Medical and Legal Associations Express Disappointment in Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action

Last week the Supreme Court ended Affirmative Action in its 6-3 ruling against UNC and Harvard. The ruling determined that the schools, which used race as a component in admissions decisions, did not adequately justify their use of race and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

The court left some room for nuance noting that a candidate may discuss race in terms of how it played a role in their development. “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,” Roberts wrote. “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”

Nationally, many in the medical and legal communities shared their disappointment in the decision and noted their belief that it will negatively impact diversity. Below, we’ve provided highlights of some of the statements released after the decision.

• American Medical Association (AMA): “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court undermines decades of progress centered on the educational value of diversity, and will reverse gains made in the battle against health inequities. This ruling restricts medical schools from considering race and ethnicity among the multiple factors in admissions policies and will translate into a less diverse physician workforce. Diversity is vital to health care, and this court ruling deals a serious blow to our goal of increasing medical career opportunities for historically marginalized and minoritized people.” Full statement available here.

• Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC): “We are deeply disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to dismantle its longstanding precedent in the 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, which had recognized student body diversity as a compelling interest permitting the limited consideration of race in admissions. Today’s decision demonstrates a lack of understanding of the critical benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in educational settings and a failure to recognize the urgent need to address health inequities in our country.” Full statement available here.

• American Medical Student Association (AMSA): “In accordance with our Preamble, Purposes and Principles, AMSA remains steadfast in its unwavering commitment to advocating for racial equity in education and healthcare. As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged and decry the restriction of affirmative action. We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments. Moreover, it has been repeatedly evidenced that diversity within the healthcare workforce and medical education system improves healthcare outcomes.” Full statement available here.

• American Bar Association (ABA): “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The ABA has a long history of supporting affirmative action and the consideration of race as one of many factors in law school admissions. We believe it is imperative that colleges, universities and state legislatures find alternative ways to create a diverse and talented student body. Law schools are training grounds for lawyers and play an important role to ensure a diverse bench and bar, which are critical to minimizing implicit bias and inspiring greater public faith in the rule of law.” Statement available here.

• AccessLex Center for Legal Education: Executive Director, Aaron Taylor, told Reuters that the decision, "deprives schools of one of the most effective tools for fostering student diversity."

• Law School Admission Council (LSAC): President, Kellye Testy, told Reuters that the decision will negatively impact law schools’ ability to keep up diversity levels. “All of us in legal education, at bar associations, and in practice are going to have to redouble efforts to make sure the entire pre-law to practice pipeline is better,” she said.

2022 Incoming Law School Class Most Diverse in History

In 2021, the entering law school class made headlines for being the largest and most diverse to date, with almost 35 percent of students identifying as people of color. But now, although the class size has returned to “normal levels,” two-thirds of the 2022 incoming law school class identify as students of color. LSAC describes the incoming class as “by far the most racially and ethnically diverse law school class in history.” 

The LSAC 2022 entering class profile incorporates LSAC data along with the ABA’s published Standard 509 data. Below are some highlights from the profile on the makeup of the incoming class. 

• The class size totaled over 38,000, a decrease from the unusually large 2021 entering class, but on par with the class sizes seen since 2018. 

• Using demographic categories that directly compare to previous years, 36.6 percent of the incoming class identify as students of color, up about 2 percentage points from last year (34.7 percent) and up over 3 percent from 2018 (33.3 percent). 

• Using updated demographic breakouts that include a category for Middle Eastern and North African/Arab students (who historically have been incorporated into the Caucasian category), the percentage of students who identify as a person of color increases to 39 percent, an increase of 2.1 percentage points over last year. 

• Women continue to make up the majority of the incoming class (55.3 percent), while men comprising 42.5 percent of the class.

• Almost all of the incoming class, over 98 percent, took the LSAT as part of the application process. The 2022 incoming class had a higher average LSAT score, up by 0.32 points, when compared to the 2021 entering class. 

• The 2022 entering class also earned a higher median undergraduate GPA, up by 0.04 points, than the 2021 class. 

You can find LSAC’s full profile here, or access the ABA dataset here.

ABA Moves Forward with Motion to Drop Law School Admissions Test Mandate

On Friday November 18, as expected, the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted to eliminate the standardized test mandate for law school admissions. The proposal will now move to the ABA’s House of Delegates for a final vote in February. If it is approved then, due to a last-minute revision, the removal of the test mandate will still not take effect until the fall of 2025. This revision was enacted to provide law schools with time to consider new ways to gauge student readiness.

This is not the first time that the test mandate’s fate has been brought before the ABA’s House of Delegates for a vote. In 2018, the measure was brought to the House, although it was withdrawn prior to the vote, as it appeared unlikely to pass after diversity advocates lobbied House members to reject the proposed change.

