View in searchable PDF format: 1966.10.18 – Leon Letwin Minority Group Admissions Memo to UCLA Faculty.OCR
=====
Raw text:
October 18 , 1966
TO: FACULTY
FROM: AD 7~.1ISS TONS AND STllNDA HDS COMMITTEE
RE: MINORITY GROUP ADMISSIONS ·
Enroll ment of members of disadvantaged groups i n the
l ;J~.w school is exceed ingly small. In this r espect we reflect a
widespread, nationa l phenomenon. It has been 1·ecently estimated
that no more than 700 Negroes are to be found among t he 65,000
students studying l aw i n t he u.s.1 ‘l’he r atio of Negro l aw students
to the Negro population is therefore about one-tenth that prevailing
2 for the popul ation as a who l e. Comparable disproportions no doubt
exist with r espect to Mexican-Americans and other disadvantaged
groups, for which we l ack statistics.
At UCLA this condition i s , of course , in no way attribut
able to discrimination in the admission processo This very f act
suggests there will be no significant i mprovement i n the foreseeable
future unless the law school undert akes an aff i rmat ive program to
deal with the imbal~nce. The Committee accordingly reco1nmends adop•
tion of a program designed to increase l aw school enrollment of
persons disadvantaged by r eason of poverty and ethnic discriminationo
1 . Toepfer, Harvard ‘ s Special SUli!_Dler School Program , 18 Jo of
Lego Ed. 443 (1966) . The period for which the estimate was
made presumably i s 1965o Durin~ t hat year the Howard Law
School , with a predominant l y Negro student body, had a
t otal enro llment of 320 studentso 18 Jo of Leg. Edo 200 (1966)o
The number of Negro l aw students i n all othm.· l aw schools
was t herefore probably about 400o
2o If one turns his inquiry to the total pool of licensed Negro
l awyers, the ratio may prove even more lop-sided, since
Negro enrollment in l av1 schools has been on the UlJSwing in
r ecent years and has probably never been as high as now.
J. Page 2
Programs similar to that suggested here have been
developed by a number of universities, both state and privateo
To cite but a few:
–The Berkeley campus has launched a drive aimed at recruiting
Negroes, Mexican-Americans, and American Indian studentso
(At present, only about 1% of the Berl~eley enrollment — 226 out
of over 26,000 students are Negroeso Only about 1/3 of 1% are
Mexican-Americans, and about 1/4 of 1% are Indians.) Representatives
were sent to sixty California high schools, searching for promising
minority students. At present the University is free to accept only
2% of its undergraduate students from those who do not meet the
3
general admission requirementso To implement that program, a
4 Berkeley official has advocated an increase in this quota.
Coordinating Council for Higher Education is currently considering
such an expansion.5
~-CoCoN.Y. is searching for 1,000 high school graduates from
ghetto neighborhoods who cannot get into college without special
help, and admissions standards have been altered to effectuate the
programo A million-dollar ~tate appropriation has been made to cover
6 the cost of special tutoring, stipends, etco
–For the second year running, the Harvard Law School has
conducted n special summer program for about 40 southern Negro co”llege
juniors and seniors, designed to acquaint them with the prospects
of a legal career. It was financed by two successive grants of about
$85,000 each by the Rockefeller Foundationo The program has been.
highly successful in inducing applications of Negroes to the IIarvard
Law Schoolo Admissions standards h~vc been altered in n number of
3.
4o
5.
1960 Master Plan for Higher Education,
Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1966, Part II, Po2, col. 1-3
Coordinating Council for Higher Education, Increasing
Opp6rtunities in Higher Education for Disadvantaged Students 7(1966)
New York Post, August 12, 1966, Po 67, col. 3-4
Page 3
~ases, and.the school’s experience with such students to date has
been very encouraging.7
Following is a summary of the Committee’s proposed program,
a discussion of the premises underlying it, and a consideration of
the detailed steps embraced by ito
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
1) Accept a limited number of disadvantaged students —
10 to 15 for the 1967-1968 academic year — under a different set of
admis~ions sta-ndards, di.ffe.rently administered, than i~ now the case.
2) Develop a program to seek out and encourage applications
from such studentso
3) Conduct a program this coming summer for a group of
such students who are in their third or fourth year of college, with
the aim of a) acquainting them with the nature of legal study;
b) encouraging- them. to consider a legal career; and c) evaluating
their respective capacities for legal study, to be considered in the
event they subsequently apply for admission to the law school.
