University Of Michigan: Scofflaw!

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports today that:

The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor has increased how much consideration it gives to the race and ethnicity of undergraduate applicants since 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the race-conscious admissions policy previously used by its chief undergraduate program, a Virginia-based advocacy group alleges in a report scheduled for release today.

That group, the Center for Equal Opportunity, actually released three reports, which are available here and summarized in a press release here. From the Press Release:

Undergraduate Admissions

In the most recent year (2005), 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 four years analyzed, UM rejected over 8000 Hispanics, Asians, and whites who had higher SAT or ACT scores and GPAs than the median black admittee–including nearly 2700 students in 2005 alone.

The black-to-white odds ratio for 2005 was 70 to 1 among students taking the SAT, and 63 to 1 for students taking the ACT. (To put this in perspective, the odds ratio for nonsmokers versus smokers dying from lung cancer is only 14 to 1.)

In terms of probability of admissions in 2005, black and Hispanic students with a 1240 SAT and a 3.2 high school GPA, for instance, had a 9 out of 10 chance of admissions, while whites and Asians in this group had only a 1 out of 10 chance.

These disparities are reflected in subsequent academic performance at the University of Michigan, where blacks and Hispanics earn lower grades, and are less likely to be in the honors program and more likely to be on academic probation, than whites and Asians.

It is noteworthy that race and ethnicity are apparently more heavily weighted in admissions now than in the system declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Law School Admissions

Black admittees had lower LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs than the other three ethnic groups. Whites and Asians had the highest LSATs and grades (whites’ grades were slightly higher than Asians’); Hispanics’ were higher than blacks but lower than whites’ and Asians’.

During the four years for which we received data, 4415 Hispanic, Asian, and white students who earned higher undergraduate GPAs and scored higher on their LSATs than the median black admittee were nonetheless rejected.

The odds ratio favoring black applicants over whites was 18 to 1 in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available.

In terms of the probabilities of admission that year, an in-state male candidate, with no parents having attended the law school and with an LSAT score and GPA equal to the black admittee median of that year, would have had a 7 out of 10 chance of admission if black, but only a 3 out of 10 chance if Hispanic, and a 1 out of 10 chance if white or Asian.

Medical School Admissions

Black admittees had substantially lower MCAT scores and undergraduate science GPAs compared to other groups; Hispanic admittees’ scores and grades were higher; and whites’ and Asians’ the highest (with Asian GPAs slightly higher than whites’).

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 grades and scored higher on the MCAT than the median black admittee were nonetheless rejected.

The odds ratio favoring black applicants over whites was 21 to 1 in 2005.

Likewise, differences in probabilities of admission in 2005 were dramatic. For instance, students with an MCAT total of41 and an undergraduate science GPA of 3.6 have these probabilities of admission: 74 percent if black and 43 percent if Hispanic, but only 12 percent if white and 6 percent if Asian. For those with a 42 MCAT and 3.7 GPA: 85 percent if black and 59 percent if Hispanic, but only 21 percent if white and 11 percent if Asian. Finally, for those with a 43 MCAT and at 3.8 GPA, black applicants have a 9 out of 10 chance of admission (91 percent) and Hispanics a 3 out of 4 chance (73 percent), but whites have only a 1 out of 3 chance (33 percent) and Asians only a 1 out of 5 chance (19 percent).

Gaps in USMLE Step 1 scores — this is a licensing exam taken after the first two years of medical school — parallel racial/ethnic differences in entering qualifications. White and Asian median scores are substantially higher than 75th percentile black scores.

Quoted in the Chronicle article linked above, University of Michigan spokeswoman Julie Peterson called these findings “flawed and shallow.” They fail, she claimed, to

take into account many important factors considered in admissions, including the rigor of the student’s high-school or undergraduate curriculum, extracurricular activities, essays, teacher and counselor recommendations, and socioeconomic status.

Presumably Ms. Peterson wants us to believe that the considerably lower test scores and grades of Michigan’s black and Hispanic applicants are more than compensated for by the fact that their high school or undergraduate courses were much more rigorous and their essays and recommendations were much stronger than those of the non-minority applicants, or that all of the minorities who were accepted with lower grades and test scores than the rejected non-minorities were poorer than the rejects.

Ms. Peterson also complained that it was pure politics to single out the University of Michigan for criticism as Michigan is preparing to vote on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), which would ban race preferences by all public agencies and institutions.

The university spokeswoman, Ms. Peterson, called the center’s reports “a politicized attempt by CEO to narrow the focus of the debate to college admissions at a single institution rather than acknowledging the broader potential impact” of the ballot measure on employment, contracting, and a variety of areas of public colleges’ operations, including outreach and financial-aid programs.

In other words, she complained that studies of continuing discrimination by the University of Michgian dealt only with the University of Michigan. I suppose if, as a “spokeswoman,” you have to say something in the face of statistical evidence, that’s the sort of thing you say.

I hope the upcoming appearances in Michigan by CEO chairman Linda Chavez and president Roger Clegg are well attended and well covered.

UPDATE [18 Oct.]

At a panel discussion of the new CEO reports, Bob Baird, former director of admissions at Berkeley, echoed Ms. Peterson’s feeble charge of “flawed and shallow.”

Bob Laird, a retired director of undergraduate admissions at the University of California-Berkeley, said the Center for Equal Opportunity did a similar study a decade ago before California passed a measure similar to Proposal 2.

Laird said the both the California and Michigan studies failed to look at parental education and family income, factors admissions offices use for context when looking at grades and test scores.

“They ignored the complexity of the admissions process deliberately,’’ he said.

But Laird did not explain why the overwhelming preponderance of students admitted with far below average grades and test scores were minorities. It’s as though he expects us not to know that there must have been a very large number of non-minority applicants from low income families where the parents had little education. Indeed, I suspect a detailed study of the Michigan data, if it were available, would reveal that many of these disadvantaged non-minorities who were not admitted had higher grades and test scores than many of the minorities who were admitted.

As Roger Clegg responded,

the gaps were too large to be explained by great essays and extracurricular activities by minority students. He also argued that questions about parents’ jobs should not yield such different answers “that it’s going to explain the enormous disparity in GPA and SAT scores.’’

Laird, of course, has been at this for a long time. See my criticism of his views here.

Say What? (1)

  1. More Gurinanalysis March 28, 2013 at 8:14 am |

    […] Gurin says that the charge in the recent study by the Center for Equal Opportunity (discussed here) that the University’s racial preferences discriminate heavily against whites and Asians is […]

Say What?