Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2602.18484

Racial Preferences at a Texas Medical School

Abstract

Whether and how race is used in selective admissions remains a central question in higher education and civil rights law. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court held that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause, purportedly ending the practice. This report examines admissions at a public medical school in the pre-SFFA period. Using applicant-level data on over 11,000 applications to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Medical School for the 2021 and 2022 cycles, I relate admission decisions to academic merit (MCAT, GPA, science GPA), race, gender, and situational judgment (Casper) scores. Summary statistics, academic-index decompositions, and logistic regression models provide strong evidence of racial preferences: African American and Hispanic applicants are preferred relative to academically similar White and Asian applicants. Counterfactual and preference-removal analyses quantify the magnitude of these disparities. The findings document the kind of race-based preferences that SFFA was meant to address and establish a baseline for assessing whether admissions practice changed after the decision.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Puelz. 2026-02-10. Racial Preferences at a Texas Medical School. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18484

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN