Beyond the numbers: Departure from selection by rank order of grades and standardized test scores in selective admissions

This study examines law school admission decisions that differ from selection by rank order of grades and standardized test scores. Critics opine that these decisions indicate instances of preferential treatment in which lesser qualified candidates are selected over better-qualified candidates. Their theory is that these decisions contradict "normal treatment" under "merit selection," and can indicate preferential treatment based on race, gender, or other factors. An unexplored question raised by these criticisms is whether these decisions actually indicate instances in which schools select lesser-qualified over better-qualified candidates.; This study examines admission decisions for 111 law schools, and finds that approximately 23 percent of decisions to admit appear to be instances of preferential treatment when observed admission decisions are measured by the critics' metric, testing whether candidates with lower grades and scores are selected over candidates with higher grades and scores. In contrast, this study also finds that less than 1.5 percent of decisions to admit appear to be instances of preferential treatment when measured by metrics that treat grades and scores as academic performance predictors, testing whether refused candidates with higher grades and scores could be expected to perform "better" than admitted candidates with lower grades and scores. These finding suggest that the critics' metric can dramatically overstate possible instances of proferential treatment where a school treats candidates' grades and scores as performance predictors rather than as competitive selection criteria.; This study also finds that across schools, the portion of decisions to admit that differ from selection by rank order of grades and scores varies: (1) inversely with admission rate, (2) directly with admissible candidates per offer of admission, and (3) directly with minimal admissibility standards. These findings suggest that decisions that differ from selection by rank order of grades and scores are related to excess demand from fully-qualified candidates.; The study discusses possible implications of these findings for the debate over the use of factors like race in admissions. These findings have direct implications for reverse discrimination claims in which decisions that differ from selection by rank order of grades and scores are often treated as evidence of preferential treatment.