Now stakeholders who are, both for and against, overturning the test mandate have aligned their position with the same goal of improving diversity within the legal profession. “It’s very rare that I encounter a situation where the proponents on exact opposite sides of an issue are citing the same issue to support their arguments,” said Joseph West, Chair of the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. 

Those who wish to see the testing mandate remain, including 60 Law School Deans, believe that the test provides a meaningful way for applicants to showcase their acumen and law school readiness. This allows law schools to take educated chances on students who may have lower GPAs. Without this score, the Deans argue, law schools will not have as much information to gauge a student’s likelihood of success in a challenging academic environment. 

Those who wish to see the mandate overturned argue that standardized tests “perpetuate racial gaps,” and cite research showing that white test-takers tend to perform better on the tests than those from underrepresented backgrounds. 

Related blogs:

New Survey Shows Most Law Schools will Continue Using Standardized Test Scores

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

New Study Casts Light on Higher Attrition Rates for Underrepresented Groups in Medical School

A recent JAMA Network Open study found that medical students from underrepresented groups have an attrition rate that is over three times higher than other students. The study analyzed allopathic medical student cohorts in years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, and divided students into groupings for analysis based on personal (race and ethnicity, family income) and structural (youth neighborhood resources) metrics. 

The study showed:

• Attrition was highest among students with all three “marginalized identities”—low income, under-resourced neighborhood, and identifying as a historically underrepresented race and ethnicity. The total attrition for this group was almost four times (3.7) higher than for students who did not report any of the three marginalized identities.

• By race and ethnicity, students who identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander had the highest attrition rate (11 percent), followed by Black students (5.7 percent), and Hispanic students (5.2 percent).

• Students from under-resourced neighborhoods had almost double the attrition rate (4.6 percent) of those who were not from under-resourced neighborhoods (2.4 percent). Similarly, those with low family income had an attrition rate of 4.2 percent compared to 2.3 percent for those who did not.

The researchers noted a need for targeted, structural reforms in medical schools to improve retention rates among high-risk groups. “Given the higher attrition rate among marginalized student groups, medical schools should consider reforms that dismantle structural inequities in medical culture and training that equate privilege with merit and physicians as an elite class of citizens,” they wrote. “These reforms may begin with tuition and debt reform and purposeful partnership and support of local and national under-resourced communities.”

New Study Finds that Affirmative Action Bans Result in Fewer Students from Underrepresented Groups in Public Medical Schools

A study published last week in the peer-reviewed journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, found that affirmative action bans negatively impacted enrollment of underrepresented students in public medical schools. The study showed that in states which enacted bans, five years later, the proportion of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students fell by more than one-third.

The study, which was led by Dan Ly, MD, and an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, examined matriculants from 53 medical schools at public universities from 1985 through 2019. The researchers focused on students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups including: Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Of the 53 medical schools, 32 were located within a state without an affirmative action ban and 21 were within a state with an affirmative action ban (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington). The bans were enacted between 1997 and 2013, and Texas’s ban was reversed in 2003. On average, in the year prior to a state implementing a ban, underrepresented students made up 14.8 percent of the public medical school enrollment. Five years after the states’ bans, underrepresented student enrollment had fallen by an average of 37 percent.

Dr. Ly describes the importance of the findings. "We know that a more diverse physician workforce leads to better care for racial- and ethnic-minority patients," he said. "Our research shows that bans on affirmative action, like the one California passed in 1996, have had a devastating impact on the diversity of our medical student body and physician pipeline." 

The authors note that the study did have limitations, which included the indirect effects of affirmative action on undergraduate admissions, the impact that public discussion of affirmative action may have had on medical school enrollment prior to the bans, and the possibility that some students may not have identified with the racial and ethnic groups defined by the study. Additionally, the study authors did not confirm if any schools in states without bans opted not to incorporate race or ethnicity in admissions decisions. However, the authors are optimistic that the study will provide policy-makers with a clearer understanding of the lag in diversifying medical student and physician populations, as well as informing them of the impact of affirmative action bans.  

A co-author of the study, Utibe Essien, MD, and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, notes that the findings are particularly poignant at this juncture. "As our country has spent the last two years weaving through the twin pandemics of racial health disparities amplified by COVID-19 and structural racism at large, our findings are critically important," he said. "As we observed, affirmative action bans have resulted in a loss of underrepresented physicians, who could have been at the front lines of caring for vulnerable populations throughout the pandemic and helping to alleviate disparities in care.”

Related Blog: Medical Schools Limited on Use of Race in Admissions Decisions but Still Seek to Promote Diversity

A Compelling Diversity Statement will Strengthen Your Candidacy for Law School

Let’s start with some context around the importance of diversity within the legal profession. The ABA recently published a piece on why diversity matters in the law, defining diversity as “... more than just racial or ethnic diversity. The concept of diversity encompasses all persons of every background, gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and/or disability.” The article goes on to provide the perspectives of leaders within the legal industry on the importance of diversity, which we have excerpted below. 

Find the full text here. 

