Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities (Chapter Report,
03/17/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-95).

Male and female cadets differed in some of their experiences at the U.S.
Military Academy. For example, women consistently received offers of
admission at higher rates than men, but also consistently experienced
higher attrition than men. Women's academic grades were lower than
men's, particularly during freshman and sophomore years, despite
generally higher academic predictor scores. In contrast, women's
physical education grades were somewhat higher despite lower predictor
scores in this area. Although reviewed more frequently for Honor Code
violations and for failure to meet academic standards, women were
recommended for separation less often. Although minorities had higher
admission rates than did whites, they had lower academic predictor
scores and lower academic, physical education, and military grades. As a
result, minorities were more frequently reviewed for serious failure to
meet academic standards and fewer minorities graduated in the top
quarter of their class. Minorities were also reviewed at higher rates
than whites for Honor Code infractions and were recommended for
separation for honor reasons at generally higher rates than whites. A
GAO survey of cadets, staff, and faculty revealed perceptions that women
and minorities were generally treated the same as men and whites. Some
male cadets, however, viewed women as receiving better treatment in some
areas. To a somewhat lesser degree, minorities were also viewed as
receiving better treatment.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-94-95
     TITLE:  Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities
      DATE:  03/17/94
   SUBJECT:  Sex discrimination
             Women
             Minorities
             Attrition rates
             Military service academies
             Education program evaluation
             Racial discrimination
             Military training
             Students
             Surveys
IDENTIFIER:  Army Cadet Leader Development System
             DOD Equal Opportunity Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1994

MILITARY ACADEMY - GENDER AND
RACIAL DISPARITIES

GAO/NSIAD-94-95

Military Academy


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CEER - Combined Entrance Examination and High School Rank
  HRC - Human Resources Council

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-256105

March 17, 1994

The Honorable Sam Nunn
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable John Glenn
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Readiness
 and Defense Infrastructure
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Richard C.  Shelby
Chairman, Subcommittee on Force Requirements
 and Personnel
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

As requested, we reviewed the treatment of women and minorities at
all three of the service academies.  This report deals with the U.S. 
Military Academy.  Specifically, the report addresses (1) differences
in indicators of performance and experience between men and women and
of whites and minorities, (2) perceptions of the fairness of the
treatment that female and minority cadets receive, and (3) actions
the Academy has taken to enhance the success of women and minorities
at the Academy. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, other interested Members of Congress, the Secretaries of
Defense and the Army, and the Superintendent of the Military Academy. 
We will also make copies available to other parties on request. 

This report was prepared under the direction of Mark E.  Gebicke,
Director, Military Operations and Capabilities Issues, who can be
reached on (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions. 
Other major contributors are listed in appendix II. 

Frank C.  Conahan
Assistant Comptroller General


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Concerned about how well the service academies were treating women
and minorities, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the former Chairman of its Subcommittee on Manpower and
Personnel asked GAO to examine this issue.  GAO has reported
separately on disparities at the Naval Academy and the Air Force
Academy.  This report deals only with the U.S.  Military Academy and
addresses (1) differences in performance and experience indicators
between men and women and between whites and minorities for the
classes of 1988 through 1992, (2) perceptions of the fairness of the
treatment that female and minority cadets receive, and (3) actions
the Academy has taken to enhance the success of women and minorities
at the Academy.  This report does not address the causes of any
gender or racial differences in the indicators. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Established in 1802, the Military Academy has a long tradition of
training and providing military officers for the Army.  The Academy's
curriculum provides for development of its cadets in academic,
military, and physical areas.  Additionally, it emphasizes moral and
ethical development of cadets through its Honor Code.  Minorities
have attended the Academy since the 1800s, but their numbers have
been relatively small until recent times.  Congress authorized women
to attend the Academy beginning in 1976.  At the beginning of
academic year 1993-94, minorities constituted 16.5 percent of the
student body, referred to as the Corps of Cadets, and women
constituted 11.7 percent. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Indicators of performance and experience showed that male and female
cadets encountered some differences during their Academy years.  Each
group fared better in some comparisons and worse in others.  For
example, women consistently received offers of admission at higher
rates than men, but also consistently experienced higher attrition
than men.  Women's academic grades were lower than men's,
particularly during freshman and sophomore years, despite generally
higher academic predictor scores.  In contrast, women achieved
somewhat higher physical education grades despite lower predictor
scores in this area.  Although reviewed more frequently for Honor
Code violations and for failure to meet academic standards, women
were recommended for separation at lower rates. 

While minorities were consistently offered admission at higher rates
than whites, they had lower academic predictor scores and lower
academic, physical education, and military grades.  Related to these
factors, more minorities were reviewed for serious failure to meet
academic standards and fewer minorities graduated in the top quarter
of their classes.  Minorities were also reviewed at higher rates than
whites for Honor Code violations and were recommended for separation
for honor reasons, at generally higher rates than whites. 

