Is There a Quota in the House?
The long-simmering debate over affirmative action is coming to a boil.

Mr. Clegg is general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
April 3, 2001 9:20 a.m.

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.