HOME 
  

The United States Supreme Court
The University of Michigan Admissions Lawsuits

Grutter v. Bollinger
THE FACTS

Racially Disparate Rates of Admission
For Applicants with Similar Grades and Test Scores

Compiled from the Powerpoint slides presented by the Plaintiff's Statisticion,
Dr. Kinley Larntz, at the trial of this case in federal district court.
(The complete oral testimony is online here)

Barbara Grutter, who is white, applied in 1996 to the Michigan Law School and was rejected. Many minority applicants with much lower undergraduate grade point averages (UGPA) and law school aptitude test scores (LSAT) were accepted. Testifying in Grutter's behalf, Prof. Kinley Larntz displayed the different rates of admission for racially favored and other applicants, using grids of cells codetermined by grades and scores.1 For example, Grutter's UGPA was 3.81; her LSAT score, 161. This placed her in the cell of applicants with UGPAs of 3.75 and above, and LSATs of 161 - 163. In this cell the 1995 admission rate for Favored Minority Applicants was 100%: three out of three, while the rate for Other Applicants was 9%: 13 out of 138.

Grutter's UGPA was much higher than the 1995 median for all applicants (3.49), while her LSAT was slightly lower than the median (162). An applicant having the median scores would place in the cell with UGPAs of 3.25 - 3.49 and LSATs of 161 - 163. The 1995 admission rate in this cell for Favored Minority Applicants was again 100%: seven out of seven; the rate for Other Applicants was 5%: 10 out of 191. The Favored Minority Applicants included African, Mexican, Puerto Rican and Native Americans. The Other Applicants were Caucasian, Asian and Pacific Island, and Other Hispanic Americans, as well as Foreigners and Students of Unknown Identity.

The racially disparate rates of admission for similarly qualified applicants presented in Prof. Larntz's 1995 grid were not challenged in cross-examination, and were emphasized in Judge Bernard Friedman's opinion. Why the presentation concentrated on 1995 rather than on the next year, when Grutter actually applied, is not clear. But no one at trial suggested that the size of the disparities varied much from 1995 through 2000.

University of Michigan Law School
Profile of 1995 Rates of Admission for Racially Favored Minority
Versus Other Applicants with Similar Undergraduate Grades and LSAT Scores

Percentile Ranks
by Grade & Score
UGPA-LSAT
Grid Cell
Favored Minority
Admit Rate
Other Applicant
Admit Rate
 
 
10th

UGPA 2.75 - 2.99
LSAT 148 - 150
6% (1/16)
0% (0/15)
 
 
20th

UGPA 3.00 - 3.25
LSAT 154 - 155
25% (2/8)
0% (0/21)
 
 
30th

UGPA 3.25 - 3.49
LSAT 156-158
83% (15/18)
1% (1/75)
 
 
40th

UGPA 3.25 - 3.49
LSAT 159 - 160
60% (3/5)
3% (3/104)
 
 
50th

UGPA 3.25 - 3.49
LSAT 161-163
100% (7/7)
5% (10/191)
 
 
60th

UGPA 3.50 - 3.74
LSAT 161-163
93% (13/14)
8% (19/231)
 
 
70th

UGPA 3.50 - 3.74
LSAT 164-166
67% (2/3)
40% (97/245)
 
 
80th

UGPA 3.50 - 3.74
LSAT 167 - 169
--- (0/0)
76% (138/172)
 
 
90th

UGPA 3.75 +
LSAT 170 +
100% (1/1)
95% (143/151)
 

The Admit Rates are compiled from Grid Cell data submitted in February 2001 by plaintiff in Grutter v. Bollinger, at trial under Judge Bernard Friedman in US District Court. UGPA stands for Undergraduate Grade Point Average; LSAT, for Law School Aptitude Test. A percentile rank at or near 10 in UGPA and LSAT performance places the applicant in the first row of the table, and so on. Racially Favored Minorities were African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and Native Americans. Other Applicants were Caucasian Americans, Asian Pacific Island Americans, Other Hispanic Americans, Foreign Applicants, and Applicants of Unknown Ethnic Identity.

