

Plaintiffs/Cross-Petitioners agree th a t th is Court 
should exercise its discretion to consider this interlocutory 
appeal, although they specifically disagree w ith the 
extensive argum entation th a t Defendants chose to include 
in th e ir Petition. By lim iting their discussion to the issue 
now before the Court — w hether to en tertain  th is in ter
locutory appeal — Plaintiffs do not mean to acquiesce in or 
agree w ith the argum ents on the m erits included in 
D efendants’ Petition.

The issues in this case are fairly straightforw ard: 1) is 
educational diversity a compelling state in terest sufficient 
to justify  race-based discrim ination in admissions and, 2) 
if  so, is the U niversity of M ichigan’s admissions plan 
narrowly tailored to advance th a t interest. If th is Court 
disagrees w ith the trial court on the first question, then 
the second question is moot, as liability is established. 
These are im portant questions, resolution of which will 
m aterially  advance disposition of the case.



}

3 \9

FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND  
THE QUESTION PRESENTED

P ro ced u ra l H istory

This requested discretionary appeal from the trial 
court’s December 13. 2001, Sum m ary Judgm ent Order is 
expressly authorized by the trial court in its January  30, 
2001, Order certifying two issues for appeal pursuan t to 28 
U.S.C. § 1292(b). “D efendants”1 have sought permission to 
appeal pu rsuan t to th a t order, and the Plaintiffs agree 
th a t a discretionary appeal is appropriate.

Plaintiffs will also appeal the tria l court’s sum m ary 
judgm ent order as a m atte r of right. This order denies 
injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, rendering it appealable 
as a m atte r of right pu rsuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 
Defendants, Petitioners here, have suggested th a t the 
order is not appealable as of righ t despite the clear lan 
guage of the s tatu te; discretionary review would be appro
pria te  if  the court were to take th a t view. Additionally, 
Judge Duggan entered an order dated February 9, 2001, 
certifying p u rsuan t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) th a t there was 
no ju s t reason for delaying entry  of judgm ent on the 
dism issals of Defendants Bollinger and Duderstadt. 
Plaintiffs will appeal the judgm ents subsequently entered 
by the clerk pu rsu an t to these orders. Therefore, it is 
particularly  im portant th a t the present discretionary 
appeal be allowed, in order (1) to economize the resources

1 The Petition does not identify the specific parties seeking to 
appeal and uses a caption with the shorthand “et al.” notation th a t does 
not identify them. Plaintiffs/Cross-Petitioners assume th a t all Defen
dants nam ed as such in the tria l court caption, the caption used in this 
pleading, seek to appeal.



320

of the parties and the court, and (2) to perm it the appel
ate  issues to be decided on the ir m erits w ithout complica

tion by any appellate jurisdictional issues. By granting 
th is appeal, th is Court will have unquestionable and 
plenary jurisdiction over the issues now ripe for appellate 
review7.

ARGUM ENT

As the parties recognized in presenting a proposed 
certification order to the Court below, and as the Court 
below affirmed in signing it, the trial court's sum m ary 
ju  gm ent order meets the requirem ents of 28 U.S C 
§ 1292(b). T hat s ta tu te  provides:

w nen a district judge, in m aking in a civil 
action an order not otherwise appealable under 
th is section, shall be of the  opinion th a t such or
der involves a controlling question of law as to 
which there  is substan tia l ground for difference 
of opinion and th a t an im m ediate appeal from 
the order may m aterially  advance the u ltim ate 
term ination of the litigation, he shall so sta te  in 
w riting in such order. The Court of Appeals 
which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of 
such action may thereupon, in its discretion, 
perm it an appeal to be taken  from such order, if 
application is m ade to it w ithin ten days after 
the en try  of the order; Provided, however, That 
application for an appeal hereunder shall not 
stay  proceedings in the district court unless the 
district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge 
thereof shall so order.

Fed. R. App . P. 5(a)(3) expressly authorizes the court to 
en ter an order, as was done here, certifying an earlier 
order for appeal. The petitioning defendants m ade a



y

timely petition for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b) and FED. R. APP. R 5, and th is Cross-Petition is 
expressly authorized by Fed. R. App . P. 5(b)(2).

There are generally deemed to be three requirem ents 
for granting a discretionary appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b): th a t the appeal presents a controlling question 
of law, th a t there  is substan tia l disagreem ent on the 
answ er to th a t controlling question, and th a t an appeal 
m aterially  advances the term ination of the litigation. As 
noted below, the first and th ird  of these requirem ents are
closely related. Because the order denying Plaintiffs’
motion for partia l sum m ary judgm ent meets these three 
requirem ents, discretionary appellate review is appropri
ate.