• Public confidence. “[R]acial and ethnic diversity in the legal profession is necessary to demonstrate that our laws are being made and administered for the benefit of all persons. Because the public’s perception of the legal profession often informs impressions of the legal system, a diverse bar and bench create greater trust in the rule of law.” (ABA)

• Quality of legal decisions. “A diverse legal profession is more just, productive, and intelligent because diversity, both cognitive and cultural, often leads to better questions, analyses, solutions, and processes.” (ABA)

• Competitive advantage. “A demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion can be a key aspect of a law firm’s competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting and retaining talent and pitching certain clients. Clients receive the highest quality service when their legal teams are drawn from professionals mirroring the diversity of the marketplace.” (Tiffani Lee, Partner, Holland & Knight, LLP)

• Path to leadership. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” (Justice O’Connor, Ret., noting that the nation’s leaders often come through the legal system)

• Thought leadership. “Their unique backgrounds help to ensure that a 360-degree approach is used to analyze each issue. Having a diverse legal team helps to eliminate the possibility of bias affecting your final decision.” (Robin Wofford of Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, who also serves as chair of the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms)

For these reasons, and many more, it is critical that law schools and the legal profession are representative of the larger population. So, what does that mean for your application to law school? It means that you will want to craft a diversity statement that will show the reader your ability to connect, grow, thrive, and meaningfully collaborate in diverse environments and/or explore how you will contribute to the diversity of the incoming class. Of course, you want the piece to strengthen your candidacy, so if it feels forced or inauthentic, or if the prompt seems limited to those who identify as a racial or other minority and does not apply to you, it is best to leave it blank.  

In brainstorming possible experiences or anecdotes to include, ask yourself the following questions: 

• What traits or characteristics make you unique? 

• In what way might you be able to offer your law school cohort an unconventional perspective? 

• What are some collaborative situations in which you have experienced discomfort? Did you work with an international group on a project in an academic or professional setting, or have an internship in a foreign country where no one else in the office spoke English?

• What are some experiences that prompted an evolution in your perspective? Did you participate in a volunteer project serving an underrepresented clientele or provide services to those with disabilities or unique obstacles?

• How are your experiences likely different from those of other candidates? Did you take an unusual career path prior to applying to law school? 

Once you have a thorough brainstorm, we can help you to further develop a story that communicates to admissions committees your ability to contribute to a dynamic and diverse learning environment and grow from others’ perspectives. 

Incoming 2021 Medical School Class Largest and Most Diverse Ever

The incoming 2021 class of medical students is the largest and the most diverse ever. Compared to 2020, the number of self-identified Black or African American first-year medical students grew by 21 percent, the number of Asian students increased by 8.3 percent, and Hispanic/Latino students increased by 7.1 percent. While the majority of matriculants are White (51.5 percent), there were increasing proportions of Asian (26.5 percent), Hispanic/Latino (12.7 percent) and Black or African American (11.3 percent) students. Women continue to make up the majority of the entering class at 55.5 percent, and of total medical school enrollment at 52.5 percent.

The large class comes at the end of a record-setting year for application submissions, with a 17.8 percent increase. In particular, there was an increase in the number of diverse candidates submitting applications, which was driven by a 41 percent increase in Black or African American candidates and a 25 percent increase in Hispanic/Latino applicants. Last year marked the first year that white candidates did not make up the majority of applicants at 49.7 percent; the next largest proportions of applicants were Asian (25.0 percent), Black or African American (11.7 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (11.7 percent).

The AAMC does not believe that the surge in applicants is expected to continue, and they note that the current year is trending closer to pre-pandemic levels. While there are many hypotheses regarding last year’s surge, many suggest that it was a confluence of factors including lowered application costs due to virtual interviews and expanded MCAT assistance, a dearth of available “gap year” experiences, and an increased awareness of social inequities related to health outcomes and access to health care. While many have considered the unlikely celebrity of Anthony Fauci and how he could have inspired more young people to consider medicine, there is now a real sense among the medical community that the pandemic and its key players did indeed prompt more applications, even from those initially “on the fence.”

Related blogs:

Long-Term Study of Medical School Demographics Shows “Persistent Failure” to Improve Diversity

Surge in Medical School Applications Attributed to the “Fauci Effect” and Virtual Interviews

Medical Schools Called to Increase Diversity as Pandemic Highlights Racial Disparities in Healthcare

Long-Term Study of Medical School Demographics Shows “Persistent Failure” to Improve Diversity

Last month, the New England Journal of Medicine published a forty-year review of medical school demographics. The analysis looked at both gender and racial/ethnic diversity within the medical student body, and found a “persistent failure to substantially improve racial and ethnic diversity.” Using data from 1978 to 2019, the study showed striking movement resulting in gender parity within medical schools, but no significant change in the proportions of underrepresented ethnic and racial groups. In particular, the number of Black men and Native American and Alaskan men and women have declined over the study period.

