National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. (2001)

Chapter: Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy

« Previous: College Admission Policies and the Educational Pipeline: Implications for Medical and Health Professions*
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy." Institute of Medicine. 2001. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10186.
×
Page 184

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Toward Diverse Student Representation and Higher Achievement in Higher Levels American Educational Meritocracy Michael T. Nettles and Catherine M. Millett University of Michigan INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the 20th century, merit became synonymous with stan- dardized intellectual tests in American education and in key sectors of the workforce. From the First World War when the U.S. Army administered intelli- gence tests to new recruits, the practice of sorting, selecting, and placing people based upon their test scores was launched. Colleges and universities began the practice using standardized intellectual tests for selecting students a few years later and the practice has grown steadily ever since. Despite the value placed upon other human attributes, tests and assessments are the most powerful levers of opportunity to higher-status education and employment. Here at the beginning of the 21st century, standardized intellectual tests re- tain their lofty status as the core indicators of educational merit in America. From elementary and secondary schools up through undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional education, an individual’s standardized test scores fre- quently determine the college or university he or she will attend and the curric- ula that he or she will experience. The higher one’s scores, the higher the quality of schools, curricula, colleges, and professional schools he or she is invited to attend. Higher-quality education in turn leads individuals to higher-status em- ployment and ultimately to a higher quality of life. The process of tracking be- gins in the early years of school. Moving from the lower to higher status tracks that lead to success is very difficult. While the central focus of America’s meritocracy during the 20th century has been the performance of individual students on standardized intellectual tests, the spotlight and the influence of tests, and more recently assessments, has 143

144 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO become much wider in scope. In addition to individual achievement, the meas- urement of merit today also encompasses the test and assessment performance of population groups (race/ethnic, class, and sex) and educational institutions (schools, colleges, and universities) in addition to individuals. Aggregate test or assessment scores of subpopulation groups are published today with greater fre- quency and are more often widely disseminated than in the past. Standardized tests and assessments reveal the relative status within the merit hierarchy of race/ethnic groups and their educational institutions. Institutions are ranked, rated, and classified based to a large degree upon the average of their students’ scores on various types of tests and assessments. The consequence is that individual merit and societal expectations are more formally intertwined with race group membership and the predominant race of the schools and colleges and universities. Unless institutions make score adjust- ments or use special weighting and calibrations on selection criteria, African Americans and Hispanics will be underrepresented in the higher status of American meritocracy. Because of differences in the score performance of stu- dents of different race/ethnic groups, there are separate merit scholarship pro- grams for people of various race/ethnic groups. The separation of the National Merit Scholars and the National Achievement Scholars based upon race/ethnicity is one example. Here the Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT) is the instrument used for awarding merit. The history of lower African- American and Hispanic performance and the expectation that students from these two groups will perform relatively low on the test, has caused the National Merit Scholarship Organization to establish racially distinct programs in order to ensure that African Americans and Hispanics are included in relatively repre- sentative numbers. Several leading testing and assessment organizations, colleges, and univer- sities have launched efforts to complement or even supplant traditional indica- tors of merit with alternative criteria. Criteria such as grades, educational and career aspirations, amount of effort, perseverance, and heritage, are variously considered as being complementary to test scores or to perhaps be possible al- ternative criteria. But, uniformity and stability are important elements of stan- dardized tests and assessments, which places them in a preeminent role as the most equitable criteria for determining educational merit. Grades earned in school or college, for example, are often only considered to be valuable after weighing the quality of the school/college and curricula in which they were earned. The practice of weighting schools on the basis of their quality serves as a means of establishing uniformity and standardization in grades and other school-based indicators such as class rank, honors, and awards. Because there are no common standards for awarding grades, conditioning is the norm. Tests and assessments administered by independent objective agencies appear to be void of bias because they are administered under similar time and physical con- ditions and are therefore more credible indicators of merit. There are rarely, if

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 145 ever, adjustments made in test scores based upon group membership or educa- tional and personal background. Rather, efforts to achieve racial/ethnic diversity are expended either by deciding the amount of weight to assign to test scores relative to complementary criteria, or by policies like the ones that are used by the National Merit Scholarship Program to segment their applicant pools based upon socio-demographic characteristics. Despite the popular anti-testing rheto- ric, standardized tests and assessments have become so highly regarded as me- diums of meritocracy that they are used to validate grades, curricula, and teach- ing; to certify the learning and accomplishments of students; to accredit and reward institutions; and to set priorities for public policies. Reversing the underrepresentation and progress of African Americans and Hispanics in higher levels of American education requires an increase in their participation and performance on test scores and grades. Only then will the members of theses two racial/ethnic groups and their educational institutions achieve higher status in American meritocracy. While all other non-cognitive measures are useful, they are only useful after being conditioned with other cri- teria. A person’s race or heritage, for example, may be used as a criterion for diversifying representation in certain strata of educational institutions such as college enrollments, but even race as a criterion is sometimes only an acceptable criterion after social class is taken into account. Social class appears to be an acceptable means of conditioning race and leads to boosting the opportunities of economically disadvantaged African Americans and Hispanics to attain better educational preparation and quality of life. At the same time, however, using social class as a criterion in conjunction with race reduces the prospect of achieving diversity at higher status colleges and universities. The African Americans and Hispanics who most often possess the backgrounds and creden- tials to succeed in the most prestigious colleges and universities are not likely to be the most economically disadvantaged. This paper examines the challenges that African Americans and Hispanics face as they pursue greater representation in the higher levels of America’s edu- cational meritocracy. Included in these analyses are the trends in representation of African Americans and Hispanics relative to Whites and Asians, and their performance and the performance of their educational institutions on important indicators of educational merit. Additional criteria are introduced that are likely prospects for increasing the representation and achievement of under- represented students. These additional criteria are correlates of test and assess- ment scores and other measures of academic performance. The focus is on the accumulation of human intellectual capital from the early years of preschool through high school and the college years and then the movement from college into first-professional education. The paper concludes with a brief description of four programs that intervene with African-American and Hispanic children during their middle and early high school years to increase the quality of their academic preparation.

146 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO Four central questions are addressed in the paper: • What is the current status of population diversity in the United States and at various levels of education? • As the primary mediums of meritocracy, how are tests and assessments performing in achieving equality of representation for various under-represented groups? • What are the correlates of student performance on tests and assessments that are likely to lead to higher performance and consequently to greater access and achievement by underrepresented population groups? • What actions are needed for expanding merit and eliminating under- representation based upon class and race/ethnicity over the long term and what criteria can be used by colleges and universities to identify additional talent in the short term? COMPOSITION OF THE U.S. POPULATION AND ENROLLMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION An important symbol in American meritocracy is the academic degree at- tainment of the adult population. The U.S. population consists of approximately 285,000,000 people, approximately 197,412,000 (69%) of whom are adults 18 years old and older. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and Whites throughout various age groupings of the entire population from birth through 65 years and above. African Americans and Hispanics comprise a larger share of the school-age population than of the overall adult population, and Whites are represented better at higher age levels than in the younger ages. For example, African Americans and Hispanics constitute 13.9 percent and 18.1 percent, respectively, of children in the category of birth to 5 years, 12 percent and 10.6 percent in the range of 35 to 44, and only 8.1 percent and 5.3 percent in the 65 and above range. On the other hand, Whites are better represented at higher age levels from 62.7 in the earliest ages of 0 to 5 to 72.8 percent in the 35- to 44-year-old age range and 83.9 percent in the age range of 65 and above. Asian Americans retain their represen- tation at around 2.8 percent at each age range (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). Table 1 shows that among adults who are 18 years and older in the United States the educational attainments of African Americans and Hispanics are not commensurate with their representation in the population, whereas Asian Ameri- cans far exceed their representation at higher levels of educational attainment.

White African American Hispanic Asian American Native American 100% 8.10% 7.20% 5.30% 90% 10.60% 8.10% 18.10% 15.10% 13.80% 14.70% 13.80% 9.60% 10.50% 80% 12.00% 15.00% 14.60% 14.30% 13.20% 70% 13.90% 60% 50% 40% 83.90% 77.10% 79.50% 72.80% 65.00% 66.50% 66.10% 67.70% 30% 62.70% 20% 10% 0% 0–5 6–13 14–17 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ FIGURE 1 U.S. Population by Race and Age in 1999 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program, 2000.

