OCR Letter: SUNY - Brooklyn

Dr. Richard Schwarz
Interim President
SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn
College of Medicine
450 Clarkson Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11203-2098
Complaint No. 02-92-2004

The New York Regional Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaint filed against the SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn--College of Medicine (the College of Medicine). The complainant alleges that the College of Medicine discriminates on the basis of disability. Specifically, the complainant alleges that the College of Medicine discriminates against individuals with disabilities by providing support to the Association of American Medical Colleges (the AAMC), which designates with an asterisk the scores of applicants with disabilities who have taken the Medical College Admissions Test (the MCAT) under nonstandard conditions and reports those asterisked scores to medical schools. Additionally, the complainant alleges that the policy of reporting asterisked MCAT scores of students with disabilities taking the examination under nonstandard conditions has the effect of stigmatizing such applicants based on disability and focusing the attention of the College of Medicine's admissions committee on such applicants' disabling conditions rather than on their academic or other qualifications. The complainant further asserts that, as a result, the College of Medicine's admissions committee assigned lower weight to MCAT scores taken under nonstandard conditions.

This complaint was investigated under the authority of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibit discrimination based on disability in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education (the Department). The College of Medicine is a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Department. Therefore, OCR has jurisdiction to investigate this complaint and to make a compliance determination.

During the course of its investigation, OCR interviewed faculty and administrators of the College of Medicine. Additionally, OCR reviewed and analyzed documents submitted by the complainant and the College of Medicine, including the College of Medicine's policies and practices regarding admission. Based on an analysis of the information provided, OCR has determined that the College of Medicine is not in compliance with the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4(a) and (b)(1)(ii), (iv) and (v) because College of Medicine Admissions Committee members have adopted a practice of devaluing the MCAT scores of individuals with disabilities who have taken the MCAT's under nonstandard conditions, thereby subjecting these individuals to differential treatment on the basis of disability.
In a letter dated August 11, 1993, the College of Medicine assured OCR that it would take steps to come into compliance. Based on this written assurance, OCR considers the College of Medicine to be presently fulfilling its obligations under Section 504. Therefore, we are closing this case as of the date of this letter. A summary of the factual and legal basis for OCR's determination is set forth below.
The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a) provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability; be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination in any program or activity which receives or benefits from Federal financial assistance. The regulation further provides at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(ii), that a recipient, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements, on the basis of disability, afford a qualified individual with a disability with an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded to others.

The Section 504 regulation provides at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(iv), that a recipient, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements, on the basis of disability, provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to any class of individuals with disabilities unless such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others.

The Section 504 regulation provides at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(v) that a recipient, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements, on the basis of disability, aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability by providing significant assistance to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates, on the basis of disability, in providing any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the recipient's program.
The Section 504 regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(a), further provides that a qualified individual with a disability may not, on the basis of disability, be denied admission or be subjected to discrimination in admission or recruitment by a recipient who operates a postsecondary education program.
The complainant alleges that the College of Medicine discriminates against individuals with disabilities by providing support to the AAMC, which designates with an asterisk, the scores of applicants with disabilities who have taken the MCAT under nonstandard conditions and reports those asterisked scores to medical schools.

With respect to the use of an asterisk to denote nonstandard testing conditions on standardized tests such as the MCAT, current OCR policy provides that postsecondary education institutions will not be held in noncompliance for using test scores indicating that the tests were taken under nonstandard conditions, as long as: (1) the test score is not the only criterion used for admission; and (2) the individual with a disability is not denied admission because he/she took the test under nonstandard conditions.

The complainant also alleges that applicants with disabilities are discriminated against because MCAT examination scores taken under nonstandard conditions are devalued. Specifically, the complainant alleges that the scores of MCAT examinations taken under nonstandard conditions are asterisked, which the complainant alleges has the effect of stigmatizing such applicants based on disability. The complainant further asserts that the College of Medicine uses this information in its admissions decisions and assigns lower weight to MCAT scores taken under nonstandard conditions.

The College of Medicine informed OCR that there are approximately 200 students in each entering class. For the 1990-91 academic year, the Admissions Office received 3,014 applications and the College of Medicine's Admissions Committee (the Committee) accepted 412 applicants. OCR found that of those applicants who applied for the 1991 entering class, twelve applicants took the MCATs under nonstandardized conditions. Of these twelve applicants, one was accepted and the other eleven applicants were rejected.

For the 1989-90 academic year, the Admissions Office received 2,594 applications and the Committee accepted 627 applicants. OCR found that fourteen of these applicants took the MCATs under nonstandard conditions and of these fourteen applicants, none were accepted. Three were placed on the alternate list, two withdrew before consideration and nine were rejected.
For the 1988-89 academic year, the Admissions Office received 2,525 applications and the Committee accepted 592 applicants. OCR found that four of these applicants took the MCATs under nonstandard conditions. Of these four applicants, two were accepted, one withdrew before consideration and one was rejected.