4) Develop a counselling-tutorial program for such
specially-selected studentso
5) Seek to establish a scholarship fund to help meet the .
financial needs of such studentso
7o Sec Appendixo For a detailed description of the Summer Program,
see Toepfer, Ha.rvard ws SP-ecial Summer _P~{E_£._11_!, 18 J o of Leg o
Edo 443 (1966)o Since this report was prepared we have received
further information concerning the Harvard r.aw School experience
with its Negro enrollees, found in Appendix Bo
t !-
.Page 4
6o Establish a faculty committee (either ad hoc or
as a subcommittee of the Admissions and Standards Committee) to
supervise all aspects of the program and continually evaluate its
operation.
PREMISES AND OBJECTIVES
The values the program is intended to advance can be illustrated
from three viewpoints.
1) From the viewpoint of the disadvantaged student.
It is appropriate that steps be taken to counteract the effects of
poverty and discrimination, given the enormous impact these conditions
have on a student’s pre-legal education, not to speak of the
innumerable other ways each works to deny its victims an equal opportunity
in life. That this is a widely shared value backed up by
a substantial national commitment needs no documentation.
2) From the point of view of the law school’s educational
objectivcso Students learn about the law, in the deepest sense of the
term, not only through their study of formal legal mechanisms, but
also through their observations about the concerns, values and modes
of operation of their law schodo The school is in its own right a
highly significant type of legal institution. It, perhaps more than
any other, molds student attitudes as to what are appropriate concerns
for lawyers and as to what the law is “really” abouto It
would help develop a desirable quality in the life of the law school
to have it identified with practical efforts to meet one of the ~reat·
present-day crises in our national lifco
Page 5
The school might also gain academically from the inclusion
of students of widely divergent backgrounds and attitudes even though of
lower academic attainment. This might prove beneficial both through
its impact on the informal give and take between students as well as
in some of the classroom discussions.
3) From the P-oint of view of the law school’s service to
the community. A sharp increase in the number of minority-group
lawyers is desirable for many reasons: to meet the accelerating
demand for such professionals in many areas of American life; to have
such lawyers serve as examples to encourage others to pursue professional
careers; and to contribute at least modestly to the opportunities
available to the disadvantaged to improve the circumstances
of their lives in order to break the self-perpetuating generation-togeneration
cycle of disadvantage.
It is-furthermore important that all public institutions
demonstrate a sensitivity to the problems of poverty and discrimination
and some commitment to counteracting the effects, at least in their
areas of special competence. This is important for the moral leadership
it offers the community as well as the immediate tangible results.
THE PROPOSALS
1) Accept a limited number of disadvantaged students–10 to 15 for
the 1967-68 academic year–under a different set of admissions standards,
differently administered, than is now the case.
How would the selection be made?
Before considering this question, it is useful to describe
the present admission standards and the technique for applying them.
Page 6
Present admission standards. The sole present standard
is said to be academic excellence–determined as follows: We first
assume that the best indicator of academic quality is the applicant’s
predicted law school grade performanceo We then predict such performance
primarily on the basis of a combination of LSAT score and
undergraduate GPA. Indeed, for about one-half of those who were
offered admission for the current year (about 226), virtually no
other factor was considered. They were selected automatically based
on their combination score. Likewise, about 1/3 of the applicants
(about 500) were automatically rejected on the same basiso
With respect to the group of applicants from which the
remaining half of those offered admission were chosen, the combination
score was regarded as sufficiently equivocal to warrant a somewhat
more personalized evaluation of the applicant by the admissions committee,
based on the rest of his file. Even here the relevance of
the non-score factors theoretically lies in their bearing on the applicant’s
academic qualities and are not intended as a basis for
implementing other values in the selection process. Such judgments
are, however, highly subjective. Quite conceivably, committee
members’ views as to the preferred composition of the student body
have played a part in their decisions.
How, in contrast, would students be selected under our
proposal?
a) Academic promise would remain an important standard.
It is not proposed to admit unqualified people. We propose the admission
only of those who in the school 9s judgment have the ability
Page 7
to successfully complete law school careers but who do not qualify
under our present extremely high (and rising) standards and whose
chances of success if admitted would accordingly not match the 95%and-
up rate now prevailing. The gamble, in other words, would be
greater than under our present method of selection. A careful,
responsible scrutiny should, however, enable us to ~ect those for
whom there is a reasonable probability of successo Clearly, it would
serve neither the interests of the individual nor of the school to
accept those whose chances were remoteo No relaxation in grading
standard is contemplated, nor would it be possible under our blind
grading system. And, of course, specially admitted students would
have to facea bar examination just as other students.
b) How would we determine the student’s academic qualities?