148 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO TABLE 1 Highest Level of Education Attained by Persons Age 18 and Over, by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity (Numbers in Thousands): March 1998 Persons age 18 Total and over Population Bachelor’s Master’s Professional Doctorate Total Population 197,412 30,087 9,295 2,586 1,869 15.2% 4.7% 1.3% 0.9% Race/Ethnicity African 22,552 2,075 662 111 71 American 11.4% 6.9% 7.1% 4.3% 3.8% Hispanic 19,833 1,348 306 132 79 10.0% 4.5% 3.3% 5.1% 4.2% Other 8,658 2,001 646 199 156 4.4% 6.7% 6.9% 7.7% 8.3% Whites 146,369 24,663 7,681 2,144 1,563 74.1% 82.0% 82.6% 82.9% 83.6% Gender Males 95,008 14,861 4,656 1,759 1,354 48.1% 49.4% 50.1% 68.0% 72.4% Females 102,402 15,228 4,640 827 514 51.9% 50.6% 49.9% 32.0% 27.5% \1\Civilian non-institutional population—Data not applicable or not available. NOTE: Data are based on a sample survey of the noninstitutional population. Although cells with fewer than 75,000 people are subject to relatively wide sampling variation, they are included in the table to permit various types of aggregations. Because of rounding, details may not add to totals. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000. Table 1 shows that while African Americans comprise 11.4 percent of the adult U.S. population, they represent only 6.9 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 7.1 percent of the master’s degrees, 4.3 percent of the first-professional degrees, and 3.8 percent of the doctorate degrees in the United States. Hispanics comprise 10 percent of the adult population, but 4.5 percent of the bachelor’s, 3.3 percent of the master’s, 5.1 percent of the first-professional degrees, and 4.2 percent of the doctorates. Asian and other population groups (primarily non-resident aliens) account for only 4.4 percent of the U.S. adult population, but 6.7 percent of the bachelor’s degree holders, 6.9 percent of the master’s, 7.7 percent of the first- professionals, and 8.3 percent of the doctorates. Similarly, Whites comprise 74.1 percent of the U.S. adult population, but 82 percent of the bachelor’s degree holders, 82.6 percent of the master’s, 82.9 percent of the first-professionals, and 83.6 percent of the doctorates (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 149 Table 1 also reveals an interesting sex difference in the attainment of merit among adults. Women and men comprise roughly the same share of bachelor’s degrees (50.6 percent female, 49.4 percent male) and master’s degrees (49.9 per- cent female and 50.1 percent male), but men hold a rather large advantage in the attainment of first-professional and doctorate degrees. Men constitute 68 and 72.4 percent of the first professional and doctorate degrees, respectively, compared to women who hold 32 and 27.5 percent (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Table 2 shows the race/ethnic distribution of the traditional college-age population of 18- to 24-year-olds, first-time full-time freshmen enrollment at four-year colleges and universities, bachelor’s degree recipients, and the new medical school entrants in 1997. The gap between representation in the popula- tion and among the three indicators of merit for African Americans and Hispan- ics is similar to the gap observed in Table 1 for the overall adult population. African Americans represented 14.3 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population but only 11 percent of the first-time full-time freshmen at four-year colleges and universities, 7.8 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients, and 7 per- cent of new entrants into medical school. Hispanics were 14.3 percent of the 18- to 24-year-olds in the population, 8.3 percent of the first-time full-time fresh- men, 6.3 percent of the bachelor’s degree recipients, and 6.1 percent of new medical school entrants. Conversely, Asian Americans represented 3.9 percent of the 18- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. population, but 5.9 percent of the first-time TABLE 2 Population (18–24), First-Time Full-Time Freshmen, Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, First-Time Medical School Enrollment, 1997 Race Population African Asian and Degree Total Other American American Hispanic White U.S. Popula- 24,980,036 222,857 3,584,530 973,449 3,561,018 16,638,182 tion Age (18–24) 0.9% 14.3% 3.9% 14.3% 66.6% First Time, 1,153,336 33,247 126,360 67,876 95,561 830,292 FT FR 4-yr Enroll 2.9% 11.0% 5.9% 8.3% 72.0% BA Degree 1,188,385 74,822 92,170 67,452 75,012 878,929 6.3% 7.8% 5.7% 6.3% 74.0% New Medical 16,165 587 1,134 3,131 984 10,329 School Entrants 3.6% 7.0% 19.4% 6.1% 63.9% SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program, 2000, 1997 IPEDS Enrollment Data, 1996–1997 IPEDS Completion Data, Association of American Medical Colleges.

150 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO full-time freshmen, 5.7 percent of the bachelor’s degree recipients, and 19.4 percent of the new entrants into medical school. Similarly Whites made up 66.6 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population, 72 percent of the first-time full- time freshmen, 74 percent of the bachelor’s degree recipients, and 63.9 percent of the new entrants into medical school. It is important to observe that both Af- rican Americans and Hispanics are represented among new entrants into medical school at roughly the same rate that they are represented among bachelor’s de- gree recipients. This is due mainly to the lower representation of students who are non-resident aliens among new medical school entrants than among bache- lor’s degree recipients and not because African Americans and Hispanics enter medical school at the same rate after undergraduate school as Asian Americans and Whites. In the scheme of American meritocracy, attending college and attaining a bachelor’s degree contribute to higher socioeconomic status. But, attending and attaining a degree from relatively prestigious colleges and universities yields advantage in the labor market and in American society (Bowen & Bok, 1998). Table 3 reveals that African Americans and Hispanics are underrepresented among first-time freshmen overall relative to their representation in the 18- to 24-year-old population, but their underrepresentation is most severe among the most prestigious colleges and universities. African Americans are even overrep- resented in the least prestigious colleges and universities. Table 3 shows that African Americans comprise 6.3% and 5.2%, respec- tively, of students enrolled at the most competitive and highly competitive col- leges and universities, but 19% and 15.3%, respectively, of the less competitive and the non-competitive colleges and universities. Hispanics comprise 5.5% in the category of most competitive colleges and universities and 6 percent in the highly competitive category. Asians are overrepresented in the most competitive (13.4%), highly competitive (11.7%), and very competitive categories (7.1%). White students are represented among first-time, full-time freshmen comparable to their representation in the18- to 24-year-old population in the most competi- tive colleges and universities (69.8%), the highly competitive category (74.2%), and the other four categories. Among the nation’s practicing physicians, Table 4 shows that African Americans comprise just 3.2% and Hispanics 2.4%, which are far below their representation in the U.S. adult population. Even in the fields of internal medi- cine and obstetrics and gynecology, where African Americans and Hispanics are best represented among all the practice specialties, African Americans comprise just 3.2% and 6.4%, respectively, and Hispanics just 2.3% and 3.3%, respec- tively. A larger number of Asian Americans (25,441) were practicing physicians than both African Americans and Hispanics overall.

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 151 TABLE 3 First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Attending Non-Specialized Four- Year Colleges and Universities (N = 1,395) by Selectivity: 1997 Grand Total Race African Asian Selectivity Total* Groups American American Hispanic White U.S. 24,980,036 24,757,179 3,584,530 973,449 3,561,018 16,638,182 Population ages 18–24 14.3% 3.9% 14.3% 66.6% Total 1,063,710 1,033,677 119,465 65,338 62,970 785,904 First-time Freshmen 11.2% 6.1% 5.9% 73.9% Enrollment Most 50,932 48,332 3,196 6,814 2,780 35,542 Competitive (52) 6.3% 13.4% 5.5% 69.8% Highly 120,152 116,656 6,259 14,051 7,196 89,150 Competitive (90) 5.2% 11.7% 6.0% 74.2% Very 234,596 228,301 13,669 16,593 13,693 184,346 Competitive (249) 5.8% 7.1% 5.8% 78.6% 413,401 402,298 53,145 20,034 23,055 306,064 Competitive (583) 12.9% 4.8% 5.6% 74.0% Less 156,342 152,527 29,666 5,869 10,625 106,367 Competitive (292) 19.0% 3.8% 6.8% 68.0% Non- 88,287 85,563 13,530 1,977 5,621 64,435 Competitive (129) 15.3% 2.2% 6.4% 73.0% NOTE: Grand total for the U.S. population includes Native Americans. Grand totals for freshmen enrollment include Native Americans and non-citizens. Row percents are calculated from the grand totals. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program, 2000, IPEDS 1997 Fall Enrollment, Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, 1999.