A GAO survey of cadets, staff, and faculty revealed perceptions that
women and minorities generally received treatment equal to that of
men and whites.  However, some male cadets perceived that women were
treated better in some areas.  To a somewhat lesser degree, some
white cadets perceived minorities were treated better in some areas. 

The Academy has studied the performance of women and some minority
cadets and was aware of many of the disparities GAO identified.  It
has taken a number of steps to establish an atmosphere where all
cadets are encouraged and able to perform at their best.  However,
its studies have had limitations regarding certain areas of Academy
life (such as the conduct and honor systems), coverage of all
subgroups, criteria for determining when disparities warrant more
in-depth attention, and provision for tracking action on
recommendations. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      GENDER DIFFERENCES IN
      ACADEMY STUDENT DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Overall, GAO made gender comparisons across 11 indicators of Academy
experience and performance.  In 2 of the 11 indicators--admission
offered and physical education grades--women consistently fared
better than men.  Similarly, in 2 of the 11 indicators--attrition
rates and selection for top cadet leadership positions--men
consistently fared better than women.  Women and men were about equal
in their rates of being assessed as qualified applicants.  All other
indicators show more mixed results, both with regard to the
consistency of direction and magnitude of the disparities. 

While women generally had higher average academic predictor scores,
their academic grade point averages were often lower than men's. 
However, while women's grade point averages tended to be lower than
men's primarily during the freshman and sophomore years, their
averages have caught up and in some cases exceeded men's in the
junior and senior years.  While women's physical education grades
were often higher than men's, their military development grades were
often lower.  Female cadets were reviewed for honor violations and
serious academic failures at higher rates than male cadets, but were
recommended for separation at lower rates.  As a result of their
often lower grades, women graduated in the top quarter of their
classes at generally lower rates than men. 


      RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN
      ACADEMY STUDENT DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

In 8 of the 11 indicators GAO used to measure performance and gauge
experiences, regularity of the data and tests of significance
consistently showed that whites did better than minorities: 
qualification rates, academic predictor scores, academic grade point
averages, physical education grades, military development indexes,
selection for top cadet leadership positions, attrition, and rate of
appearance in the top quarter of graduating classes.  In only one
indicator--offer rates--did the consistency of the data and
significance tests clearly show that minorities fared better. 

For three indicators (honor system actions, Academic Board actions,
and attrition), comparisons showed more mixed results.  Minorities
were charged with violations of the Honor Code and had their charges
dismissed at higher, but not significantly higher, rates than whites. 
They were found guilty at lower rates than whites, but separated at
significantly higher rates.  The Academic Board's consideration of
serious failures included significantly higher percentages of
minority cadets than white cadets in each of 4 academic years. 
However, the rate at which the Academic Board recommended separation
for minorities was lower, but not significantly in 3 of the 4 years. 
Comparisons of qualification and attrition rates showed minorities
disadvantaged in comparison to whites in 4 of 5 years. 


      PERCEPTIONS OF THE TREATMENT
      OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

In response to GAO questionnaires, the majority of cadets, staff, and
faculty perceived that, in general, women and minorities received the
same treatment as men and whites by various Academy systems. 
Nevertheless, one-third to one-half of male cadets indicated that
women received favored treatment by Academy staff and faculty. 
Whites perceived favored treatment of minorities by the Academic
Board for failure to meet academic standards.  About 20 percent of
staff and faculty also perceived favored treatment of women and
minorities by the Academic Board. 


      ACADEMY ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
      ISSUES THAT AFFECT WOMEN AND
      MINORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4

Through studies of the performance and experiences of female and some
minority cadets, the Academy has identified several of the issues
contained in this report.  It has taken actions to address many of
the problems, including (1) training to increase the awareness of the
treatment of women and minorities among cadets, staff, and faculty;
(2) changes to the curriculum; and (3) the creation of a human
resources council responsible for monitoring the climate of the
Corps. 