We would not rely exclusively on LSAT or GPA. These factors yield,
at best, a rough approximation of those qualities we value in students.
This is not to condemn generally the present method of selection.
The fact that it is a handy, relatively inexpensive, and
reasonably accurate method justifies its use with respect to the
bulk of applicants. A more individualized and extensive type of
evaluation, however, might prove more accurate and enable us to find
students of promise who would not pass muster under our present techniques.
In selecting students under this program we propose to
consider the following factors as bearing on the applicant’s probable
law school performance:
1) His LSAT score and GPA;
Page 8
2) Evidence in his college transcript of trends of
improvement over time, or of special competence
in areas of significance to us;
3) Personal interview with the student; (lt is contemplated
that many applicants would have participated
in the proposed summer program [Proposal 3]. This
would furnish an extremely useful source of information
for evaluating the student’s capacityo)
4) Interviews with people who have had close contact
with the applicant in college: advisors, instructors,
etc.;
5) Evidence of relevant interests and motivationo
It is not suggested that the above listing exhausts the
available sources of relevant information or the techniques for evaluating
it. As ~xperience accumulated it might be expected that our
techniques for predicting law school performance would improve.
There may be skepticism that such a program would work, regardless of
the care and attention given to the ~ection processo Would students
so admitted be able to compete, especially under our blind grading
system? While the circumstances are by no means identical, it may
be relevant to refer to the experience of the Harvard Law School,
which has embarked on a program to increase Negro enrollment and has
accordingly adjusted its entrance requirements o Even against the ·rugg-
ed llt’.rvard cor:llJCtition, the overwhelr.ting majority of such admittees
for whom results are so far available have “made it” though many came
.,_
Page 9
from weak schools and with extremely low LSAT’so The experience
is presented in detail in the Appendices A and B.
c) The factors that would be weighed in admitting a
student under this program, in addition to his capacity to do
effective legal work, would be:
1) His background with respect to discrimination and
poverty;
2) The quality of his pre-law educational opportunities;
3) The extent to which other relevant opportunities had
or had not been available to him;
4) Our assessment of his motivation and interestso
Under these c~iteria some cases will be easy to decide,
others noto This is inevitable given a standard for selection that
makes relevant a variety of factors of indeterminate weight. Such
a phenomenon is, however, not unknown to the law and bears testimony
to the complexity of the problem under consideration. It seems
neither feasible nor desirable to attempt n rigid definition of how
the factors arc to be applied and the relative weight to be assigned
to cncho
The committee is aware of problems inherent in special
treatment. How is the ;;roup entitled to it to be defined in n way
that is both rational and not in sharp conflict
Page 10
with other important values? For some, any awareness of race in
our selection process, however benign the purpose, is objectionable.
We appreciate the reasons for this and concede they may have weight.
In our view, however, race is regrettably relevant not because we
desire it but because our national history has made it soo What
we propose is to recognize the impact of a history of discrimination
and undertake steps to help overcome ito
It is sometimes suggested that we can achieve the same result
by focusing exclusively on “poverty” and ignoring “race.” In
part this is trueo But the impact of discrimination i~ not merely in
the poverty it produces, though it does that in abundant measureo
It creates a variety of problems unique to minority groups, as well
as compounding those problems its members share with other disadvantaged
groups. This, in our judgment, warrants the suggested focus
on minority groups, though the proposed standards are broad enough
to encompass also those who suffer “merely” from poverty.
The argument above has attempted to justify a focus on
minority group members in terms of fairness to the individuals involved.
An additional dimension is the relative public urgency of
the problem.
On both counts it seems not unreasonable to recognize the
special character of discrimination and its effects and take selective
remedial steps even though there are other classes of people
for whom somewhat similar problems existo·
Page 11
2) Develop a program to seek out and e~~ourage applications from
such students.