152 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO TABLE 4 Primary Practice Specialty by Race/Ethnicity of U.S. Medical School Graduates Practice African Asian Native All All Specialty American American Hispanic American Minorities Physicians Colon & Rectal 16 29 22 1 68 1,033 Surgery Family 2,410 1,979 1,992 278 6,659 64,611 Practice Internal 5,031 7,770 3,653 192 16,646 157,450 Medicine** Medical 4 7 3 --- 14 250 Genetics Nuclear 23 43 42 --- 108 1,434 Medicine Obstetrics- 2,526 1,515 1,303 82 5,426 39,257 Gynecology Total 20,895 25,441 15,703 1,126 63,165 654,748 Internal Medicine is the most popular primary practice specialty overall as well as the most popular primary practice specialty for African Americans and Hispanics. SOURCE: AAMC: Minority Graduates of U.S. Medical Schools: Trends, 1950–1998. TABLE 5 Typical Undergraduate College Criteria for Admission Test Scores High School Class Rank High School Grade Point Averages in College Preparatory Courses High School Academic Program Student Essay Geography Alumni Relations Extraordinary Talent TABLE 6 Typical Medical School Criteria for Admission Test Scores (MCAT) College Curriculum/Major College Grade Point Averages Pre-Med Courses (Biology, Physics, English, Chemistry) Overall Quality (Selectivity) of College Attended Faculty Recommendations

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 153 Representation among new entrants into college, among students attending prestigious colleges and universities, among bachelor’s degree recipients, among new entrants into medical school, and among practicing physicians are impor- tant markers of merit in American education. The fact that African Americans and Hispanics are severely underrepresented is problematic for achieving repre- sentative diversity at upper levels of the educational status hierarchy. Under- standing the relative interests and aspirations of African Americans, and their achievement and performance at prior levels of education, is important in ad- dressing their challenges to equality and representation in higher levels of edu- cation and in the overall hierarchy of American meritocracy. PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS ON EDUCATIONAL TESTS AND ASSESSMENTS Table 5 presents the criteria for admissions that are commonly used by col- leges and universities to select undergraduate students. Table 6 presents the same for medical school admissions. The weight assigned to each criterion de- pends upon the heterogeneity of the applicant pool at each college, university, or medical school. The more homogeneous the applicant pool on any given crite- rion, the less weight the criterion has on decisions that the institution makes concerning whom to admit. Some of the criteria that colleges and universities rely on for making undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional degree pro- gram admissions decisions are good indicators of what American society accepts as indicators of merit. This is especially so in the case of grades and test scores, which are the two criteria that are used at every level of education as the most important for admissions decisions. The remaining criteria, such as geographical location of the hometown and special talents, are most often used for the pur- pose of achieving diversity in the student body. The weight that colleges and universities assign to test scores and grades is more often a reflection of the type of information they need in order to discrimi- nate among applicants within their applicant pool. Even though test scores and grades are typically required in admissions applications at all levels, their weight among the admissions criteria vary from one institution to the next. In fact, it is not surprising for less weight to be assigned to test scores in the most selective colleges than at less selective ones, because the weight is most often dependent upon the variance in the applicant pool rather than the value that colleges and universities believe the test has as a representation of student achievement. In colleges and universities that have large applicant pools and where the test scores of the applicant pool are homogenous, the weight assigned to scores is likely to be low and more weight may be placed on alternative criteria that pro- vide more discrimination among the applicants. Conversely, tests may be the

154 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO most prominent criteria when the test scores of the applicant pools are heteroge- neous and other criteria are homogeneous. It is difficult to imagine colleges and universities that have large applicant pools relative to the number of available admissions spaces being able to carry out their admissions processes without using a standardized test as a principal medium upon which to make decisions about applicants. As the Chancellor of the University of California system plans to discontinue using the SAT I (apti- tude test), he proposes to use the SAT II (achievement test) rather than aban- doning the use of standardized tests altogether in the admissions process. Mount Holyoke College and Bates College are two institutions that have made admis- sions tests optional for students who apply. But the vast majority of colleges and universities require students to submit either ACT or SAT test scores along with transcripts that include grades as a central component of their application for admissions. Grades and test scores may be equally valued in both types of places or even more valued in the place where they have the least weight. And because test scores and grades are the strongest and most visible signs of merit, they are the most important for aspiring students to focus on in achieving high levels of performance. The trends in the number of students taking admissions tests is another indi- cator of student aspirations to attend college and post-baccalaureate graduate and professional education. Table 7 presents the trends during the past decade in the number of students of various racial/ethnic groups who took the American College Test (ACT) and the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) tests for under- graduate admissions. Table 8 presents the overall trends in students who took the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT). These data reveal steady overall growth in the number of students aspiring to attend college, graduate and first-professional schools and the relatively larger growth in the underrepresented minorities. Table 7 shows that approximately 113,377 African Americans, 60,878 Asian Americans, and 81,632 Hispanics took the SAT in 1999, representing an increase in participation of 16.9%, 42.9%, and 47.9%, respectively. The 707,851 Whites who took the SAT in 1999 represented a 4.6% increase in white test-taker participation. Similarly, Table 7 also shows that the 100,282 African Americans, 24,357 Asian Americans, and 46,361 Hispanics took the ACT in 1999—39.8%, 70.3%, and 51.2% more than in 1991, respectively. The 718,498 Whites represented a 22.8% increase over the same time. African-American representation grew by 2.8% from 1991 to 1999 among SAT test-takers and by 10.4% on the ACT, and the representation of Hispanics increased by 30.0% among SAT test-takers and 19.4% among ACT test-takers. African Americans represented 10.3% and 10.5% of SAT and ACT test takers in 1999, respectively, compared with 10.1% and 9.5%, respectively, in 1991. Hispanics represented 7.5% and 4.9%, respec- tively, of the SAT and ACT test-takers in 1999, compared to 5.7% and 4.1%,

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 155 respectively, in 1991. The Asian representation among SAT test-takers grew by 25.7%, from 4.4% 1991 to 5.6% in 1999, and by 34.4% on the ACT, from repre- senting 1.9 percent to representing 2.6%. TABLE 7 SAT I and ACT Test-Takers by Race/Ethnicity and Year Year % Change in % Change in Represen Race 1991 1995 1999 Participation tation 1991–1999 N % N % N % 1991–1999 SAT I African 97,008 10.1 99,252 10.0 113,377 10.3 16.9 2.8 American Asian 42,607 4.4 48,523 4.9 60,878 5.6 42.9 25.7 American Hispanic/ 55,211 5.7 67,050 6.8 81,632 7.5 47.9 30.0 Latino Native 7,828 0.8 8,955 0.9 8,225 0.8 5.1 -7.6 American White 676,404 70.2 665,750 67.3 707,851 64.6 4.6 -8.0 Other 11,422 1.2 19,344 2.0 30,756 2.8 169.3 136.8 Citizen Non- 73,150 7.6 80,258 8.1 92,989 8.5 27.1 11.8 Citizen Total 963,630 989,132 1,095,708 13.7 ACT African 71,722 9.5 87,462 10.1 100,282 10.5 39.8 10.4 American Asian 14,306 1.9 19,622 2.3 24,357 2.6 70.3 34.4 American Hispanic/ 30,661 4.1 42,193 4.9 46,361 4.9 51.2 19.4 Latino Native 9,285 1.2 11,220 1.3 10,612 1.1 14.3 -9.8 American White 584,986 77.9 645,915 74.4 718,498 75.5 22.8 -3.0 Other 21,982 2.9 35,542 4.1 22,870 2.4 4.0 -17.9 Citizen Non- 18,129 2.4 25,772 3.0 28,527 3.0 57.4 24.2 Citizen Total 751,071 867,726 951,507 26.7 SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from ACT Inc., 1999. Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Serv- ice, 1999.