While American Medical Schools have often spoken of the need for a diverse physician workforce that reflects the nation’s population, the numbers produced by the multi-decade study suggest that recruiting efforts have not been effective. Black women made a moderate increase over the 40-year study period, growing from 2.2 percent of students in 1978 to 4.4 percent in 2019. But Black males actually saw a negative change. In 1978, Black men made up 3.1 percent of the student body, but just 2.9 percent in 2019. Additionally, the analysis points out the critical role that historically black universities play in educating the Black physician workforce; 15 percent of all Black men enrolled in medical school are educated at a historically Black medical school. Excluding these programs, Black men would have made up just 2.4 percent of the student body throughout the entirety of the study period. Similarly, men and women identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native or as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander made up less than 1 percent of medical students. 

And progress in diversity recruiting remains slow. According to a Kaplan Medical Admissions Officers survey, just 48 percent of medical schools reported that they have a specific program in place to recruit Black students. The survey, which included 58 accredited medical schools across North America, also asked admissions officers to grade medical schools (as a whole), on their work to recruit and admit a diverse array of students and just 7 percent rewarded medical schools with an “A”. Most responses suggest that there is some, or perhaps considerable work to be done, with 41 percent choosing the grade of B, 38 percent a C, and 14 percent a D or F.

Kaplan does point out, however, that its survey results follow an optimistic report from the Association of American Medical Colleges, which shows an increase in the number of Black first-year students in 2020: 9.5 percent of first-year medical students, up from 8.8 percent the previous year. Additionally, the number of Black men entering their first year of medical school increased 12.2 percent from the previous year, and total enrollment among Black men increased by 6.2 percent. The number of American Indian or Alaska Native first year students increased by 7.8 percent.

In conversation with Stat News about the long-term demographic study, Norma Poll-Hunter, Senior Director of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion for the AAMC expressed her mixed emotions about the current spotlight on diversity efforts, “Even the National Academies have called this an American crisis and that’s not an overstatement. This is important for the health of our nation. On one hand, we feel we’ve been saying this for how long and people are finally paying attention, at the same time, we now have so many allies and we need to leverage this moment for the long haul.”

Law Schools See Spike in Applicants

The law school application surge is real. Data released on April 22, 2021 by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) shows that applicants for the 2021-2022 school year are up 20.0 percent compared to the same date last year, and up 15.8 percent compared to two years ago. The data also shows that applicants, likely in response to uncertain conditions, are applying to more schools, as the number of submitted applications is up 31.6 percent compared to last year, and up 27.9 percent compared to two years ago.

When early figures emerged showing a jump in applications for the upcoming school year, some speculated that applicants submitted their materials early due to COVID-19 lockdowns. However, at this point in the admissions cycle, the number of applicants for the 2021 school year, which still has weeks remaining for some schools, already exceeds the total number of 2020 applicants. Additionally, as of April 21st, there are well over 10, 000 more applicants in 2021 than there were at the same time in 2020. According to law.com, if these trends continue, this is likely to be the largest applicant pool since 2011.

The quality of this year’s applicants is also proving formidable. The number of students receiving top scores on the LSAT increased significantly compared to last year; applicants reporting scores between 175 to 180 on the LSAT doubled, jumping from 721 to 1,442. The number who scored between 170 to 174 also increased by 54.1 percent, and 28 percent more applicants reported scores in the bands 160 to 164 and 165 to 169.

Also worthy of note is that the increase in applications is consistent across most racial groups. The number of Black/African American, White, and Hispanic/Latino applicants all increased by about 20 percent this year compared to last (22.3 percent, 20.8 percent, and 20.6 percent respectively). The largest spike, 57.2 percent, comes from Puerto Rican applicants followed by Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders at 31.7 percent. The number of Asian applicants increased, but by a smaller percentage than average at 13.7 percent. A prepared statement put forth by LSAC described these increases with optimism, “We are seeing strength across all demographic groups and locations. This year looks good in terms of having a robust and diverse legal education pipeline of candidates eager to use the law to create a better world. That’s good for our society.”

Admissions officers have struggled over how to react to the influx of highly qualified candidates this cycle. Many schools expanded their wait lists and made fewer outright acceptances. Notre Dame Law School, despite making fewer admissions offers, made headlines over its decision to offer admitted students seats in its class on a “first come, first served” basis to avoid over-enrollment. On April 6, 2021, Notre Dame’s admissions officers told admitted students that the incoming class was 67 percent full and that students would need to reserve their seat with a deposit or risk losing it. Just a few hours later, the admissions team informed students that the class was at 80 percent capacity and, by the end of the day, announced that all seats had been filled and the remaining students who had been admitted would be moved to a “continued interest” list.