OCR found that the College of Medicine has minimum prerequisites for an applicant to be considered for admission. The College of Medicine's Bulletin for 1991-1993 (the Bulletin) states that an applicant for admission must have completed at least three years in an approved college of arts and sciences, taken the MCATs by the fall of their senior year in college, and completed the following prerequisite courses: English--one academic year; Biology--one academic year, including laboratory; General Physics--one academic year, including laboratory; Inorganic Chemistry--one academic year, including laboratory; Organic Chemistry--one academic year, including laboratory. In addition, the Bulletin states that the following materials must be submitted directly to the College of Medicine's Admissions Office to complete the applicant's file: (1) a $50 application fee and, (2) the composite evaluation from a pre-professional advisory committee, or, if there is no such committee, two letters of recommendation from individual faculty members.

The Bulletin further informs applicants that, prior to submitting the above-referenced materials, they must first complete a master application (the Application) administered by the American Medical School Application Service (AMCAS) and submit it to AMCAS. The Application includes a section for personal information (e.g., address, parental information), the applicant's complete transcript, grade point averages (GPAs) and the applicant's personal statement describing the applicant's desire to be a medical professional. OCR found that the College of Medicine requires applicants to submit the application by December 1 of the academic year of processing.

OCR's investigation also revealed that the AMCAS forwards to the College of Medicine a biographical data sheet (the data sheet). The data sheet summarizes personal information (name, address, date of birth, race and sex, colleges attended, etc.) and includes the applicant's MCAT score(s) and GPAs. OCR found that the information concerning GPAs is listed on a chart with a number of caption headings (e.g., BCPM, AO, TOT). The chart breaks down the grades into three categories which make up the overall GPA. For example, biology, chemistry, physics, math courses (BCPM), all other courses (AO) and the cumulative average of all courses (TOT). Each of these GPAs are calculated for each year of matriculation (Freshman, Sophomore, etc.), as well as for the entire period of matriculation in each of the above categories (CUG). A GPA calculation is also given for all baccalaureate and graduate degrees. With respect to the MCAT scores, OCR found that the MCAT's are reported on the data sheet in their component form of six separate scores including, science questions in biology, physics and chemistry, science problem solving, skills analysis in reading and skills analysis in quantitative factors. OCR's investigation revealed that if the applicant took the MCAT under nonstandard testing conditions, an asterisk appears on the data sheet, next to the MCAT score.
Once the College of Medicine receives the Application and all other required materials, they are forwarded to the Committee. OCR's investigation revealed that a document entitled "Admissions Committee Procedures" (the Procedures) outlines the admissions process the Committee followed for the 1990-1991 academic year. According to the Procedures, the Committee is directed by two faculty co-chairpersons of the Committee (the Co-Chairpersons) who work closely with the Director of Admissions (the Director) and her staff.

OCR found that the Committee is composed of an Executive Committee and a sub-committee on Student Liaison. OCR found that for the 1990-1991 academic year, the Committee consisted of the Co-Chairpersons, fourteen professors and associate professors, the Dean of Students, the Associate Dean of Minority Affairs, the Assistant to the Provost, and three student members. The Procedures state that there is also an Interview Committee which consists of approximately 50 faculty members who interview the stronger applicants and are responsible for positively presenting the College of Medicine to the interviewees.

The Procedures revealed that the initial screening of applicants is the responsibility of the Co-Chairpersons and designated members of the Committee. The Procedures state that application folders are reviewed as soon as they are complete. The Director informed OCR that the Committee is expected to evaluate applicants on the bases of grades, letters of recommendation, MCAT scores, personal essay and potential as a medical doctor. In addition, the Bulletin states that preference will be given to applicants who reside in New York State. The Bulletin states that decisions regarding admission are based on a number of factors including academic records, the results of standardized tests, letters of recommendation, and a personal interview.

The Co-Chairs, the Committee member and the Director, indicated to OCR that the primary criteria used in screening files are, in no particular order of importance, the schools in which the applicants are or have enrolled in, academic performance in science courses, difficulty of past coursework, MCAT scores, GPA, letters of recommendation, personal statement, extracurricular activities and volunteer work. Another factor that may also influence the screening decision is state domicile. OCR found that screeners are given a place to write comments about an applicant's folder on an Applicant Interview Report (the Interview Report) that is later used to evaluate applicants who are chosen for interview.

According to the Procedures, applications are placed in one of three categories following the screening process. The categories are: "interview," "hold for later re-evaluation," and "no interview." OCR found that the "interview" category includes students who have a record that is near average of the past class. The "hold for later re-evaluation" category is for applicants with weaker records, yet with some reason to suspect that they may be able to complete medical school. These applicants are re-evaluated after a more complex picture of the applicant pool develops. The "no interview" category includes weaker applicants who are evaluated only if the applicant pool does not yield a sufficient pool of stronger applicants.

OCR's investigation revealed that applicants who are placed in the "interview" category are interviewed by a member of the Interview Committee. OCR found that the interviewers are provided with applicant files and use the Interview Report to record comments regarding the applicants they interview. The Bulletin states that during the interviews, the members of the Committee endeavor to appraise such qualifications as responsiveness, warmth of personality, ability to adjust to social situations, poise, bearing, ability to communicate ideas clearly and concisely, and soundness of motivation. OCR found that following the interview, the interviewer gives the applicant a rating score of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most outstanding rating.