TABLE 8 African-American Increase in Graduate and Professional School Test Taking: 1984–1995 Percent Change in Participation Test 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1984–1995 GRE 8,815 9,796 9,928 10,951 12,951 13,862 15,500 17,402 19,905 18,969 18,002 20,064 127.6 LSAT 4,406 4,889 5,079 5,758 6,167 7,109 8,287 9,343 9,577 9,969 9,560 117.0 MCAT 3,546 2,818 4,766 5,624 58.6 SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, Law School Admission Council, Association of American Medical Colleges TABLE 9 Frequency and Percent of SAT I and ACT Test Takers by Score Ranges and Racial/Ethnic Group, 1999 SAT V + M Score Range SAT I Overall less than 1000 1000 to 1090 1100 to 1190 1200 and above N Mean N % N % N % N % African American 113,377 852 89,560 79.0 12,644 11.2 6,773 6.0 4,400 3.9 Asian American 60,878 1077 22,395 36.8 10,126 16.6 9,511 15.6 18,846 31.0 Hispanic/Latino 81,632 921 53,915 66.0 12,770 15.6 7,977 9.8 6,970 8.5 Native American 8,225 964 4,695 57.1 1,477 18.0 1,037 12.6 1016 12.4 (continued)

White 707,851 1054 273,018 38.6 145,925 20.6 124,931 17.6 163,977 23.2 Other Citizen 30,756 1036 13,198 42.9 5,451 17.7 4,641 15.1 7,466 24.3 Non-Citizen 92,989 982 49,693 53.4 14,168 15.2 11,587 12.5 17,541 18.9 All SAT I 1,095,708 1017 506,474 46.2 202,561 18.5 166,457 15.2 220,216 20.1 Test Takers ACT Score Range ACT Overall less than 22 22 to 23 24 to 26 27 and above N Mean N % N % N % N % African American 100,282 17.1 87,880 87.6 6,196 6.2 4,467 4.5 1,739 1.7 Asian American 24,357 22.4 10,994 45.1 3,522 14.5 4,529 18.6 5,312 21.8 Hispanic/Latino 46,361 19.1 33,759 72.8 5,032 10.9 4,830 10.4 2,740 5.9 Native American 10,612 19 7,727 72.8 1,162 10.9 1041 9.8 682 6.4 White 718,498 21.8 361,860 50.4 111,564 15.5 131,704 18.3 113,370 15.8 Other Citizen 22,870 20.6 13,699 59.9 3,053 13.3 3,386 14.8 2,732 11.9 Non-Citizen 28,527 19.3 19,983 70.0 3,033 10.6 3,142 11.0 2,369 8.3 All ACT Test 951,507 21 535,902 56.3 133,562 14.0 153,099 16.1 128,944 13.6 Takers SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from ACT Inc., 1999. Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999.

158 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO Table 8 presents the trends in participation of African Americans taking the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Law School Admission Test (LSAT), and the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Approximately 20,064 African Americans took the GRE in 1999, representing a 127.6% increase over 1985. The 9,560 African Americans who took the LSAT in 1999 represented a 117% in- crease in test-taking participation over 1984. The 5,624 African Americans who took the MCAT in 1995 represented a 58.6% increase over 1984. Table 9 presents student performance in 1999 by race/ethnicity on the SAT and ACT, and the distribution of each group within selected score ranges. The overall combined mean on the SAT was 1,017 in 1999. The mean for African Americans was 852 and for Hispanics 921. The Asian mean was 1,077 and the white mean was 1,054. Approximately 38.6% of Whites and 36.8% of Asians achieved scores below 1,000, compared with 79% of African Americans and 66% of Hispanics. Conversely, 23.2% of Whites and 31% of Asians achieved scores of 1,200 or above, compared with 3.9% of African Americans and 8.5% of Hispanics. Table 9 presents a similar picture for the ACT. Compared to an overall mean of 21, the mean for African Americans was 17.1, 19.1 for Hispanics, 21.8 for Whites and 22.4 for Asians. Approximately 50.4% of Whites and 45.1% of Asian Americans achieved scores below 22 compared with 87.6% of African Americans and 72.8% of Hispanics. While 21.8% of Asians and 15.8% of Whites achieved ACT scores of 27 or more, only 1.7% of African Americans and 5.9% of Hispanics achieved scores in this range. Table 10 presents a similar picture on the MCAT in 1998. While the white average was 8.3 in verbal reasoning, 8.4 in the physical sciences, and 8.7 the in biological sciences, and the Asian means were 7.6, 8.9, and 8.8, respectively, the African American means were 6, 6.1, and 6.1, and the Mexican-American aver- ages were 7, 7.1, and 7.4. The comparable scores for Mainland Puerto Ricans were 5.8, 6.3, and 6.4, and for other Hispanics 7.2, 7.6, and 7.8. The pattern of lower African-American and Hispanic test performance be- gins in the earliest years of elementary school education. Figures 2 and 3 present the distribution of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for fourth grade reading and mathematics. Over 60% of the African Americans and about 60% of Hispanic fourth graders were below basic in read- ing, and only 10% and 13%, respectively, were at or above proficient. Nearly 40% of Asians and Whites achieved at or above proficient. Similarly, in mathe- matics, over 65% of African Americans and nearly 60% of Hispanics were be- low basic, and around 5% of African Americans and 8% of Hispanics were at or above proficient. In contrast, nearly 30% of Asian Americans and Whites were at or above proficient. The NAEP data, together with the ACT and SAT data presented earlier in the paper, reveal how the gaps between African Americans and Hispanics and Asian Americans and Whites that are observed in elementary school assessments are never eliminated in subsequent tests and assessments.

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 159 TABLE 10 MCAT Performance by Race/Ethnicity: April/August 1998 Verbal Physical Biological Writing Race N Reasoning Sciences Sciences Sample Total 57,846* 7.8** 8.2 8.4 O*** African American 5,283 6 6.1 6.1 N Asian American 12,260 7.6 8.9 8.8 O American Indian 349 7.4 6.9 7.2 O Other Hispanic 1,338 7.2 7.6 7.8 O Mexican Ameri- 1,241 7 7.1 7.4 O can Chicano Native Alaskan 8 8.1 7.1 7.8 O Native Hawaiian 29 6.9 7.6 7.6 O Puerto Rico- 477 5.8 6.3 6.4 M Mainland Puerto Rico- 958 4.4 5.3 5.2 K Commonwealth White 32,967 8.3 8.4 8.7 P * = Subtotals may not sum to total due to nonresponse of examinees on various demographic data fields. ** = Mean (Standard Deviation). *** = Median. SOURCE: Association of American Medical Colleges, 1998.

80% African American Asian American 70% Hispanic Native American 60% White 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Below Basic At or Above Basic At or Above Proficient At or Above Advanced FIGURE 2 Percentage of Students Scoring at Various Levels on the National Assessment of Educational Prog- ress in Reading: 4th Grade SOURCE: NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States

80% African American Asian American 70% Hispanic Native American 60% White 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Below Basic At or Above Basic At or Above Proficient At or Above Advanced FIGURE 3 Percentage of Students Scoring at Various Levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics: 4th Grade SOURCE: NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States.

162 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO The consequence of lower performance of African Americans and Hispan- ics on these assessments and tests are lower access to high-quality curricula in school, lower access to higher-quality colleges and universities, and lower ac- cess to graduate and professional school. It is important to eliminate these per- formance gaps on standardized tests and assessments in order to achieve ra- cial/ethnic equality in America’s educational meritocracy. One place to begin is by examining the correlates of student performance on tests and assessments. These correlates should provide information on educational and other interven- tions that are needed to improve African-American and Hispanic performance. FACTORS RELATED TO STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON TESTS AND ASSESSMENTS Unless one is inclined to believe the “nature versus nurture” orientation of intelligence and merit, perhaps the best initial investment toward narrowing the racial/ethnic gap in performance should be to identify tangible factors that, if altered, could lead to higher performance for African Americans and Hispanics. The scatter plots presented in Figures 4 and 5 show the school-level math scores of African-American and white students in the fourth and eighth grades on NAEP, distributed by the proportion of school population that is African Ameri- can. Figures 6 and 7 present the same type of score distribution for Hispanics and white students by the proportions of the school population that is Hispanic. The scatter plots use the overall mean of Whites and the means of African Americans as the standards against which to illustrate the mean scores of each racial/ethnic group of students in each school. The patterns presented in Figures 4 and 5 reveal that the greater the African- American enrollment of a school, the lower the means of both African- Americans and white students in the school are likely to be on the NAEP mathematics assessment.