We assume that the present base of students available for
such a program is quite smallo This is in itself, of course, an
expression of the magnitude of the problem. The first proposal
therefore means little unless coupled with a serious effort to recruit
such students. Such effort should be directed primarily to
state colleges and private schools throughout the state and to schools
in other states. Community organizations might also be a source of
help. Professor Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School reports that
he has conferred with people familiar with the problems of the Indian
minority and found considerable interest in getting Indian college
8
students into legal educationv A variety of Mexican-American organizations
are to be found in Los Angeles that might provide assistance.
The university administration as well as various federal agencies may
also have relevant information.
3) Conduct a program this coming summer for a group of such students
who are in their third or fourth year of college, with the aim of
a) acquainting them with the nature of legal study; b) encouraging
them to consider a legal career; and c) evaluating their respective
capacities for legal study, to be considered in the event they subsequently
apply for admission to this law school.
8. His report is in the possession of the Admissions Committee
and is aunlable for inspection.
Page 12
The proposal is to organize a program analogous to the
Harvard Special Summer Program. It has been described in detail
9
by Dean Toepfer. It was designed to encourage Negro college students
to enter careers in law. About 40 Negro students in their
third and fourth years of college, mostly from historically segregated
southern schools, were broug~to the Harvard Law School for
the summer. Their curriculum consisted of four law courses and a
mock trial project. In the course of the latter, students participated
as “counsel” in arguntent on a motion, a full-scale trial and
an appeal, presided over by faculty members nnd distinguished
judges. Examinations were given. In addition, a program of informal
discussions was a~ranged in the course in which the students
heard Thurgood ~~1arshall, Solicitor General of the United States;
Floyd McKissick~ National Director of CORE; and Judge Wade McCree
of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The program was
fully financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and was in its second
year this summer.
The program we propose would differ from Harvard’s
in several significant respects: it would place greater
emphasis on local (i.e.~California) undergraduates; and it
would broaden the group to include not only Negroes, but Mexican-
Americans, Indians and other similarly disadvantaged groupso This
proposal would of course be contingent on financing, which, it is
hoped, would be forthcoming from a foundation or a federal agency.
9o Toepfer, supra note 1.
Page l:J
~) Develop a counselling-tutorial program for such spec.i.a];.!1,sclected
students.
To take students because of their special problems and
then to ignore the problems as they manifest themselves in law school
would be irresponsible and self-defeatingo Admission implies rcalistic
efforts to help mal-::c thei.r law school careers successful. Such
Si_)ecial attention mi{;ht tal<.c various forms:
First, we could aim to establish a close one-to-one
rclntionship between students admitted under this program and
tJ1ird-year students carefully selected for their qualification and
interest. We believe there will be no lnck of enthusiasm on the part
–
o:f: an adequate number of students to <lo this jobo
Secondly, we could arrange for relationships between faculty
members and such studcntso We make no recommendation as to the precisc
form these relationships should take. That might best be worked
out by t ho~=;e f acu 1 t y tlCI!lbc rs who des ire to work closely with such
students. Thus .L’nr, ten faculty nn mbers have indica ted willingness
to do so o (This is :1ot intended to suggest they necessarily agree
with the entire ~reposed program; only that if a~optcd they would be
willing to participate as indicated.) Such personal relationships
might prove of critical importance to the success of this programo
Until experience indicates otherwise, both types of advisory-tutorial
relationships might be established, i.e., between student and student
and between student and faculty,since each would tend to fulfill a
different nccdo
,_
Page 14
Two problems may arise from such special attention. Given
a background of some student sentiment that faculty members are impersonal,
unavailable or unapproachable, the fact that faculty attention
was being lavished, relatively speaking, on this limited group
might produce resentmento On the other hand, many students would
surely understand the reasons for such a program and would sympathize
with it. Ways should be considered for discussing this program with
students. This would be desirable not merely for the negative purpose
of warding off criticism, but to further meaningful dialogue
with students on matters appropriately within their concerno While
worth noting, this problem is not in our judgment a major one.
Quite ironically a further problem might be generated by
the impact of special treatment upon the beneficiary himself. He
has been admitted under special standards and is being given special
tutorial help. This special consideration might produce resentment
because of the implication that he needed it. Any such tendency would
of course be aggravated many-fold if the program took on an at~osphere
of condescension. It is important to deal with this problem candidly
with the student from the outset, pointing out that different entrance
standards were being used, the reasons for this, the difficulties
that could be anticipated, and the reasons for guarded optimism
that the undertaking would work out successfullyo While this would
not eliminate what is 9robably an inherent problem in the program,
it might serve to mitigate ito
Page 15
5) Seek to establish a scholarship fund to help meet the financial
needs of such students.
The extent of the need is, of course, impossible to determine
in advance. It would be important to learn in a general
way at an early.date what support might be available from university,
foundation or governmental sources for this purpose.
6) Establish a faculty committee (either ad hoc or as a sub-committee
ef the Admissions and Standards Committee) to supervise all aspects of
the program and co~tinually evaluate its operationo
This program indisputably calls for a large expenditure of
time and energy. The various facets of the program ~re sufficiently
interrelated so that the work canaet· feasibly be divided between a
number of committees. Hence ·che proposed special committee.
One of the suggested functions of the committee is con-
~ tinual evaluation of all aspects of the programo As our experience
developed, it would clearly be important to review our assumptions
and techniques. An incidental benefit of such an endeavor might be
an expanded knowledge about sound techniques for selecting students
in .gencralo
* * * *
It is appropriate to conclude with a recognition of the
limited scope of this report. We have proposed neither a comprehensive
blue-print nor even detailed solutions for every signficant problem
that may arise. We regard that as an· impossibility at this stageo
Our aim has been rather to present sufficiently detailed proposals to
permit realistic determination of the basic merits of the plan, realizing
that various problems, some anticipated and others not, would
present themselves for solution as the program unfolded.
A P P E N D I X A
(Excerpts from a Report to the Admissions Committee
by Leon Letwin)
This information concerning the Harvard Law School experience
was given to me by Russell Simpson, Director of Admissions, on
August 17, 1966. He’s willing to supply whatever additional information
we desireo I may have made minor errors in transcribing
figures, but I think that the data is substantially correct.
The following summarizes the information found in the
Appendix.
1) In 1963-64, the Harvard Law School decided an attempt
should be made to increase Negro enrollment, with the following results:
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
Applicants
?
?
32
65
Admitted
3
12
15
21
2) The increased enrollment resulted in part from the
fact that Negro applicants were not judged by regular admissions
standards. This was particularly true in the case of applicants
from Southern Negro schools. In such cases, the standard used was
not so much grade point or LSAT, as the prospect of the student’s
success at the law school, based on thorough, personal, evaluation
of their capacity. In a number of cases Dean Toepfer traveled South
to interview applicants as part of the selection processo
In 1964, 4 out of 12 Negro enrollees coming from
Southern Negro schools had LSAT scores ranging from 352 to 463 and
were taken as a trial effort. This compared with an average LSAT
for all students admitted in 1964 of 651.
In 1965, at least half of the 15 students came from
Southern schoolso The LSAT distribution for the entire group was
about as follows:
Under 400
400-450
450-500
500-600
2
4
3
4
(Information on 2 is missing)
.•
Page 2
During 1965, the average LSAT for all first year students was about 665o
In 1966, at least half of the 21 admitted came from
Southern NegrOSchools. LSAT dis.tribution for the total group:
Under 400
400-450
450-500
500-600
Over 600
3
2
3
10
3
This compares with an anticipated average LSAT for all first year
students in 1966 of 675.
The sharp rise in number of applications in 1966 is undoubtedly
due partly to the operatiop of the Harvard Special Summer
Program for Negro students •••• The program produced applicants for
Harvard in several ways. First, a considerable number of Summer
Program students applied to the law school–9 or 10 in 1966 (of whom
5 or 6 were accepted). Secondly, through tha participants in the
Summer Program the word got around that it was not unrealistic for
the better students from such schools to apply, and it was not unlikely
that they would pass if selected.
3) Experience in Law School. Of the 4 trial-basis students
admitted in 1964, all passed, though well down in class rank. But
these 4 had an average LSAT of only 407! In 1965, when the average
LSAT was about 455, only 3 of the 15 failed.
It is legitimate to inquire whether the grades for
these.students are strictly comparable to those for all Harvard
students. Were the Negro students beneficiaries of a laxer grading
standard? It is difficult to answer confidently and precisely.
Some Harvard instructors grade blind, others do not. Perhaps the
judgments of those that do not were influenced to a degree, consciously
or otherwise, by the student’s background. There was certainly
no general policy to grade the Negro students on a less demanding
standard. For what it’s worth, several instructors with whom
I discussed the point thought that at most there might have been a
laxer standard, with only marginal effect, in the case of students
right on the borderline between passing and failing a course. However
they doubted any general tendency to give the Negro students
grade bonuses •••
Steps were • • • taken to assist the students once th~y
were in school, though the value of this effort is hard to gaugeo
The form of this special attention was the supplying of these stud~nts
with law review members, available for frequent, informal consultation
o • •
L ,,f
Page 3
Harvard Law School’s Admissions of Negro Students
And Grade Results for Such Students, 1963-66.