However, some areas of cadet life have received little meaningful
analysis.  For example, the Academy relies on case reviews of cadets
recommended for separation to monitor the fairness of its
adjudicatory systems.  This methodology does not allow the Academy to
identify whether certain groups are being reviewed more frequently
than would be expected under these systems.  Little study has been
done of the impact of the conduct system on the various cadet
subgroups.  In addition, the Academy does not have a system to ensure
that recommendations from various internal and external studies are
implemented into action plans.  Indicators of problems identified in
some internal studies appear to have been discounted. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO recommends that the Superintendent of the Military Academy take
action to (1) develop data systems that will permit systematic
analysis of the various adjudicatory systems at the Academy, (2)
routinely monitor performance indicators for groups designated in the
Department of Defense's Equal Opportunity Program and establish
criteria for assessing when disparities warrant more in-depth
attention and corrective action, and (3) establish a system to ensure
that the results of studies by oversight and review groups are used
and that actions on recommendations be monitored. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

The U.S.  Military Academy was established in 1802 at West Point, New
York.  Each summer, the Academy admits a new class of over 1,000 men
and women between the ages of 17 and 22, who join three other classes
to form the Corps of Cadets.  These cadets are selected from
qualified applicants (applicants who meet academic, physical, and
other standards) and have been nominated by a congressional or other
nominating source.  On registration day, cadets are administered an
Oath of Allegiance and an Agreement to Serve.  Upon graduation, each
cadet is commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army, with an
obligation to serve for 5 years.\1


--------------------
\1 For those graduating in 1996 and thereafter, this obligation
increases to 6 years.  Generally, those graduating from the Military
Academy serve in the Army, but the obligation may be met by service
in other branches of the Armed Forces. 


   REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND
   MINORITIES AT THE ACADEMY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

Congress authorized women to enter the service academies beginning in
academic year 1976.  That year, 119 female cadets were admitted to
the Military Academy, constituting 8 percent of the entering class. 
Four years later, 62 of the women graduated, representing 6.8 percent
of the class of 1980.  In 1989, for the first time, a female cadet
was selected as First Captain of the Corps of Cadets--the highest
position attainable by a cadet.  As of the beginning of fall semester
1993, women comprised 11.7 percent of the total Corps of Cadets. 

Minorities\2 were first admitted to the Academy in the mid-1800s, but
until fairly recently they were few in number.  The first black
graduated in 1877.  However, in this century, the first black to
graduate was a member of the class of 1936.  The 1,000th black cadet
graduated with the class of 1991.  The first Hispanic graduate of the
Military Academy was a Cuban cadet who graduated in the 1840s.  Most
of the early Hispanic graduates were foreign born but more recently,
the number of U.S.-born Hispanic cadets has been rising.  Asians have
been members of the Corps for about 20 years.  As of the beginning of
the fall 1993 semester, the Corps consisted of 6.3 percent black, 4.2
percent Hispanic, and 5.4 percent cadets of Asian or Pacific island
descent.  Cadets who identified themselves as "Other" minorities were
less than 1 percent. 


--------------------
\2 The term "minority" as used in this report includes cadets who
have classified themselves as either black, Hispanic, Asian, native
American, Alaska native, or "Other."


   MILITARY ACADEMY PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

The Academy provides cadets a program of training in academics,
military development, and physical performance.  Integrated into each
of these areas is training in leadership.  As cadets, they are paid
more than $6,500 a year in addition to free room, board, tuition, and
medical care.  During their years at the Academy, cadets attend a
full schedule of academic courses, maintain themselves in accordance
with the Academy's physical standards, and develop their knowledge of
military principles and operations. 

The Corps is comprised of 36 companies of about 120 cadets each. 
Each company has cadets from all four classes (freshman, sophomore,
etc.) who generally live together in cadet barracks.  While women
live with women and men with men, their rooms are intermingled.  An
effort is made to balance the companies so that each will have at
least two female cadets from each of the four classes and a
distribution of minority cadets.  The companies are further balanced
by capabilities of their cadets, providing comparable distributions
of those who excel as scholars, athletes, and leaders. 

Cadets are assigned duties within their companies, and each company
is commanded by an Army officer in the position of company tactical
officer.  Freshmen--referred to as plebes--perform duties such as
delivering mail and laundry to learn to follow orders; cadets in
higher classes train and supervise others or direct cadet activities. 
The purpose of this arrangement is to give each cadet progressive
leadership responsibilities. 


      ACADEMY ORGANIZATION AND
      STANDARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

As an Army installation, the Academy is commanded by the
Superintendent, who assures that academic standards and standards of
conduct are maintained.  He is assisted in his administration by the
Commandant of Cadets, who oversees military and physical training,
discipline, and the operation of the Corps, and by the Dean of the
Academic Board who is responsible for all academic matters. 

Cadets who fail to meet standards of conduct are reviewed by the a
conduct board under the oversight of the Commandant.  Conduct
standards cover a wide range of topics such as uniforms and
appearance, social behavior, and maintenance of barracks and
quarters. 