321

1. C on tro ll in g  Q uestion  O f L a w . The questions 
identified by the d istrict court are “controlling” because 
they will invariably affect the  outcome of the case, and 
reversal would save time and effort in the district court. 16 
Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. 
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3930 (2d ed. 
1996) (“the be tte r view [is] th a t a question is controlling, 
even though its disposition m ight not lead to reversal on 
appeal, if interlocutory reversal m ight save time for the 
district court, and time and expense for the litigants”); 
Kuehner v. Dickinson & Co., 84 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 
1996) (issue need not be dispositive of entire case to be 
controlling; only necessary for significant lower court time 
and effort to be saved).

Judge Duggan’s sum m ary judgm ent order plainly 
rules upon “controlling questions” of law. Defendants’ use 
of race in the ir admissions process is not rem edial in 
nature. Therefore, unless “educational diversity” is a



322

“compelling governm ental in te rest” sufficient to support 
the use of race in an adm issions system, Defendants' 
adm issions system violates the Constitution. Moreover, 
even if Defendants’ purported in terest in educational 
diversity does constitute a compelling governmental 
in terest, which Plaintiffs contest, the extremely heavy 
weight placed on race by Defendants is unconstitutional 
unless it is narrowly tailored. U nder these circumstances, 
proceeding with dam ages tria ls  makes little sense because 
“controlling issues” of law rem ain unsettled.

2. S u b s ta n t ia l  G ro u n d s  F or D isa g reem en t.
W hether “educational diversity” is a compelling govern
m ental in terest is a m a tte r upon which courts have 
disagreed. Compare Trial Court Order and Opinion (Exs. A 
& B to Petition); Sm ith  v. University o f Washington Law  
School, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) with Hopwood v. 
Texas, /8 F.3d 932, 948 (5th Cir. 1996) (educational diver
sity  not a compelling governm ental interest); and Johnson  
v. Board o f Regents o f the University System  o f Georgia, 
106 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Ga. 2000). O ther courts, w ith
out ruling on the issue, have recognized th a t the question 
is one upon which reasonable minds can disagree. M cNa
mara v. City o f Chicago, 138 F.3d 1219, 1222 (7th Cir. 
1998) (“W hether [non-remedial] justifications are possible 
is unsettled”); Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 796 (1st 
Cir. 1998) (Court assum es arguendo, “but . . . do[es] not 
decide,” th a t “some iterations of ‘d iversity  m ight be 
sufficiently compelling, in specific circumstances, to justify  
race-conscious actions”).

A nother fundam ental issue to be resolved on this 
appeal re la tes to the tria l court’s decision th a t D efendants’ 
adm issions system  for the years 1999 to the present was 
narrow ly tailored’ to achieve w hat the tria l court found to



323

be a compelling governm ental in terest in diversity. In 
reaching th is result, the court erroneously failed to hold 
the U niversity to its burden on this issue, or conduct the 
“searching” inquiry th a t stric t scrutin \r requires. This 
issue surrounding the burden of proof is im portant, and 
the  tria l court’s erroneous ruling should be corrected 
before extensive fu rther proceedings are undertaken.

The Suprem e Court has repeatedly held th a t once a 
p la in tiff establishes th a t governm ental action was based 
on a suspect classification such as race, the government 
bears the burden of dem onstrating th a t the classification 
is narrowly draw n to achieve a compelling government 
in terest. See, e.g., M iller v. Johnson , 515 U.S. 900, 920 
(1995) (“To satisfy strict scrutiny, the State m ust demon
stra te  th a t its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to 
achieve a compelling governm ental in terest.”); Bernal v. 
Fainter, 467 U.S. 216, 227 (1984) (“To satisfy strict scru
tiny, the S tate  m ust show th a t [the challenged law] fur
thers a compelling state  in terest by the least restrictive 
m eans practically available.”); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 
217 (1982) (“W ith respect to [suspect] classification, it is 
appropriate to enforce the m andate of equal protection by 
requiring the S tate  to dem onstrate th a t its classification is 
precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental in ter
est.”); University o f California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 
265, 305 (1978) (“We have held tha t in order to justify the 
use of a suspect classification, a State m ust show th a t its 
purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and 
substantial, and th a t its use of the classification is necessary 
to the accomplishment of its purpose or the safeguarding of 
its interests.’ ); San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 
411 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1973) (“[S]trict scrutiny means th a t the 
State’s system is not entitled to the usual presumption of



324

validit}3 * * * 7, th a t the State rather than  the complainants must 
carry a Tieavy burden of justification,’ tha t the State must 
demonstrate th a t its [radical classification] has been struc
tured with ‘precision,’ and is ‘tailored’ narrowly to serve 
legitimate objectives and tha t it has selected the ‘less drastic 
m eans’ for effectuating its objectives.”).

