January 2007
Three studies released today by the Center for Equal Opportunity document
evidence of severe discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate,
law, and medical school admissions at the University of Michigan.
The studies are based on data supplied by the University itself, pursuant to
freedom-of-information requests filed by CEO and the Michigan Association of
Scholars. The studies were prepared by Dr. Althea Nagai, a research fellow at
CEO, and can be viewed on the organization’s website, www.ceousa.org. Highlights
of the studies are:
Severe discrimination favoring African American applicants over white and Asian
applicants was found at all three schools in all four years for which data were
received (1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005, the most recent year for which data were
available). Hispanics were also favored, but by less; frequently whites were
given preferences over Asians, although to a still smaller extent. In all three
studies, the data received from the university were analyzed to calculate: (1)
the gaps in academic qualifications among admitted students; (2) the number of
nonblack students who were rejected even though they had better academic
qualifications than the median black admittee; (3) the odds ratios for the three
minority groups relative to whites; and (4) the probabilities of admission for
students of different races but with the same academic credentials (test scores
and grades) and background (in particular, in-state applicants with no parental
alumni/ae). For the undergraduate and medical school students, the subsequent
academic performance of students after admission to UM was analyzed (the law
school did not provide the data needed for such an analysis).
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
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.
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 of 41 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.
The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and educational
organization that studies issues related to civil rights, bilingual education,
and immigration and assimilation nationwide.
Center for Equal Opportunity, October 17, 2006.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