290 270 School Mean Proficiencies 250 230 210 190 170 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of Black Students Black Means W hite Means Black National Mean W hite National Mean FIGURE 4 Math 1996 Grade 4 Public School State Aggregate A1+A2. SOURCE: Educational Testing Service 1997 (unpublished raw data)

290 270 School Mean Proficiencies 250 230 210 190 170 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of Hispanic Students Hispanic Means White Means Hispanic National Mean White National Mean FIGURE 5 Math 1996 Grade 4 Public School State Aggregate S1 SOURCE: Educational Testing Service 1997 (unpublished raw data)

350 325 300 School Mean Proficiencies 275 250 225 200 175 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of Black Students Black Means White Means Black National Mean White National Mean FIGURE 6 Math 1996 Grade 8 Public School State Aggregate A1+A2 SOURCE: Educational Testing Service 1997 (unpublished raw data)

350 325 300 School Mean Proficiencies 275 250 225 200 175 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage of Hispanic Students Hispanic Means White Means Hispanic National Mean White National Mean FIGURE 7 Math 1996 Grade 8 Public School State Aggregate S1 SOURCE: Educational Testing Service 1997 (unpublished raw data).

TOWARD DIVERSE STUDENT REPRESENTATION 167 Similarly, Figures 6 and 7 show that the greater the enrollment of Hispanics in a school, the lower the average student performance on the NAEP mathematics assessment. It is a well-established fact that the African Americans and Hispanics in America attend lower-quality schools; therefore, the finding that the perform- ance of their schools on NAEP is lower is not surprising. What is astounding and important is that there are some schools revealed in Figures 4 through 7 that are overwhelmingly African American and Hispanic, and where the mean scores are at or above the white mean. At the same time, there are also some predominantly white schools where the means are around and below the African-American and Hispanic means. In essence, even though the probability of having a low- performing school in mathematics at the fourth and eighth grades is greater if the school is predominantly African American and Hispanic, the data show that there are also many challenges in schools that are all or nearly all white. Because the schools in the NAEP sample are guaranteed anonymity, the identity of the individual schools cannot be disclosed. But, data regarding such characteristics and qualities as the state where the school is located, whether it is center city, urban, or rural, the size of the school's enrollment, and the percent of students who receive free or reduced-price lunches are available through the NAEP. Much more could be learned about these schools to shed light upon their performance if data about the quality of the teachers, the methods of organizing and teaching the curriculum, and the relationship of the parents with the school were available. Another way to identify some important factors on which to take action is to identify the correlates of student performance on the college admissions tests. One of the most popular correlates of admissions tests is income. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the relationship of family income to 1999 ACT and SAT scores, re- spectively. Figure 8 shows that for each racial/ethnic group, family income is proportional to a student’s ACT score, and that the relative position of each group remains constant throughout the income distribution. At a family income level of $18,000 and below, Table 11 shows that the average ACT score for Af- rican Americans was 16, for Asian Americans and Whites 20, and for Hispanics 18. At the income range of $50,000 to $60,000, the mean score for African Americans is 18, for Asian Americans 23, for Hispanics 20, and Whites 22. At $100,000 and above, 20 was the average African American score, Asian Ameri- cans 25, Hispanics 22, and Whites 23. Table 12 shows that on the SAT, in the salary range of $10,000 to $20,000 the mean score was 805 for African Ameri- cans, around 856 for Hispanics, 970 for Asian Americans, and 975 for Whites. In the $50,000 to $60,000 range, the mean score was approximately 894 for Af- rican Americans, 1,076 for Asian Americans, 1,040 for Whites and others, and 966 for Hispanics. At $100,000 and above, the African American mean was around 1,000, around 1,070 for Hispanics, around 1,131 for Whites, and 1,217 for Asian Americans.

168 THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THE SMART THING TO DO Income probably serves as a proxy for quality of schools, quality and level of parent education, and overall quality of life. Since efforts to increase the op- portunities for underrepresented students to enter higher levels of the meritoc- racy are not likely to include altering the income distribution of the nation’s families, then it is important to identify factors beyond income that might be addressed in improving the scores of African-American and Hispanic students.

26 Af.Amer. Asian Amer. Hisp./Lat. Nat. Amer. Non-Cit. Wh./Oth. 24 22 20 18 16 < $18 $18 to $30 $30 to $42 $42 to $50 $50 to $60 $60 to $80 $80 to $100 > $100 FIGURE 8 1999 ACT Mean Test Scores by Family Income and Race/Ethnicity SOURCE: Nettles & Millet Analyses of Customized data files from ACT, Inc., 1999.

1250 Af. Amer. Asian Amer. Hisp./Lat. Nat. Amer. Non-Cit. Wh./Oth. 1150 1050 950 850 750 < $10 $10 to $20 $20 to $30 $30 to $40 $40 to $50 $50 to $60 $60 to $70 $70 to $80 $80 to $100 > $100 FIGURE 9 1999 SAT Mean Combined Verbal and Math Scores by Family Income and Race/Ethnicity SOURCE: Nettles & Millet Analyses of Customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999.

TABLE 11 1999 ACT Mean Test Scores by Family Income (in thousands) and Race/Ethnicity $18 $30 $42 $50 $60 $80 Race < $18 to to to to to to > $100 $30 $42 $50 $60 $80 $100 African 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 American Asian 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 25 American Hispanic/ 18 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 Latino Native 17 18 19 20 20 21 21 22 American Non-Citizen 17 18 20 21 21 22 22 23 White/Other 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from ACT, Inc., 1999 TABLE 12 1999 SAT Mean Combined Verbal and Math Scores by Family In- come (in thousands) and Race/Ethnicity $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 Race < $10 to to to to to to to to > $100 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $100 African 771 805 838 860 881 894 906 922 942 1000 American Asian 921 970 1014 1036 1063 1076 1100 1118 1147 1217 American Hispanic/ 814 856 891 920 943 966 984 993 1021 1070 Latino Native 856 898 937 953 977 993 985 991 1010 1049 American Non-Citizen 904 900 938 984 1012 1040 1055 1071 1084 1108 White/Other 960 975 1000 1014 1027 1040 1051 1064 1087 1131 SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files The College Board and Educa- tional Testing Service 1999 Tables 13 and 14 present regression analyses showing the relationship of several student characteristics and attributes of human capital to their composite (English, reading, science, and math) ACT scores and combined (verbal and math) SAT scores. These characteristics and attributes include sex, race, family 171

172 BOOK TITLE HERE TABLE 13 Regression Results for 1999 ACT Composite 95% Confidence Int Independent Variables B SE t Sig. Lower Upper Intercept 13.27 0.04 339.11 13.19 13.35 English is first language 0.86 0.03 32.33 *** 0.81 0.91 Family income -0.92 0.02 -60.48 *** -0.95 -0.89 $30,000 or less Family income -0.53 0.01 -41.04 *** -0.55 -0.50 $30,000–60,000 Family income -0.26 0.02 -17.23 *** -0.29 -0.23 $60,000–80,000 Intended major: -0.97 0.02 -52.26 *** -1.00 -0.93 education Intended major: health -1.01 0.01 -68.16 *** -1.04 -0.98 sciences Intended major: -0.01 0.02 -0.86 0.39 -0.04 0.02 humanities Intended major: -0.77 0.01 -52.56 *** -0.79 -0.74 professions Intended major: other -1.19 0.03 -46.81 *** -1.24 -1.14 Intended major: -0.69 0.02 -38.59 *** -0.73 -0.66 undecided Male 0.69 0.01 69.94 *** 0.67 0.71 African American -1.93 0.02 -95.40 *** -1.97 -1.89 Asian American -0.44 0.03 -15.98 *** -0.49 -0.39 Hispanic/Latino -1.04 0.02 -42.17 *** -1.09 -0.99 Native American -0.60 0.05 -11.58 *** -0.71 -0.50 Non-citizen -1.50 0.03 -47.07 *** -1.56 -1.43 Other citizen -0.47 0.03 -16.06 *** -0.53 -0.42 Course work and 0.15 0.00 569.82 *** 0.14 0.15 achievement Number AP courses 0.06 0.00 78.22 *** 0.06 0.06 offered Public high school -0.65 0.02 -43.04 *** -0.68 -0.62 % African-American -1.57 0.03 -52.34 *** -1.63 -1.51 enrollment in hs % Hispanic enrollment in -2.68 0.03 -78.37 *** -2.74 -2.61 hs R Squared .51 NOTE: Reference group for family income is $80,000 or more, for intended major is natural science, for race is white, and for public high school is private high school. Coursework and achievement are calculated as: the number of years in a subject area plus 1 if took honors multiplied by average grade in subject area. Scores were summed for six subject areas: math, English, social science, natural science, foreign language, and art/music. Possible scores ranged from 4 to 100. SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from ACT, Inc., 1999.

