|
 oday,
the Center for Equal Opportunity is releasing at a Baltimore press
conference a 38-page study on the use of
racial preferences
by the University of Maryland School of Medicine. It finds strong
evidence that UMSM discriminates in favor of African Americans —
and therefore against whites, Asians, and Hispanics - in its admission
policies. You can find the entire report on the CEO
website.
The report
comes at a time when the long-simmering debate over racial and ethnic
preferences — a.k.a. "affirmative action" —
is coming to a boil. The U.S. Supreme Court last week granted review
in Adarand Constructors, Inc.v. Mineta, a challenge
to the federal government's use of preferences in its contracting
programs. A federal trial court last week also ruled that the University
of Michigan law school's preferential-admission policies were unconstitutional.
This is CEO's
first report on medical-school admissions. Over the past several
years, it has used the freedom-of-information laws to get admissions
data from undergraduate schools all over the country, and has consistently
found significant racial and ethnic discrimination. A little over
a year ago, CEO widened its investigation and sent information requests
to all public law and medical schools.
The new study
looks at UMSM's entering classes from 1996 through 1999. The silver
lining in what is otherwise a very disturbing report is that the
degree of preference given to African Americans may be diminishing
somewhat — perhaps because of court rulings against such discrimination
and because of the medical profession's heightened fear of lawsuits
— but it is still significant.
Just how significant?
In 1999, the total weighted MCAT score — like the SAT, but
for med school — had a gap of 7 to 8 points (out of a possible
67) between the median African-American admittee and median non-African
American admittees. Thus, 75 percent of all black students admitted
to UMSM's medical school in 1999 had lower MCAT scores than 75 percent
of all Hispanics, Asians, and whites admitted that year.
Or look at
the other key indicator: science grade-point averages from admittees'
undergraduate transcripts. For whites, the median for admittees
was 3.69; for Asians, 3.65; for Hispanics, 3.72; and for blacks,
3.45. Thus, half the African-American admittees had lower science
grades than roughly 75 percent of all Hispanic, Asian, and white
admittees.
Combining MCAT
and GPA data, researchers Lerner and Nagai found that, in 1999,
19 Asians, 2 Hispanics, and 36 whites were rejected despite having
higher scores for both than the median black admittee. These 57
students would have made up a significant chunk of the 262-member
entering class.
This means
that the relative odds of admission favoring a black applicant over
a similarly qualified white applicant — that is, the two candidates
have identical grades, MCAT scores, residency status (since Maryland
prefers in-state students), and parental-alumni status — are
21 to 1. To put this in perspective, consider that the odds favoring
a smoker getting cancer over a nonsmoker are only 14 to 1.
Here is another
way to look at it. A black student with a total weighted MCAT score
of 40 and a science GPA of 3.25 would have a 48 percent chance of
admission - i.e., roughly 50/50. But his Hispanic, Asian, and white
counterparts would have only a 10 percent, 3 percent, and 4 percent
chance, respectively. If the black applicant had a total weighted
MCAT score of 45 and a science GPA of 3.5, his chances of admission
would climb to 90 percent. But the Hispanic, Asian, and white students'
chances of admission would be only 53, 23, and 31 percent, respectively.
As noted above,
the degree of discrimination was even greater in 1996, 1997, and
1998. Thus, the relative odds of admission favoring a black applicant
over a white applicant were 41 to 1 in 1998, 36 to 1 in 1997, and
62 to 1 in 1996.
The data, while
not exactly great for sound bites, is crucial. Frequently the apologists
for racial preferences in admissions assert that race is only a
"plus factor," a minor tie breaker. The figures above
show that this is not the case.
Another frequent
defense is, "so what, those admitted for preferential reasons
do just as well once they are given the opportunity." But here
again, the assertion turns out to be false.
In the second
half of their study, Lerner and Nagai document the consequences
of preferences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
The median first- and second-year GPAs for black enrollees was 2.50.
For whites and Asians it was 3.17; for Hispanics, 3.00. For students
completing their third and fourth years, the GPA gap was narrower,
but still significant. The black median was 3.29, versus 3.50 for
Hispanics and Asians, and 3.58 for whites. And, while 82 percent
of whites ultimately graduated, only 68 percent of blacks did.
Medical students
also take the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, "Step 1"
of which is administered after the first two years of medical school.
"Step 2" is taken during or after the fourth year. More
than a quarter (7 out of 27) of the black enrollees failed Step
1 on their first try; two whites (out of 81) failed; one Hispanic
(out of five) and no Asians (out of 33) failed. For Step 2, again,
about a quarter of blacks failed (4 out of 15), and no whites or
Asians failed (the number of Hispanics failing was not reported).
Unfortunately,
the University of Maryland School of Medicine is not an aberration.
As Sally Satel discusses in her new book, PC, M.D.: How Political
Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine, this is a national phenomenon.
And a frightening national phenomenon, too. The double standard
and lowered standards inherent in any system of racial preferences
are bad enough, but when it comes to deciding who gets into medical
school, they're downright scary.
|