The Procedures state that following the interviews, applicant folders are reviewed by the Executive Committee and given a rating score that determines the ranking of applicants. Specifically, OCR found that applications are studied individually by three members of the Committee and then each of the three members rate the applicants on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most outstanding rating. OCR further found that the interviewer's rating is added to the three members' ratings and the sum of the four ratings represents the final score of the applicant. The Procedures reveal that the acceptances are established by rank order determined by the final rating scores, and applicants with the highest scores will be accepted.

To further verify whether the College of Medicine's application process and criteria as described in the Bulletin and by admissions officials were applied equally to all applicants regardless of the conditions under which the applicant took the MCAT, OCR conducted a file review of applicant files. OCR's file review revealed that each application was reviewed under the College of Medicine's admissions procedures. Additionally, OCR found no evidence in the files that non-MCAT criteria were applied in a different manner to applicants who took the MCAT under nonstandard conditions.
With respect to MCAT scores, admissions officials informed OCR that the College of Medicine did not have a stated policy or guidelines regarding the interpretation of asterisked MCAT scores during the 1990-91 academic year. One of the co-chairs of the Committee (Co-Chair No. 1) stated that if she noticed that the MCAT score was asterisked, she would look at the application more carefully. However, she also indicated that she would not place less weight on an asterisked MCAT score. Co-Chair No. 2 stated to OCR that, in his opinion, applicants who have taken the MCATs under nonstandard conditions should be further reviewed. He further stated that he places less weight on an asterisked MCAT score than on a nonasterisked score. He informed OCR that he would be wary of a very good asterisked MCAT score if he came upon it during the screening process and that in the situation where an applicant had weak grades but strong asterisked MCAT scores, he would analyze the application more carefully. In addition, Co-Chair No. 2 stated that in a hypothetical situation where an applicant's MCAT score is greatly improved when taken under nonstandard conditions, he would want to know how and which applicant had improved. Co-Chair No. 2 also informed OCR that if he were reviewing two applicants with the same "minimally acceptable" MCAT score, one taken under nonstandard conditions and the other under standard conditions, and if all the other admissions criteria were in the acceptable range, he would think that the applicant who took the MCAT under standard conditions probably does not perform well on standardized tests and, therefore, the score would not be indicative of the applicant's ability. However, the same beneficial interpretation would not be afforded the applicant who had taken the MCAT under nonstandard conditions.

A Committee member also informed OCR that applicants with asterisked MCAT scores are treated in a different manner than other applicants. Specifically, with regard to asterisked MCAT scores, a Committee member informed OCR that the fact that the score was achieved under nonstandard conditions, as part of the overall picture, cannot be ignored.

OCR found that the College of Medicine has policies and procedures with respect to the admission of applicants into its programs. Specifically, OCR found that the College of Medicine has established prerequisites for admission, screens all applications it receives, selects applicants for applicant interviews and accepts interviewed applicants by a vote of the Committee. OCR also found that these policies and, procedures were followed for all applicants. However, OCR was informed by Co-Chair No. 2 that he devalued asterisked MCAT scores during the admissions process. Additionally, a Committee member confirmed that admissions applications of individuals who have taken the MCAT under nonstandard conditions are weighed in a different and lesser manner than other applications.
Based on the foregoing, OCR finds that the College of Medicine has a practice which discriminates against applicants with disabilities. Specifically, College of Medicine Committee members, including one of the Co-Chairs, have adopted a practice of devaluing the MCAT scores of individuals with disabilities who have taken the MCAT's under nonstandard conditions, thereby subjecting these individuals to differential treatment on the basis of disability. Accordingly, OCR finds the College of Medicine in violation of the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4(a) and (b)(1)(ii), (iv) and 104.42(a).

Based on the August 11, 1993, assurances provided to OCR, the full text of which is appended to this Letter of Findings, OCR considers the College of Medicine to be presently fulfilling its obligations under Section 504. Failure to perform the above agreed upon actions may result in OCR's finding a violation of Section 504 and possible enforcement proceedings. In accordance with OCR's standard practice, compliance with commitments and assurances will be monitored.

This letter is not intended, nor should it be construed, to cover any issues regarding the College of Medicine's compliance with Section 504 that are not specifically discussed in this letter.

The College of Medicine is reminded that retaliation or harassment against any person who has filed a complaint, participated in, or cooperated with an OCR investigation is prohibited.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this letter and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information which, if released, could constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

OCR offers technical assistance with respect to questions you or your staff may have regarding any of the regulations enforced by OCR. If, at any time, such assistance is desired, please feel free to contact Ms. Helen N. Whitney, Deputy Regional Director, at (212) 264-5589.

We would like to thank you and your staff for the cooperation extended to OCR during the investigation of this complaint. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Rolando Alvarado, Compliance Division Director, at (212) 264-3822.

Paula Kuebler
Regional Director