While there are likely many reasons behind the jump in applications, law.com notes that admissions officers and consultants are pointing to both political and economic events of the past years, including: police killings of African Americans and the resulting national focus on racial inequalities, Trump’s presidency, national discourse on immigration policy, as well as the economic impact of coronavirus and the difficulty of finding strong entry-level employment. The article also notes the added convenience of registering and taking the LSAT-flex.

Most likely, the highly competitive nature of this admissions cycle will carry over into next year as many competitive applicants unable to find a seat among their top-choice schools, will reapply in the fall. According to law.com, over 28,000 have already registered to take the June LSAT with weeks left in the registration period.

Medical Schools Called to Increase Diversity as Pandemic Highlights Racial Disparities in Healthcare

Glaring disparities in health outcomes by race, of those individuals diagnosed with COVID-19, have prompted providers and administrators to look at how structural racism has taken root within health education, training, and practice.

Late last month, The Atlantic published an article, Five Ways the Health-Care System Can Stop Amplifying Racism. While the article describes a complex system, including the inner-workings of hospitals, government, and insurance companies, it directly advocates for medical schools, and other provider training programs, to increase diversity in their student bodies and create a curriculum that addresses existing bias and racism, common in medical practice.

Medical schools have long sought to increase diversity, as diversity in providers means significant improvement in patient outcomes—A study out of Oakland, CA showed black doctors’ involvement with black patients increased preventive care and reduced the cardiovascular mortality gap between black and white men by 19 percent. Another study of black newborns in Florida showed that the newborns treated by black physicians had a mortality rate that was half that of babies cared for by non-black physicians.

But the number of minorities in medical school has remained low. A congressional report released last month by Democrats on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, reported that as of 2019, only 5.8 percent of physicians identified as Hispanic, 5 percent as Black or African American, 0.3 percent as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.1 percent as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Further, among 2019 medical school graduates, 5.3 percent were Hispanic or Latino, 6.2 percent were Black, 0.2 percent were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.1 percent were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Why? Perhaps it is because there are barriers to medical education: substantial costs, the time and attention required to prep for and take the MCAT, apply to medical schools, travel to interviews, as well as a hostile learning environment. A report released early this year found that underrepresented minorities, including Hispanic, Black, and Native American students, were more likely to experience bullying or harassment during medical training than white students at 38 percent and 24 percent respectively.

Providing medical students with a curriculum that exposes bias and the roots of structural racism is vital. The Atlantic article points out that, “To this day, medical textbooks still depict mostly white skin tones. Many medical students hold empirically false beliefs about race-based physiological differences—including the notion that black patients have a higher tolerance for pain than white patients. These beliefs affect the kind of decisions that doctors make.” 

While people can change over time, schools must proactively work to diminish racism in future doctors. This summer, a team of professors at Yale Medical School published an article in the Journal of General Internal Medicine that proposed schools seek to filter out racist applicants and withhold admittance. While acknowledging the difficulty of evaluating racist attitudes, the professors suggest using additional essays, interview scenarios, and evaluative questionnaires to adequately provide admissions teams insight into where an applicant falls on a “continuum of racial attitudes.”

MBA Programs Seek to Increase Flexibility in Admissions Process

Earlier this month, Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business and the University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business announced that their full-time MBA programs would go test-optional for the 2020-2021 admission cycle. These two are the latest among a growing group of schools to waive standardized test requirements for eligible applicants. Like Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Georgia Tech’s Scheller plans to pilot the test-optional policy for all Fall 2021 applicants. The University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business is implementing a test waiver program where applicants who meet an existing set of criteria can opt out of providing standardized test scores. UVA Darden, University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Business, and Rutgers Business School have incorporated similar criteria-based waiver systems.

The schools point out that while they have used standardized test scores previously, to gauge an applicant’s ability to compete in the academic rigor of their program, they say their admissions teams remain confident in their holistic assessment of an applicant’s potential. UVA Darden is asking candidates who do not provide test scores to include alternative evidence that they will be able to succeed academically.

The schools hope that the policy will attract more applicants. After announcing its test-optional policy, UVA Darden reported receiving “an influx of qualified applicants who had been furloughed or laid off amid the pandemic.” Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Blair Sanford, Assistant Dean for Full-Time MBA and Master’s Programs at Wisconsin-Madison said, “Some of the reasons why we decided to expand the policy in the first place still exist. The pandemic is still in place… In addition, it gives us a broader reach to attract qualified students in a difficult environment.”

The schools are also optimistic that the policy change will appeal to a more diverse swath of applicants, particularly those from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. The costs of taking the standardized tests, including preparation, can be a barrier to otherwise well-qualified applicants. Maryam Alavi, Dean at Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business, in an interview with Poets & Quants said, “Beyond the complications COVID-19 has introduced in terms of access to exams, an overreliance on standardized test scores in MBA admissions decisions puts underrepresented minorities, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and first-generation college graduates at a disadvantage. We move forward confident that the change in this year’s admission process will attract our most diverse, qualified, and successful MBA cohort yet.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, however, many of the elite schools remain hesitant to move completely away from standardized testing, though most have begun accepting the results from online GRE and GMAT testing. And a few top-tier schools including NYU’s Stern, Columbia University’s Business School, and most recently, Vanderbilt University’s Owen, have opted to accept the Executive Assessment (EA) test as an alternative to the GMAT/GRE for full-time MBA applicants. The EA, which is much shorter at 40 questions and 90 minutes compared to the four-hour GRE or GMAT, generally requires less intensive preparation than its longer counterparts.

