HOME | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The
Civil Rights Initiative calls it Racial Preference, and seeks to end it. The
Size of the Advantage is measured by the Center for Equal Opportunity*, analyzing
[Ed. Note: The nondiscrimination principle defended on this website bars intentional discrimination or preference based on race or ethnicity. A higher rate of admission for Blacks and Hispanics, than for Whites and Asians with the same test scores and grade point averages, shows different racial results. The question is whether such results were intended. They might have been an accident, caused by using additional admissions criteria that happened to favor Blacks and Hispanics. However, if obtaining these results was part of the reason for adopting the additional criteria, the racial difference in treatment was intentional. The size of the racial/ethnic advantage measured by the CEO's statistical analysis, and its persistence over the years, constitute powerful evidence of intentional discrimination. The magnitude of the odds ratios, and of the probability ratios, is mind-boggling. If such facts were reversed, they would create a sensation. The public would demand to know why its state university was handing White and Asian applicants a huge advantage over Blacks and Hispanics with the same academic skills. The University of Michigan is the source of the data, but of course not of the analysis. If the analysis spurs a cogent rebuttal by the school, it will find a place in these pages. Curtis Crawford]
Executive Summary The University of Michigan awarded a very large degree of preference in undergraduate admissions to blacks over whites and Asians with the same credentials and background for every year analyzed (1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005).
In the most recent year (2005) for which data were provided, the median black admittee's SAT score was 1160, versus 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites, and 1400 for Asians. High school GPAs were 3.4 for the median black, 3.6 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites. In the years analyzed, UM rejected over 8,000 Hispanics, Asians, and whites who had higher SAT or ACT scores and GPAs than the median black admittee--including nearly 2,700 students in 2005, the most recent year, alone. Based on logistic regression analyses, race and ethnicity are apparently more heavily weighted in admissions now than in 1999 (one of the years reviewed by the Supreme Court, which struck down the undergraduate admissions system as unconstitutional).
Odds ratios showed that Hispanic applicants were also granted substantial preferences over whites, controlling for other factors, but the degree of preference was not as large. [2] The odds favoring Hispanics over whites were the highest in 2005, the most recent year analyzed - 46 to 1 with the SAT and 48 to 1 with the ACT. Odds ratios also indicated that whites were favored over Asians, controlling for other factors and using the SATs, although the odds ratios were small. When using the ACTs, the white over Asian odds ratios were even smaller (2005) or not statistically significant (all other years). Probabilities of admission. Converted into probabilities of admission, an in-state male candidate with no alumni connection, and with an SAT score and a GPA equal to the medians for black admittees for each year, would have significantly greater chances of admission if black or, to a lesser extent, if Hispanic compared to whites and Asians. The gap between blacks versus whites and Asians increases over time.
For students with somewhat higher SAT scores and somewhat lower high school GPAs, the figures are perhaps even more dramatic. Blacks and Hispanics in 2005 with the same background described above but a 1240 SAT and 3.2 GPA had roughly a nine in ten chance of admissions (92 and 88 percent, respectively); Asians and whites with the same background and credentials, on the other hand, had only about a one in ten chance (10 and 14 percent, respectively). Subsequent academic performance also displays gaps by race/ethnicity.
The University of Michigan Law School awarded a very large degree of preference to blacks over whites and Asians with the same credentials and background for every year analyzed (1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005).
During the four years for which we received data, 4,415 Hispanic, Asian, and white students who earned higher undergraduate GPAs and scored higher on their LSATs than the median black admittee were nonetheless rejected.
Odds ratios showed whites being somewhat favored over Asians with the same credentials and background for every year except 2005 (for which there was no statistically significant difference). [2]
Executive Summary The University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) awarded a very large degree of preference to blacks over whites and Asians with the same credentials and background for every year analyzed (1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005).
During the four years for which we received data, 11,647 Hispanic, Asian, and white students (or nearly 3000 students each year) who earned higher undergraduate science GPAs and scored higher on their MCATs than the median black admittee were nonetheless rejected. Odds Ratios. Odds ratios favoring black over white candidates in admission--controlling for test scores, grades, Michigan residency, sex, and alumni connections--were very large. In 1999, the odds favoring blacks over whites with the same background and credentials were 38 to 1; they remained high (21 to 1) in 2005. Odds favoring Hispanics over whites, all other things being equal, were large but significantly less so than the odds favoring blacks. In 1999, odds favoring Hispanics over whites were 3 to 1, increasing to more than 5 to 1 in 2005. Odds of admission slightly favored whites over Asians with the same credentials and background for every year except 2004 (during which there was no difference). Probabilities of Admission. Likewise, probabilities of admission favor blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics over whites and Asians for every year. For instance, an in-state male candidate, with no parent connection to UMMS and with an MCAT score and science GPA equal to the medians for black admittees, in 1999 would have had the following probabilities of admission:
Significant disparities between blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics versus Asians and whites were found for 2003 and 2004, although the gaps were not as large as those in 1999. In 2005, chances of admission for candidates with credentials of the average black admittee were greater for blacks than in 2004, while changing little for the other groups. The chance of admission for a male applicant from Michigan with no parent who attended UMMS and with the same test scores and science grades as the average black admittee in 2005:
The disparities are perhaps even more dramatic as test scores and grades improve somewhat. In 2005, if a candidate had a total MCAT score of 41 and an undergraduate science GPA of 3.6, there was a three in four chance of admission if black, and a four in ten chance if Hispanic. If the candidate was white, the chances drop to roughly a one in ten chance, and if Asian, 6 percent. With a score of 43 and a science GPA of 3.8, chances rise to nine in ten if black and three in four if Hispanic, but only to one in three if white and one in five if Asian. Gaps in USMLE Step 1 scores. This is a licensing exam taken after the first two years of medical school; gaps in performance here parallel racial/ethnic differences in entering qualifications. White and Asian median scores are substantially greater than the black scores at the 75th percentile. * Ed note: the three CEO reports are available complete in pdf here. Also
available, on this website: Racially Disparate Rates of Admission in the University of Michigan Law School. Compiled by Plaintiff's statistician, Dr. Kinley Larntz, in Grutter v. Bollinger, (Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, January 7, 2001. |