CHAPTER TITLE HERE 173 TABLE 14 Regression Results for 1999 SAT Combined Verbal and Math 95% Confidence Int Independent Variables B SE t Sig. Lower Upper Intercept 724.53 1.31 554.97 721.97 727.09 English is first language 13.06 0.78 16.73 *** 11.53 14.59 Father has hs diploma or less -64.21 0.53 -122.25 *** -65.24 -63.18 Father has some college -45.14 0.49 -91.69 *** -46.10 -44.17 Father has Bachelor's degree -25.23 0.49 -51.28 *** -26.19 -24.27 Family income $30,000 or less -35.63 0.57 -62.69 *** -36.74 -34.52 Family income $30,000–60,000 -18.38 0.46 -39.67 *** -19.29 -17.47 Family income $60,000–80,000 -13.99 0.51 -27.30 *** -14.99 -12.98 Intended major: education -57.23 0.66 -86.94 *** -58.52 -55.94 Intended major: health sciences -44.36 0.54 -82.23 *** -45.42 -43.30 Intended major: humanities -14.71 0.51 -28.94 *** -15.70 -13.71 Intended major: professions -35.03 0.50 -70.12 *** -36.01 -34.05 Intended major: other -55.67 0.84 -66.35 *** -57.31 -54.02 Intended major: undecided -25.78 0.74 -34.75 *** -27.24 -24.33 Male 56.04 0.35 161.66 *** 55.36 56.72 African American -67.86 0.68 -99.33 *** -69.20 -66.52 Asian American 7.34 0.72 10.15 *** 5.92 8.76 Hispanic/Latino -33.11 0.74 -44.61 *** -34.57 -31.66 Native American -22.25 1.95 -11.38 *** -26.08 -18.42 Non-citizen -41.84 0.90 -46.59 *** -43.60 -40.08 Other citizen 8.19 1.01 8.14 *** 6.22 10.16 Course work and achievement 5.48 0.01 615.63 *** 5.47 5.50 Number AP courses offered 3.87 0.03 134.62 *** 3.81 3.92 Public high school -29.02 0.50 -58.00 *** -30.00 -28.04 % African-American enrollment in hs -57.52 1.04 -55.06 *** -59.57 -55.47 % Hispanic enrollment in hs -87.98 1.04 -84.41 *** -90.02 -85.94 R Squared .52 NOTE: Reference group for family income is $80,000 or more, for intended major is natural science, for race is white, and for public high school is private high school. Coursework and achievement are calculated as: the number of years in a subject area plus 1 if took honors multiplied by average grade in subject area. Scores were summed for six subject areas: math, English, social science, natural science, foreign language, and art/music. Possible scores ranged from 4 to 100. SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educa- tional Testing Service, 1999.

174 BOOK TITLE HERE income, fathers’ education, whether English is the primary language, a measure of the courses taken in high school and their performance in those courses, their intended college major field, attendance at a public or private high school, the availability of Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and the proportion of African- American and Hispanic enrollment. Tables 13 and 14 depict the relationship of these variables to students’ scores on the ACT and the SAT, respectively. Table 13 presents the regression findings for the ACT assessment. The model accounted for 50% of the variance in students’ ACT composite score achievement. The strongest predictor overall (based on the t statistic) was the measure of high school courses taken and grades achieved. This measure in- cludes the number of years that a student took courses in the subject areas of math, English, social science, natural science, foreign language, and art/music (students were given an additional point for taking honors courses in a subject), multiplied by the average grade achieved in the subject. Socioeconomic measures were associated with ACT performance. Students whose first language is English scored .9 points higher than those whose first language is not English. Compared with students whose family incomes were $80,000 or more per year, students with family incomes of $30,000 or less scored, on average, 1 point lower on the ACT. Those with family incomes of $30,000 to $60,000 scored .5 points lower, and those with family incomes of $60,000 to $80,000 scored .3 points lower. Compared to Whites, on average, African-American students scored 1.9 points lower, Asian students scored .4 points lower, Hispanic students scored 1 point lower, Native American students scored .6 points lower, non-citizens scored 1.5 points lower, and other citizens scored .5 points lower. Males scored .7 points higher than females. High school experiences and characteristics were also significant predictors of ACT performance. For every point they had on the high school curriculum and achievement measure, students scored .15 points higher on the ACT. Stu- dents intending to major in a subject other than natural science scored lower, on average, on the ACT. This difference was strongest for students intending to major in other disciplines (they scored 1.2 points lower) and in health sciences (1 point lower). Students achieved .1 point higher on the ACT for each AP course offered at their high school. Students attending public schools achieved .7 points lower on the ACT than students attending private schools. Each 10 percent increment in African-American enrollment at the high school was asso- ciated with achieving .16 points lower on the ACT. Each 10 percent increment in Hispanic enrollment at a particular high school was associated with achieving .27 points lower on the ACT. As shown in Table 14, after controlling for all the other variables in the model, the combination of course work and student grade achievement was the most substantial predictor of students’ SAT scores. However, this variable was of somewhat less relative importance as a predictor in the SAT model than the ACT model. This is a reflection of differences in the nature of these tests. The

CHAPTER TITLE HERE 175 SAT is intended to measure students’ aptitude for college-level work while the ACT is intended to measure students’ mastery of high school-level curriculum. Other prominent predictors of SAT scores were fathers’ education, sex, and the number of AP courses offered in the school. The model accounted for 52 percent of the variance in students’ performance on the SAT. There was a positive relationship between measures of students’ socioeco- nomic status and SAT performance. Compared with students whose fathers had completed a bachelor’s degree and some graduate education, students whose fa- thers were high school graduates or less scored on average 64 points lower on the SAT. Students whose fathers had some college but were not bachelor’s degree recipients achieved, 45 points lower and those whose fathers were bachelor’s degree recipients achieved scores 25 points lower. Compared to students whose family incomes were $80,000 or more per year, those with family incomes of $30,000 or less scored, on average, 36 points lower on the SAT; those with fam- ily incomes of $30,000 to $60,000 scored 18 points lower; and those with family incomes of $60,000 to $80,000 scored 14 points lower. Compared with Whites, on average, African-American students scored 68 points lower, Asian students scored 7 points more, Hispanic students scored 33 points lower, Native American students scored 22 points lower, non-citizens scored 42 points lower, and other citizens scored 8 points more on the SAT. Students whose first language is Eng- lish scored 13 points higher than those whose first language is not English. On average, males scored 56 points higher on the SAT than females. Students’ experiences and achievements in high school are also important predictors of SAT performance. For every point they had on the high school course measure, students achieved 5.5 more points on the SAT. Students in- tending a college major other than natural science scored lower, on average, on the SAT. This difference was strongest for students intending to major in educa- tion (they scored 57 points lower) and students intending another major (56 points lower). High school characteristics were also related to students’ SAT performance. Students achieved an average of 4 points more on the SAT for each AP course offered at their high school. Students attending public schools achieved 29 points lower on the SAT than students attending private schools. Each 10 percent increment in African-American enrollment at the high school was associated with achieving 6 points less on the SAT. Each 10 percent incre- ment in Hispanic enrollment at the high school was associated with achieving 9 points lower on the SAT. A statistical method known as bootstrapping was conducted to learn more about the factors that distinguish high-performing test-takers from their lower- performing counterparts who are in the same general socioeconomic status. The bootstrapping technique is described in Appendix A. The analyses presented in this paper are for 1999 test-takers whose family incomes were between $30,000 and $60,000 and whose fathers’ education was at least a bachelor’s degree. The analyses are also confined to the following four subpopulations of test takers:

176 BOOK TITLE HERE African-American females, African-American males, white females and white males. Bootstrapping was used to identify predictor variables that significantly increased or decreased the test score gap between high-performing students (those who achieved a combined math and verbal score at or above 1200 on the SAT) and low-performing students (those who achieved a combined score less than 1200). The analyses in Tables 15 through 18 reveal that four measures contributed significantly to the test score gap between high- and low-performing students in all four subgroups: taking calculus, taking physics, participation in an academi- cally-oriented extracurricular activity, and taking and achieving high grades in a comprehensive academic curriculum. Only measures that were significant pre- dictors are included in the tables. The tables can be interpreted as follows: measures with a positive coefficient were associated with a significant increase in the test score gap between the high- and low-performing students, while measures with a negative coefficient were associated with a significant decrease in the test score gap. Holding all other variables in the analyses constant, if high-performing stu- dents took calculus and low-performing students did not, the average gap in their test score performance increased by 36.41 points for African-American females, 35.38 points for African-American males, 21.00 points for white fe- males, and 27.96 points for white males. Conversely, if high-performing stu- dents did not take calculus and low-performing students did, the average gap in their test performance decreased by 34.74 points for African-American females, 53.80 points for African-American males, and 33.01 points for white males. A similar pattern was associated with taking physics: if high-performing students took physics and low-performing students did not, there was a significant in- crease in the average test score gap between the two groups for both races and sexes. In general, participation in academically-oriented activities had a benefi- cial association for low-performing students; the gap between their test scores and those of their higher-performing peers was significantly decreased. Finally, differences in overall course taking and achievement accounted for significant changes in the test score gap between high- and low-performers. For every unit increase in this curriculum measure (values ranged from 1 to 100), that gap in- creased by approximately 3 points for African-American females and males, and 2 points for white females and males. Other significant predictors were specific to sub-groups in the analyses. Ta- ble 15 reveals that for African-American females, taking honors English, at- tending a public versus a private high school, and the percentage of white en- rollment at the high school were associated with significant differences in the test score gap between high- and low-performing students. Table 16 shows that participating in athletic extracurricular activities, the census region in which

CHAPTER TITLE HERE 177 TABLE 15 Bootstrapping Results for African-American Females Taking the 1999 SAT Predictors of 95% Confidence Int Differences in SAT SE V+M score Estimate SE Median T Lower Upper (Intercept) 260.63 14.26 15.16 17.22 232.13 287.55 Calculus = 1 36.41 11.08 10.62 3.44 14.65 56.50 Physics = 1 55.77 10.34 10.13 5.52 36.04 77.69 Honors English = 1 27.26 11.09 10.68 2.56 5.38 48.61 Academic activity = 3 -33.30 13.40 13.89 -2.39 -59.36 -5.88 High school = 1 -35.41 14.84 16.00 -2.18 -62.28 -4.67 Curriculum measure 2.91 0.26 0.26 11.09 2.44 3.44 % White enrollment 67.12 11.97 11.98 5.59 42.72 89.13 NOTE: Only the significant predictors of differences in 1999 SAT V+M scores are presented. Calculus = 1 means the >1200 student took calculus and the <1200 student did not. Physics = 1 means the >1200 student took physics and the <1200 student did not. Honors English = 1 means the >1200 student took Honors English and the <1200 student did not. Academic activity = 3 means the >1200 student received an award in an academically oriented extracurricular activity and the <1200 student participated in this type of activity. High school = 1 means the >1200 student attended a private school and the <1200 student at- tended a public school. SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999. students lived, and the percentage of white enrollment made significant contri- butions to differences in the test scores of high- and low-performing African- American males. Tables 17 and 18 reveal that athletic activity participation, at- tending a public or private high school, and racial composition of the high school were not significant correlates of increasing or decreasing the test score gap for white female and male students. For these subgroups, significant pre- dictors were restricted to measures of high school course work, extracurricular academic involvement, and grade achievement.

178 BOOK TITLE HERE TABLE 16 Bootstrapping Results for African-American Males Taking the 1999 SAT 95% Confidence Predictors of SE Int Differences Estimate SE Median t Lower Upper in SAT V+M Scores (Intercept) 267.27 15.14 15.83 16.89 238.03 296.73 Calculus = -1 -53.80 16.67 18.60 -2.88 -86.12 -18.56 Calculus = 1 36.41 11.08 10.62 3.44 14.65 56.50 Physics = 1 51.45 10.37 10.36 4.97 31.20 71.64 Academic activity = -3 -63.91 20.20 22.93 -2.79 -104.07 -24.73 Athletic activity = 3 36.20 14.42 15.16 2.39 7.13 64.56 Athletic activity = 4 -44.99 21.24 19.53 -2.32 -85.84 -0.08 Census region -32.19 15.38 15.95 -2.02 -61.43 -0.87 Curriculum measure 2.70 0.27 0.27 10.14 2.15 3.24 % White enrollment 39.89 12.22 12.42 3.22 16.13 64.38 NOTE: Only the significant predictors of differences in 1999 SAT V+M scores are presented. Calculus = -1 means the >1200 student did not take calculus and the <1200 student did. Calculus = 1 means the >1200 student took calculus and the <1200 student did not. Physics = 1 means the >1200 student took physics and the <1200 student did not. Academic activity = -3 means the >1200 student participated in an academically oriented ac- tivity and the <1200 student received an award in this type of activity. Athletic activity = 3 means the >1200 student received an athletic award and the <1200 student participated in an athletic activity. Athletic activity = 4 means the >1200 student received an athletic award and the <1200 student did not participate in an athletic activity. SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999.

CHAPTER TITLE HERE 179 TABLE 17 Bootstrapping Results for White Females Taking the 1999 SAT SE 95% Confidence Int Predictors of Differences Estimate SE Median t Lower Upper in SAT V+M Score (Intercept) 214.05 14.24 14.29 14.99 186.69 241.94 Calculus = -1 -35.32 15.14 18.39 -1.91 -63.98 -5.17 Calculus = 1 21.00 9.39 9.60 2.19 2.65 39.07 Physics = 1 29.15 9.69 9.48 3.08 10.60 49.14 Honors English = 1 30.56 9.52 9.79 3.11 11.60 49.17 Academic activity = 4 30.19 15.79 15.29 1.98 0.03 61.34 Curriculum measure 2.07 0.25 0.25 8.41 1.60 2.57 NOTE: Only the significant predictors of differences in 1999 SAT V+M scores are presented. Calculus = -1 means the >1200 student did not take calculus and the <1200 student did. Calculus = 1 means the >1200 student took calculus and the <1200 student did not. Physics = 1 means the >1200 student took physics and the <1200 student did not. Honors English = 1 means the >1200 student took Honors English and the <1200 student did not. Academic activity = 4 means the >1200 student received an award in an academically oriented activity and the <1200 student did not participate in this type of activity. SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999. TABLE 18 Bootstrapping Results for White Males Taking the 1999 SAT 95% Confidence Int Predictors of Differences In SAT V+M Score Estimate SE Median t Lower Upper (Intercept) 221.55 14.05 14.58 15.16 193.56 248.77 Calculus = -1 -33.01 15.38 18.54 -1.80 -63.88 -1.88 Calculus = 1 35.38 10.29 10.79 3.28 15.21 55.52 Physics = 1 47.10 10.43 10.03 4.68 27.48 67.22 Academic activity = 4 39.91 15.94 15.28 2.60 9.05 72.00 Curriculum measure 1.64 0.24 0.24 6.79 1.17 2.12 NOTE: Only the significant predictors of differences in 1999 SAT V+M scores are presented. Calculus = -1 means the >1200 student did not take calculus and the <1200 student did. Calculus = 1 means the >1200 student took calculus and the <1200 student did not. Physics = 1 means the >1200 student took physics and the <1200 student did not. SOURCE: Nettles & Millett Analyses of customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999.