It will be interesting to see how things evolve from here, even among elite schools. Michael Robinson, Associate Director of MBA Admissions at Columbia Business School, has expressed interest in following the methods and outcomes of elite undergraduate institutions that have gone test-optional. At an MBA roundtable over the summer, Robinson said, “So, for us in admissions, it’s not that we want to basically admit people with the highest test average. It’s more about whether this person can succeed academically in that class. There are ways to get the right answer to that question without a GRE or GMAT or executive assessment. So I’m really curious to see what’s happening there. We’ll see what that looks like.”

Women of Color Report Lower Satisfaction with Law School

Amidst ongoing Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S., a recently released report seeks to understand the experiences of women of color in law school. And it finds that minority women are significantly less likely than white women to be satisfied with their law school experience, at 82 and 89 percent, respectively. Just 30 percent of minority women and 33 percent of minority men report that they are “extremely satisfied” with their experience compared to 39 percent of white women and 44 percent of white men.

The report, titled Women of Color – a Study of Law School Experiences, was released by the Center for Women in Law and the NALP Foundation, and was conceived in response to the underrepresentation and departure of women of color in legal organizations, especially law firms. The sponsoring organizations wanted to explore the possibility that early barriers and imbalances in opportunity for women of color created disadvantages that impacted their careers over time. The study leading up to the report looked at disparities in the law school experience, social and academic, between women of color, white women, white men, and men of color. The survey period ran from 2017 to 2018 and included over 4,000 students from 46 law schools; 773 were women of color which included Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African-American, and Hispanic/Latina.

Key findings:

• About one-third of women of color said that they have seriously considered leaving law school (31 percent), while about a quarter of white women, white men, and men of color said the same (24 percent, 22 percent, and 26 percent respectively). Among the minority women who said they considered leaving, most cited “do not enjoy law school” (45 percent), “financial debt” (38 percent), and “not a good fit socially” (35 percent) as the primary reasons.

• When asked to assess race relations, just 40 percent of women of color rated their law school positively compared to 70 percent of white men, 59 percent of men of color, and 58 percent of white women. Among the women of color, Hispanic/Latina’s ratings were the most positive and 25 percentage points higher than Black/African American women, and 13 percentage points higher than Asian/Pacific Islanders.

• Fifty-two percent of minority women reported they experienced comments or interactions by students and/or faculty that negatively impacted their academic performance, compared to just 21 percent of white men, 34 percent of minority men, and 41 percent of white women. Women of color were also less likely than white women to say that they frequently felt comfortable raising their hand in class to ask questions.

• At 71 percent, women of color were the least likely cohort to report having discussions with professors about their career plans and future goals, which was six percentage points below white women who were the most likely to engage in such discussions. However, 85 percent of women of color reported meeting one-one-one with professors to discuss coursework or grades.

• Similar numbers of students across demographics said that they expected to practice law after graduation: women of color (90 percent), white men (89 percent), white women (88 percent), and men of color (87 percent).

NALP Foundation President Fiona Trevelyan Hornblower, via Bloomberg law, said that law schools, “can use this data to intervene and develop strategies to support students, to advance their success, both in law school and beyond.”

Top Medical Schools Take on Student Debt in Bid to Increase Diversity and Encourage Broader Specialty Selection

Recently, Washington University in St. Louis announced that it was going to commit $100 million over the next ten years for scholarships for medical students and to “enhance and modernize the school’s medical education program.” Up to half of the program’s future students will be able to attend the school tuition-free, with many others receiving partial tuition support. The program will begin with the 2019-20 entering class.

Washington University is the latest in a string of schools working to reduce the student-debt burden associated with medical school. Last August, New York University Medical School shocked and delighted students when it announced that all current and future medical students would be attending tuition-free. Kaiser Permanente, the following February, made a similar offer for its first five graduating classes. Additional schools, including Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA also have created substantial scholarship funds to ease student loan burdens.

The rising cost of medical school debt negatively impacts not only medical students but also the greater public. Students graduating from public medical school programs carry a mean debt of just under $189,000, while those graduating from private medical schools have a mean debt closer to $209,000. This debt load can impact many aspects of public health, including deterring promising students from entering medical school, encouraging those in medical school to opt for higher paying specialties post-graduation, and creating higher stress and lower wellbeing for physicians and those in training. In late April, the AAMC published updated physician shortage numbers, with the projected shortfall of primary care physicians, a lower-paying specialty, ranging between 21,100 and 55,200 by 2032.