Harvard Grading System:
Undergrad.
School
Harvard
Radcliffe
Marquette
75 and above A
70-74 B
66-69 C+
62-65 c
55-61 D
To maintain satisfactory academic standing
a student must receive a general average of
at least 58 during each year, and at least
one point higher in any year he has a course
grade below 55
* * * *
–1963
Undergrad.
Grade Avgo LSAT
Law School
Avg.(3 year)
BB
B+
1964
583
584
638
65
66
68
12 Negroes admjttedo 8 had LSAT’s of 544 and up, coming
from Harvard, Uilliarns, Yale, Uo of Soo Calif., Amherst, Lafayette,
U. of Delaware. 4 were admitted more or less on a trial basis:
Undergrad
School
Morehouse
Morehouse
Tuskegee
Spellman
Undergrad.
Grade Avg.
BB+
B+
B+
LSAT
463
352
395
417
Law School
Avg. (1st year)
62
63
63
61
(A pprox ima te ly
bottom lOth
percentile)
,j
•- -r
Page 4
Applied: 32
Admitted: 15
1965
About 50% admitted, compared to general admission ratio of
approximately 17%.
Undergrad Undergrado
School Grade Avg. LSAT
U. of San Fran. B- 518
Vassar C+ 494
Fisk B- 523
Rutgers c 352, 400
Harvard B- 535
Brown C+ 393, 494
Morris Brown & Morgan St. A- 470
Morehouse & U. of Miami B; A- 443
Va. State C+ 414′ 405
Fisk B- 458
Morehouse B- 340, 389
Fisk B+ 511
Talladega B- 429
?
?
1966 (Current year)
Applied: 65 (9 or 10 from Special Summer Program)
Admitted: 21 (5 or 6 from Special Sunmer Program)
Law School
Avg. (1st xear)
64
withdrew
64
56 (failed)
67
58 (failed)
63
60
62
63
56 (failed)
65
58 (didn’t fail)
About 1/3 admitted compared to general admission ratio of
about 16%. Note higher quality of applicants compared to previous
year.
Undergrado Undergrad.
School Grade Avg. LSAT
Fla. A. & M. B+- 466
Indiana U. A- 520
Harvard B- 600.
Morgan State A- 566
Hobart B- 636
E. Michigan B- 411·
Fisk B 446, 444
No. Carolina Col. B+ 384
U. of Michigan C+ 576
J.C. Smith A- 395
Howard B 571
Florida A. & M. A 594
UCLA B+ 649
Fisk C+ 582
Morehouse C+ 547
. ,
Undergrade~
School
Wheaton
Harvard
Wash. U.
Columbia
Kenyon
Tenn. State
Undergrado
Grad. Avgo
B+
B- .
BB
BB+
LSAT
593
489
586
653
500, 588
395
Page 5
_..)
APPENDIX B Page 6
JLnw ~rbool of j!)arbarb Wniber9’ifp
Q!:cunhribgc, :!llns.s’. 02138
ADMISSIONS OFFICE
Professor Leon Letwin
School of Law
University of California
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90024
Dear Leon,
October 13, 1966
Your memorandum of August 30th to the Admissions Committee
concerning minority group representation at your law school was a
fine presentation and I can find no substantial inaccuracies.’
Thanks for sending roe a copy.
I have been waiting to comment on your memorandum until the
computer data we prepared this summer was finalized. Enclosed please
find the statistical results concerning a group of thirty Negro
students for whom first year law school performance at Harvard was
available. All these students entered Harvard Law School within the
past four years. While the sample size is too small to lean on very
heavily, it does seem quite clear that LSAT scores are excellent
predictors of the relative law school performance of these students.
It is also clear that Negro students we have admitted perform much
better than white students who have similar qualifications. \\’bile
part of the reason for this is selective admissions procedures, the
high motivation of Negro students is also a factor.
On Thursday, November 3rcl, I will be in Los Angeles to speak
with a group of UCLA undergraduates interested in law school. Professor
J.A.C. Grant, of the Political Science Department, has kindly offered
his home for this purpose. I huQe to arrive in Los Angeles early enough
in the day to stop by and say hello.