180 BOOK TITLE HERE TYPES OF INITIATIVES NEEDED FOR EXPANDING MERIT AND ELIMINATING UNDER- REPRESENTATION School curricula have the highest probability of possibly supplanting or complementing test scores as indicators of merit. Students who experience the most rigorous curricula in school and earn relatively high grades are promising prospects for success in college and graduate and professional school. Among the best organizations in the nation are A Better Chance, Bank Street College’s ILEAD program, the Center for Talented Youth (CTY), and Prep for Prep. Al- though each one of these programs are unique, the goal of each is to identify students early, provide them with rigorous academic instruction, encourage them to adopt intellectual habits, move them to high-caliber independent and public schools, and guide them into the highest academic tracks in the schools that they attend. In each program—with the exception of the ILEAD—one objective is to identify promising young students at around fifth, sixth, or seventh grade and begin to compensate for the low level of academic preparation they receive in their local public schools. In Prep for Prep, students attend mathematics, history, English, and science classes taught by master teachers throughout the school year on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and every Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The students also devote an intensive three weeks to further instruction during the summers. Standardized tests are used to identify and invite the stu- dents to attend and are used throughout the program to measure their progress. The goal of the program is to prepare and then to help students gain admission into independent boarding schools by ninth grade or into the AP and honors tracks of their public high schools. A Better Chance also identifies students as early as the fifth and sixth grades. Rather than providing instructions and a curriculum of its own, A Better Chance matches students with independent day schools, boarding schools, or a dozen or so outstanding public schools. The Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University is probably the oldest, most established, and largest of the programs. It has an array of academic-intensive courses for students, mainly during summers, as well as on-line instruction, workshops, and mentoring dur- ing the school year. ILEAD works with four Catholic schools in the Bronx, New York, helping to enrich their curriculum and providing professional develop- ment for their teachers. Each of these four aims to prepare students for admis- sions to the nation’s most selective colleges and universities. Each one recog- nizes that success in the competitive admissions process and persistence through completion requires the highest quality of academic preparation and competitive test scores. It is only through academic preparation that the academic and socio- economic playing field can be leveled for underrepresented African-American and Hispanic youth, and that the colleges and universities at the height of America’s meritocracy can become more diverse.

CHAPTER TITLE HERE 181 CONCLUSION Standardized intellectual tests and assessments are important barometers of underrepresented student achievement in America’s educational meritocracy. The inter-correlation of individual, group, and institutional test and assessment scores reveals uniformity among these instruments and shows how the nation’s social hierarchy is structured. The nation’s meritocracy is constituted by all three types of tests and assessments. Underrepresented groups must focus upon all three in order to advance in the nation’s educational meritocracy. Regardless of the weight that colleges and universities assign to tests and assessments in the college admissions process, they remain the most challenging and most impor- tant focus for African Americans and Hispanics. Unless African Americans and Hispanics are able to close the achievement gap revealed by these assessments, they will not be able to expand their access to the most selective colleges and universities and first-professional schools, and they will remain underrepre- sented in the highest-status professions. These tests and assessments can be important in the long term for develop- ing public policies that are aimed toward improving educational outcomes, and in the short-term for extending the benefits of merit to a broader representation of the population. APPENDIX A How Bootstrapping Was Implemented for These Data We used this iterative re-sampling method in order to better understand the inherent difference between high potential students (SAT V+M > 1200) and everyone else. In general, the bootstrap method calls for selecting from the observed sam- ple data a random sample of size n with replacement. Then the bootstrap method calculates the estimated parameter using the same analysis method for each sample drawn. The mean or median of the bootstrap re-sample estimates can be used as the estimated parameter value. Confidence intervals about the parameter value can be produced by taking quantiles (2.5th and 97.5th for a 95% CI) of the bootstrap re-sample estimates.1 For example, in a simple case, say you have 20 observations and you want a bootstrap estimate of a confidence interval about the true mean of that parameter. This could happen in a case where you do not know the underlying distribution of the parameter. You re-sample with replace- ment 20 data points from the original 20 observations. There, of course, will be repeat observations in each bootstrap re-sample. You could then follow the algo- rithm above to get a confidence for the true mean. 1 Source: Neter et. al, Applied Linear Statistical Models, 1996.

182 BOOK TITLE HERE For our data, we would like to investigate differences between high poten- tial students and non-high potential students conditioning on certain uncontrol- lable factors. The variables that we decided to use were father’s level of educa- tion, parental income range, race and sex. After splitting the file on these uncontrollable variables, create HiPo (SAT V+M > 1200) and ~HiPo (SAT V+M < 1200) data sets for each covariate class (or cell, if you think of these as crosstabs). There would be 4 (number of levels of father’s education) x 4 (num- ber of levels of parental income) x 4 (race groups) x 2 (sexes) = 128 total sepa- rate bootstraps to do. However, this would take too much time so we decided to do a subset of the combinations of father’s education by parental income. How- ever, within each of those subsets, we would do all combinations of race by sex. 1. Randomly select a person from the the HiPo and ~HiPo data sets for a spe- cific covariate class derived after splitting the large data set for uncontrolla- ble variables. 2. Compute the difference between the HiPo and ~HiPo student on SAT V+M and the predictor variables. 3. Repeat (1) – (2) 1,000 times to create bootstrap data set. 4. Regress the differences in the SAT V+M difference, using the 1,000 obser- vations from (3). 5. Store the estimated coefficients. 6. Repeat (1) – (5) 1,000 times. The result of these 6 steps will be 1,000 estimates for the coefficients and standard errors of the predictors. Take the median of those 1,000 estimates for the coefficient and the standard errors as the final parameter estimate for that coefficient and that standard error. Use the 2.5th and 97.5th quartile of the 1,000 estimates of the coefficients to derive a 95% confidence interval for the pa- rameter estimate. Also, using the 2.5th and 97.5th quartile of the 1,000 estimates of the standard errors will yield a 95% confidence interval for the standard error parameter estimate. If a confidence interval does not include 0, call the variable significant. Assumptions made: 1. After controlling for the unchangeable variables the students in HiPo are “the same,” and the students in ~HiPo are “the same” except for the uncon- trollable factors. 2. The HiPo and ~HiPo data sets are representative of the population, after eliminating cases with missing values on any variable. Results We used this methodology to derive our estimates for significant factors in predicting differences in SAT scores between high potential and non-high po- tential students. The predictors that we initially included in the model (after

CHAPTER TITLE HERE 183 splitting the file on the uncontrollable variables ) were took calculus (Y or N); took physics (Y or N); took honors English (Y or N); academic activity status; athletic activity status; census region (4); went to public/private school; high school curriculum measure; student teacher ratio; percentage of white students in school. REFERENCES Association of American Medical Colleges (1998). April/August 1997 MCAT Perform- ance by Sex, Racial/Ethnic Group, Age, Language Status, Undergraduate Major and Testing History [On-line]. Available: http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/scores /examineedata/sum2000.pdf. Association of American Medical Colleges (1998). [MCAT test takers]. Unpublished raw data. Association of American Medical Colleges. (2000). Minority Graduates of U.S. Medical Schools: Trends, 1950–1998. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges. Barron’s profiles of American colleges. (1999). Woodbury, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. C. (1998). The shape of the river: Long term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press. Donahue, P.L., Voekl, K.E., Campbell, J. R., and Mazzeo, J. (1999). The NAEP 1998 Reading report card for the Nation and the States. NCES 1999–500. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Educational Testing Service (1997). [1996 NAEP Mathematics results]. Unpublished raw data. Educational Testing Service, Graduate Examinations Board Programs. [Graduate Records Examination results, 1984–1995]. Unpublished raw data. Law School Admission Council (2000). [Applicant Counts by Ethnic and Gender Group—1984–85 to Fall 2000]. Unpublished raw data. Nettles, M. T. & Millett, C. M. (2001). [Customized data files from ACT, Inc., 1999]. Unpublished raw data. Nettles, M. T. & Millett, C. M. (2001). [Customized data files from the College Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999]. Unpublished raw data. Neter, J., Wassweman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1983). Applied linear regression models. Homewood, ILL: R.D. Irwin. Reese, C. M., Miller, K. E., Mazzeo, J. & Dossey, J. A. (1997). The NAEP 1996 Mathe- matics report card for the Nation and the States. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program (2000). Popula- tion Estimates for States by Age, Race, Sex, and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 1999 [On- line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/sasrh/sasrh99.txt. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program (2000). Popula- tion Estimates for States by Age, Race, Sex, and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 1997 [On- line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/sasrh/sasrh97.txt. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of education statistics, 1999. (NCES 2000–031). Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office

184 BOOK TITLE HERE U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Inte- grated postsecondary education data system. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Next: Trends in Underrepresented Minority Participation in Health Professions Schools* »
The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions -- Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Symposium on Diversity in the Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D., was convened in March 2001 to provide a forum for health policymakers, health professions educators, education policymakers, researchers, and others to address three significant and contradictory challenges: the continued under-representation of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans in health professions; the growth of these populations in the United States and subsequent pressure to address their health care needs; and the recent policy, legislative, and legal challenges to affirmative action that may limit access for underrepresented minority students to health professions training. The symposium summary along with a collection of papers presented are to help stimulate further discussion and action toward addressing these challenges. The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in Health Professions illustrates how the health care industry and health care professions are fighting to retain the public's confidence so that the U.S. health care system can continue to be the world's best.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!