The schools offering reduced and tuition-free opportunities for their students believe that reducing student debt will encourage a more diverse applicant pool as well as empower graduates to pursue a broader range of medical specialties. “For most medical students, debt is a significant factor in selecting a school and a career path,” said Eva Aagaard, MD, Senior Associate Dean for Education and the Carol B. and Jerome T. Loeb Professor of Medical Education at Washington University in St. Louis. “We want to help alleviate that financial burden and instead focus on training the best and brightest students to become talented and compassionate physicians and future leaders in academic medicine….This is an investment in our students and in our institution, as well as in the health of St. Louis and the greater global community.”

 While many schools have adjusted their admissions processes to attract more minority applicants, using a combination of pipeline programs, more holistic admissions standards, and a focus on diverse representation on admissions committees, the problem has thus far remained. “From 2014 to 2018, the percentage of black students enrolled in medical school rose from 6 percent to 7.12 percent, according to the AAMC. Additionally, Latino medical students increased from 5.3 percent to 6.4 percent of total enrollment while Native Americans still account for less than one-half of a percent of all medical students.”

While it is still too early to gauge success, NYU has seen promising results in its first application wave since it eliminated tuition. While overall applications to medical schools in the United States have increased by 47 percent, African American, Hispanic and American Indian applicants only increased by two percentage points. At NYU, however, almost 9,000 applications were submitted for the 102 seats in the 2019 incoming class. There was a 103 percent increase from the previous year in applicants who self-identify as disadvantaged, a 140 percent increase in black applicants and a 40 percent increase in Pell Grant recipients. Dr. Rafael Rivera, Associate Dean for Admission and Financial Aid at NYU said, “The accepted pool that we have thus far reflects increased diversity in socioeconomic status, which is an important facet of diversity in the physician workforce that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.”

 The other objective of tuition-free and reduced medical school programs is the freedom that it affords graduates to select less lucrative specialties or career paths. The relationship between student debt and specialty preference is well-documented. An article reviewing research on the impact of student debt on primary care physicians, included references to a 2012 study that showed students with larger amounts of student debt are “more likely to switch their preference for a primary care career to a high-income specialty career over the course of medical school” as well as a 2016 qualitative study which found that, “students described their debt as making them feel more cynical, less altruistic, and entitled to a high income.” These findings suggest that reducing the debt, through reduced tuition or increased scholarships, will positively impact graduating students’ ability to select a specialty based on preference rather than need.

 Though only time will fully show the impact of these schools’ commitments to reducing student debt on the physician workforce, there is reason for optimism about the benefits that will be seen for medical students, physicians, as well as the public.

Medical Schools Limited on Use of Race in Admissions Decisions but Still Seek to Promote Diversity

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Education Department is requiring the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center medical school to discontinue its practice of factoring race into its admissions decisions. The medical school agreed to a deal with the Education Department in order to end the long-running federal investigation into its use of affirmative action. In 2003, after the Supreme Court ruled that race was admissible as a factor in admissions decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center resumed use of race as a criteria in admissions decisions. In 2004, the Center for Equal Opportunity filed a complaint against the school, and the next year the Education Department began the investigation, which this agreement concludes.

Texas Tech had previously ceased using its affirmative action policy for admissions in the pharmacy school in 2008 and for undergraduate programs in 2013. However, the medical school contended that, “It must continue weighing race in its admissions process because a cohort of doctors from different backgrounds could best serve Texas’ racially and ethnically diverse communities.” However, the recently signed agreement stipulated that the school was not providing an annual review of the necessity of race-based admissions and therefore could not rule out that other factors may provide similar diversity-levels. The agreement also suggested that the medical school use other “race-neutral factors” to meet diversity aims, “such as recruiting students from low-income areas and favoring bilingual or first-generation college students.”

Earlier this week and just following news of this agreement, Kaplan Test Prep released survey results showing that 80 percent of 245 pre-med students surveyed in January 2019 say that “It’s important for the American medical profession to be more demographically representative of the general patient population.” Among the students who agreed with this statement, one commented, “While it is certainly possible to be empathetic and ‘tuned in’ to your patients despite differences in language, culture, etc., it is important for patients to feel like they can relate to and trust their clinician…If American clinicians were more demographically representative of the population as a whole, patients would likely find it easier to connect with a care provider they are most comfortable with.” Those in the 20 percent who did not agree with the statement were more likely to focus on the importance of drive and technical ability in becoming an effective doctor.

Additionally, an earlier Kaplan study with medical school admissions officers showed that many felt competent with their school’s diversity efforts. When the admissions officers were asked to grade his/her medical school on diversity, the majority gave themselves a B (35 percent) or C (34 percent), while fewer rewarded themselves with an A (18 percent) and even fewer a D or F (5 percent).