If I could be of any further help, please feel free to call on me
at any time. With kindest personal regards and with warmest wishes from
the Law School,
RAS:slf
encl.
Sincerely,
·*.4 Russell A. Simpson
Assistant Dean and
Director of Admissions
‘ .
SCHOOL: NEGRO STUDENTS
This analysis is based on a sample size of 30
New Prediction Equations
1. y a:: 1 539X + c;P,.7
I
2. y = 023X
2
… 0:::1 7
3. y = J .484 + {·’>3¥ + 47 43
I 2
4.
5. _______________________________ __
Prior Prediction Equation
6·——–~~0I~l-~——————–
Coefficient
of Mult. Corr.
.1670
,f:M>S
66{;4
Where Y = predicted lL average x3 = LSAT-writing
Page 7
Standard
Error of Est.
3.41
2,6(,
2 61·
x1 = undergraduate academic record
x2 = LSAT-aptitude
.x4 c LSAT-background
x5 = Jr. year undergraduate record
BRIEF EXPLANATIONS
Prediction Equations: These yield an estimate of how a student will perform during
his first year at HLS. This estimate is based upon his performance measured by the
various X predictors in comparison with that of other students from the same general
pop.u lation who have completed their first year at HLS .
. Coefficient of Multiple Correlation: This figure gives some indication of how well
the X predictors actually forecast 11 averages. It may be converted to a percentage
for general analysis. A coefficient of .50 would be squared and converted to a
percent figure-·-25%, which would indicate that 25% of the differences in lL performance
among those in the population from which the sample was taken can be explained
using only the X predictors in the prediction equation.
Standard Error of the Estimate: The SE of E indicates the confidence we can have in
the accuracy of the prediction equation. A student will achieve an actual 11 average
within one SE of E, plus or minus, of his predicted average 68 times out of 100.
He will almost always achieve an actual lL average within two SE of E’s of his predicted
average. For example, given a 3.00 SE of E, a student with a predicted
average of 67 will achieve an actual lL average between 64 and 70 on the average of
68 times out of 100. He will nearly always achieve an actual lL average between
· 61 and 73 ( 67 ± 2 X 3.00)
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES
Actual lL average
Undergraduate academic record
LSAT-aptitude
LSAT-writing .
LSAT-background
Predicted lL avg.-Old prediction equation
Jr. year undergraduate record
Mean
63.17
2.88
50ft
Std. Dev.
3.40
‘369
95.75
.. ,
SCHOOL: l’lEGRO STUDL;~JTS
xl
X2
x3
x4
xs
EQ. 1
beta %
. 167 1()(
BETA WEIGHTS OF THE VARIABLES
EQ • 2
beta %
EQ. 3
beta %
.1610 20
.t41 100 ,6390 SO
EQ. 4
be ta %
BRIEF EXPLANATION
EQ. 5
beta %
Page 8
Prior Prediction
Equa tion
beta %
Beta coefficients: Beta coefficients are direct measures of each X predictor’s
r elative importance . They indicate how much the predicted lL aver age will rise
if the predictor in question rises by one standard deviation.
The percentage is computed directly from the beta coefficient . For example, in
an equation with t wo predictors , X1 and Xz, a percent age of 67 for X1 and 33 for
Xz would mean that the predictive value of undergraduat e academic record (X).),
was twice tha t of the LSAT-aptitude (Xz) in forecasting perfonnance .
T conf .
xl
xz ~”— – x3
–1-/—x4
——–xs
——
T TEST ON BETA COEFFIC IENTS
{3Q:J. Ga. 3 JE.G J
T con£ . T conf . T conf.
I 1.]1 ‘)t; —
4 .ld. .Ul ‘• ·‘•2 –.–01–
I
I
I
I
BRIEF EXPLANATION
T conf.
P~IO~
PI?{; Dt c. TIc IV
fi.Q..
T conf.
T t es t s : T t ests are used to ca l culate confidence l evel s . The confidence l evel
indicat es the probablilty t hat we would get as l arge a beta coefficient by pure
chance as was actually obtained if there were no r el a tionship whatsoever be tween
lL averages and the X predictor in quest i on . A confidence l evel of .01 indicates
that \\‘e \oJOuld get a value as l arge as the one in question by chance only 1 time
in 100.
Leon Letwin (1929-2015) 