Here, after essentially weighing evidence and finding 
as a m a tte r of fact — and w hether the program is narrowly 
tailored inherently  requires assessm ent of the facts -  the 
tria l court found th a t m inor changes to the University of 
M ichigan’s program  in 1999 rendered it narrowly tailored. 
C ourts have readily found, however, th a t sim ilar programs 
in which race is considered are not narrowly tailored. See,
e.g., Eisenberg v. Montgomery County Pub. Schs., 197 F.3d 
123, 130-33 (4th Cir. 1999); Tuttle u. Arlington County Sch. 
Bd., 195 F.3d 698, 705-07 (4th Cir. 1999); Wessmann v. 
Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 796-800 (1st Cir. 1998). G ranting a 
discretionary appeal in th is case will help resolve these 
areas of disagreem ent -  for these litigants and for others.

3 . The A p p ea l M ay M a teria lly  A d va n ce  The
T erm in a tio n  O f  The L itig a tio n . Resolution of the ques
tions identified by the district court may materially advance
the term ination of the litigation. In the event th a t this Court
concludes th a t the trial court erroneously answered the 
identified questions, then Defendants’ admissions system 
will be held unconstitutional, sparing the court below from 
conducting multiple trials under an erroneous legal stan
dard. This requirem ent is closely connected to the “control
ling question” requirem ent previously discussed. See P.I.R.G. 
v. Hercules, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 1549, 1557 (D.N.J. 1993) (“The 
requirem ent th a t an appeal may materially advance the 
ultim ate term ination of the litigation is closely tied to the 
requirem ent th a t the order involve a controlling question of



325

law”), quoting 16 WRIGHT & M tt.I.F.R, FEDERAL PRACTICE AXD 

PROCEDURE § 3930. Accordingly, for the same reasons (and by 
the same authorities) identified in th a t section, an appeal 
may materially advance the ultim ate termination of the 
litigation. See also, e.g., Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 
U.S. 199, 203 (1996) (question of whether state, rather than 
federal, law applied to plaintiffs claims was renewable 
under § 1292(b), requiring reversal of trial court’s partial 
summary judgm ent for defendant); Winstar Corp. v. United 
States, 64 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (grants of partial 
summary judgm ent for plaintiffs on their breach of contract 
claims, where reversal would require claims to be prosecuted 
under the different standards and potentially different 
remedies of the Takings Clause, properly appealed pursuant 
to Section 1292(b)), a ff’d, 518 U.S. 839 (1996).

C o n c l u s io n

For all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respect
fully request th a t this Court g ran t the  Cross-Petition for 
leave to appeal.

Dated: February 22, 2001.

Respectfully subm itted,

Maslon Edelman Borman & 
Brand, LLP

By /s/ Kirk O. Kolbo
David F. Herr, #44441 
Kirk O. Kolbo, #151129 
R. Lawrence Purdy, #88675 

3300 Wells Fargo Center 
90 South Seventh S treet 
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140 
(612) 672-8200



326

Kerry L. Morgan. #P32645 
P e n t i u k , C o u v r e u r  &

K o b i l j a k . P C .
Suite 230, Superior Place 
20300 Superior S treet 
Taylor, MI 48180-6303 
734/374-8930

M ichael E. Rosman 
M ichael P. McDonald 
C e n t e r  F o r  I n d i v id u a l  R ig h t s  
1233 20th Street, NW, Suite 300 
W ashington, D.C. 20036 
202/833-8400

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

[Affidavit Of Service Omitted In Printing]



327

S u p re m e  C o u rt o f th e  U n ite d  S ta te s

No. 02-516

Jennifer G ratz and Patrick Hamacher,

Petitioners
v.

Lee Bollinger, et al.

O R D ER  ALLOW ING C ER TIO R A R I, Filed Decem
ber 2, 2002.

The petition herein for a w rit of certiorari before 
judgm ent to the U nited States Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit is granted limited to Question 1 presented by 
the petition.

December 2, 2002
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Gratz v. Bollinger Joint Appendix

Topic

Notable Person

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