 

University of Michigan Law School
Comprehensive View of 1995 Rates of Admission for Racially Favored Minority
Versus Other Applicants with Similar Undergraduate Grades and LSAT Scores *

The first table presents the percentages of applicants admitted, in grid cells codetermined by college grades and LSAT scores. The second table presents the data from which these percentages were calculated, showing number of admits divided by number of applicants.

LSAT
148-50
151-53
154-55
156-58
159-60
161-63
164-66
167-69
170 +
UGPA
3.75 +
Favored
Other
0%
0%
25%
0%
50%
5%
60%
6%
67%
2%
100%
9%
100%
49%
100%
89%
100%
95%
3.50 -
3.74
F
O
0%
0%
50%
0%
56%
6%
89%
2%
80%
5%
93%
8%
67%
40%
----
76%
100%
92%
3.25 -
3.49
F
O
25%
4%
43%
0%
58%
0%
83%
1%
60%
3%
100%
5%
100%
11%
100%
47%
----
76%
3.00 -
3.24
F
O
7%
0%
13%
0%
25%
0%
57%
0%
86%
3%
91%
5%
100%
?
100%
?
----
?
2.75 -
2.99
F
O
6%
0%
8%
0%
27%
0%
40%
0%
20%
13%
80%
0%
100%
?
----
?
----
?
2.50 -
2.74
F
O
8%
0%
10%
0%
25%
0%
50%
0%
33%
0%
50%
0%
100%
11%
100%
43%
0%
0%

 

LSAT
148-50
151-53
154-55
156-58
159-60
161-63
164-66
167-69
170 +
UGPA
         
3.75 +
Favored
Other
0/2
0/11
1/4
0/23
1/2
1/22
3/5
4/63
2/3
1/61
3/3
13/138
3/3
72/148
1/1
118/132
1/1
143/151
3.50 -
3.74
F
O
0/7
0/28
5/10
0/39
5/9
3/52
8/9
2/87
8/10
5/100
13/14
19/231
2/3
97/245
0/0
138/182
1/1
131/143
3.25 -
3.49
F
O
2/8
1/27
3/7
0/45
7/12
0/43
15/18
1/75
3/5
3/104
7/7
10/191
3/3
15/141
4/4
50/106
0/0
87/115
3.00 -
3.24
F
O
2/28
0/28
2/16
0/33
2/8
0/21
8/14
0/49
6/7
1/31
10/11
3/65
4/4
?
3/3
?
0/0
?
2.75 -
2.99
F
O
1/16
0/15
0/12
0/11
3/11
0/14
2/5
0/15
1/5
2/15
4/5
0/29
5/5
?
0/0
?
0/0
?
2.50 -
2.74
F
O
1/12
0/6
1/10
0/9
1/4
0/3
1/2
0/8
1/3
0/4
2/4
0/10
1/1
1/9
2/2
3/7
0/1
0/7

Both tables compiled from Powerpoint Testimony of Dr. Kinsley Larntz, Slides 16-25. Favored Applicants are African, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Native Americans. Other Applicants are Caucasian, Asian, and Other Hispanic Americans, as well as Foreign Residents and Persons of Unknown Ethnic Identity. UGPA rows and LSAT columns omitted where no applicants accepted. Question marks (?) indicate empty spots in fourth and fifth rows due to obstruction of slide data in those cells for Caucasian Americans, Asian Americans, and Applicants of Unknown Identity. A blank line ( ) indicates no applicants.[return to table header]

End Note:
1.
Dr. Larntz, Professor of Statistics Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, gave a Powerpoint presentation on January 17, 2001, and responded to lengthy questioning from counsel for both sides. This compilation is based on a hardpaper copy of the slides. Excerpts from the cross-examination of Dr. Larntz appear on this website. His January 17 oral testimony, both direct and cross, is online here. [return to text]

 

 

Return to
GRATZ-GRUTTER TABLE OF CONTENTS