While it is clear that prospective medical students and doctors see the value in diversity in medical school admissions, the process by which the schools will implement these diversity goals is changing based on the views of the current administration. And these changes should be noted, especially by prospective medical students.

For future applicants: Overall, it is wise to seek experiences that improve your ability to work with others, particularly those unlike yourself. And throughout your application, you will want to speak to these experiences in a manner that showcases your commitment to serving a diverse population of patients, highlights areas where you will bring diversity into the program, and show how you have thrived and what you have learned in diverse environments in the past.

QS Global MBA 2019 Rankings Place Four US Schools in the Top Five

The QS Global MBA 2019 Rankings were released this week and Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business ranked first. This is the second year that QS has released global rankings, which include over 250 MBA programs internationally. The ranking’s algorithm incorporates scores for Entrepreneurship & Alumni Outcomes, Return on Investment, Thought Leadership, Employability, and Diversity.

In both 2018 and 2019, 13 of the top 25 programs were based in the US. Also in 2019, four of the top five were based in the US, up from two in 2018. Schools in the US scored particularly well in the areas of Employability and Thought Leadership, while international programs fared better in Diversity and Return on Investment.

There was one new entrant to the top 25, CEIBS, which is based in Shanghai China.

Rankings Indicators

As with all rankings, a closer look at the underlying components, which make up the Overall Score, can provide beneficial information for prospective MBA students. Below are charts showing the top ten ranked schools and their scores for each indicator.

The Entrepreneurship & Alumni Outcomes indicator makes up 15 percent of the overall score. Stanford not only received a perfect score within this indicator but was also about eight percentage points higher than any other program. Harvard, Penn (Wharton), and Michigan (Ross) were also included among the top ten. This indicator should be of particular interest to those keen on pursuing entrepreneurial options post-MBA.

The Return on Investment indicator accounts for 20 percent of the overall score. Programs in the US did not fare as well in this category, though Carnegie Mellon (Tepper) and Michigan (Ross) are included within the top ten. International programs with shorter durations saw the highest scores, as shorter programs save students money, both in terms of tuition, as well as lost wages.

The Thought Leadership indicator makes up 15 percent of the overall score.  US schools scored well in this category with MIT (Sloan) receiving a perfect score, followed closely by Penn (Wharton).

The Employability indicator was given the heaviest weight, and accounts for 40 percent of the overall score. The top five programs, four of which are US schools, all received scores of 99 or higher.

The Diversity indicator, which includes Class and Faculty diversity, accounts for ten percent of the overall score. For the second year in a row, no schools from the US were in the top ten in this category. And this is not expected to change significantly in the coming years as international applications to US programs continue to decrease.

Find full results here: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/mba-rankings/global/2019

Be Aware Of Biases, Strengthen Your Candidacy

At the top graduate programs, creating an inclusive and diverse student community ranks highly among other key strategic initiatives.  To achieve their short- and long-term diversity goals, Universities host events ranging from diversity weekends and leadership panels to professional networking events and women’s breakfast forums.  But, are there barriers to a truly diverse applicant pool the schools are missing?  What about the initial contact a prospective applicant has with a program?   

In a Wharton study by Katherine Milkman, to explore the treatment of prospective applicants to doctoral programs, researchers found that professors were significantly less likely to be responsive to communication from women or minority applicants -- and the level of unresponsiveness was greater within academic disciplines that tend to pay more, and at private institutions, where faculty salaries are higher on average.

The study also found that if women or minorities are not given the same level of encouragement -- or the same ability to access "insider" information -- as their white male colleagues, they may be discouraged from even trying to pursue a particular opportunity, or they may start the application process at such a disadvantage that there is no chance of catching up.

Unfortunately, as this study illustrates, strong biases still exist within higher education, but instead of getting discouraged, take action.  Start by paying close attention to how you are marketing your candidacy and fit to a particular program.  Even in that initial contact, you must realize that you are in a fish bowl, being watched and evaluated by faculty, alumni, current students and staff.  In each and every email communication, attach a polished CV that shows you are a strong and competitive candidate; After any face-to-face or phone meeting, when someone has given up their time to speak with you, send a hand-written thank you note; Ask good questions that show you are serious and well-informed about the program’s offerings.  Don’t just regurgitate information easily found on the program’s website.  Dig deep into the intricacies of the program to research specific classes and recent studies done by professors.  After some initial contact, attend all the prospective student events you can, and make a list of those influential admissions directors or faculty members you would like to meet.  Securing a spot in a top program is highly competitive, so any step you can take to stand out is crucial. 

In her study, Milkman also found that minority students got a better response from minorities of their race.  “If someone in that department shares your identity, they are more likely to be an advocate or willing to help you and less likely to discriminate," she says.

 Diversity initiatives are likely to be key priorities in higher education for many years to come, and schools clearly have more work to do.  In the meantime, it is up to you, as an applicant and prospective student, to be aware of biases so you can strengthen your candidacy.