The UC Eligibility and Admissions Study Group released a study on March 8 showing that slight racial discrepancies existed in the current freshman class. The group found that in 2003, blacks and Chicano/Latinos were admitted at a higher rate than predicted by a statistical model, while Asian Americans and whites were admitted at slightly lower rates.
The study was designed to determine whether the University of California has been adhering to Proposition 209, which prohibited the university from considering race or ethnicity in admissions decisions.
The largest differences were at UC Berkeley, where blacks were admitted at a rate 7.3 percent higher than predicted, Chicano/Latinos at a rate 3.2 percent higher than predicted, while Asian Americans and whites were respectively admitted at rates 1.7 and 0.5 percent lower than predicted.
Differences at UCSD were less pronounced, with blacks and Chicano/Latinos respectively admitted at a rate 1.7 and 1.1 percent higher than the predicted rate, and Asian Americans admitted at a rate 0.8 percent higher than the model predicted. Whites were admitted at a rate 0.5 percent higher than predicted.
“I remain concerned about a few presently unexplained differences in admit rates of similar students by race/ethnicity,” UC President Robert C. Dynes said in a March 8 statement. “I am directing the Office of the President to conduct further analyses on these disparities; if there remain problems, whether intentional or unintentional, then I expect them to be corrected by the campuses in time for the next admissions cycle.”
The report also analyzed the effects Proposition 209 has had on admissions.
“The analysis demonstrates that since the implementation of Proposition 209, differences in the admission rates of similar students of different races and ethnicities have been reduced dramatically,” the group stated in its report.
Due to the small differences in the rates and limitations in the statistical model, the group cautioned that more sophisticated analysis was required to determine whether race or ethnicity still plays a role in the admissions process. The study only took into account quantifiable data such as grade point average, standardized testing results and income level. The group is currently undertaking a study at UC Berkeley that attempts to quantify and account for additional factors. The study also lacked information on the statistical significance of the results.
“Even with this sophisticated methodology, it can be difficult to tell whether there are real racial/ethnic effects on admissions decisions or imperfections in the statistical models,” the group stated in the report’s technical appendix. “All else being equal, small discrepancies between a group’s predicted and actual number of admitted students could be due to the omission of relevant admissions criteria from the statistical model.”
UCSD Director of Admissions Mae W. Brown does not believe that the results are significant.
“You don’t see a statistical significance when you really look at it because the numbers are so small,” Brown said. “When you look at African-American [admits at UCSD] for 2003, you’re looking at a difference of 18 students in a pool of 3,800.”
Brown does not believe that any drastic changes in the admissions process are necessary.
“As I reflect on the admissions process, I think that it is a very clear and transparent process,” Brown said. “The big picture is that clearly there will be students that we cannot admit to all of our campuses. But I think, as professionals in this field of admissions, that those folks who are involved in the reading process possess high integrity.”
Complete results of the study can be found at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compreview/update.html.