The records of cadets who fail to meet academic standards are
reviewed by the Academic Board, which is chaired by the Dean.  The
Academic Board reviews the case of each cadet who fails to achieve
the requisite grade point average for his or her class (e.g., plebes
must attain a
1.6 average on a 4.0 scale and seniors must attain a 2.0) or who is
otherwise academically deficient.  Academic courses include not only
traditional academic courses such as sciences or humanities but also

  military development, which considers a cadet's military bearing
     and performance of miscellaneous duties and leadership
     experiences in his/her company or in the Corps;

  military science, which is a series of courses on such matters as
     combined arms operations, map reading and small unit tactics, or
     maintaining unit readiness; and

  physical education, which includes instruction in activities such
     as swimming and gymnastics, participation in sports, and scores
     achieved on the Academy Physical Fitness Test and the Indoor
     Obstacle Course Test, both of which must be passed at specific
     points in a cadet's career. 

In addition to meeting academic standards, a cadet must meet ethical
standards as embodied in the Cadet Honor Code:  "A cadet will not
lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate those who do." The cadets themselves
are charged with upholding the Honor Code.  They elect honor
representatives who serve during their junior or senior year at the
Academy.  Charges that a cadet violated the Honor Code are
investigated by cadet honor committee representatives who determine
whether the evidence warrants a hearing by an honor board comprised
of other cadets. 

A finding of failure to meet standards by the Academic Board or an
honor or conduct board could result in a cadet being recommended for
separation from the Academy.  The Superintendent is the final Academy
judge on recommendations for separation, but the final decision rests
with the Secretary of the Army.  If a cadet is separated after the
beginning of the junior year, he/she may be activated into the Army
or the Army reserves to fulfill the obligation assumed upon
registration. 


   ADMISSION AND GRADUATION
   REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

The Academy admits and graduates only those individuals who meet its
standards.  Standards for graduation are designed to assure only
those individuals who are capable of serving as military officers are
awarded diplomas.  During the 4 years of training, a cadet must
demonstrate the capability of meeting all of the Academy's academic,
physical, ethical, and conduct standards. 


      ADMISSIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3.1

To become a qualified candidate for admission, an applicant must meet
basic criteria that include such considerations as age, physical
condition, and demonstrated academic capabilities.  About 20 percent
of all applicants become qualified candidates for admission.  To
assist in the process of deciding which candidates to offer
admission, the Academy uses a rating system.  It individually
assesses each candidate's academic, leadership, and physical
potential, converting these assessments into predictor scores and
combining these scores into a Whole Candidate Score.  Of the three
factors making up the Whole Candidate Score, the Academy considers
the academic predictor score the most reliable measure used to
predict a cadet's success at the Academy and gives it the most
weight.  This academic predictor score is referred to as the Combined
Entrance Examination and High School Rank (CEER) score. 

However, the Academy does not base admission decisions solely on its
ratings, which it recognizes as limited.  It attempts to balance the
Corps geographically, and it develops goals for each class for
desired percentages of scholars, leaders, athletes, women, blacks,
Hispanics, and other minorities.  The gender, race, and ethnicity
goals are based on women's and minorities' representation in the
national population and in the national pool of college bound people,
and their representation in the Army.  The admission goals in 1989
through 1991 were 10 to 15 percent women, 7 to 9 percent black, 4 to
5 percent Hispanic, and 2 to 3 percent Asian/Native American and
other minorities.  In 1992 the Academy increased the goal for
Hispanics to 4 to 6 percent. 


      GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3.2

In the years covered by our review, about 70 percent of cadets in an
entering class have graduated.  Some cadets resign voluntarily,
having determined that their interest in a military career has
changed.  They are allowed over 2 years at the Academy to decide
their interest in being commissioned without incurring a definite
military obligation. 

A cadet's success at the Academy affects his or her career.  Upon
graduation, cadets select Army branches and location of assignments
in the order of their overall performance at the Academy.  Those in
the top half of the class will likely receive their first choice of
branch and location.  Class standing may also affect future
assignments. 

Cadets' achievements at the Academy are reflected in academic,
physical, and military performance scores.  These scores are a
cadet's academic grade point average; a reflection of a cadet's
overall physical performance, including achievements in sports as
well as grades received on fitness tests and in physical education
courses; and a compilation of military ratings (received for summer
assignments and for assignments in the Corps) and military science
grades.  They are combined using a weighted formula to produce an
overall cadet performance score.  The composition and weighing of
these scores was changed in 1990 to better reflect a cadet's time at
the Academy.  The cadet who graduates first in the class is not
necessarily the cadet with the best academic average, but is the
cadet who had the best success in mastering the Academy's academic,
military, and physical requirements. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

This is one of a series\3 of reports on the treatment of female and
minority cadets at Department of Defense service academies.  It
responds to requests of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the former Chairman of its Subcommittee on Manpower and
Personnel, who asked us to examine the treatment of women at service
academies, and former Congressman Albert G.  Bustamante who asked us
to similarly review the treatment of minorities. 

The objectives of this review were to (1) assess whether significant
differences existed between men and women and between whites and
minorities on a variety of indicators, (2) identify perceptions of
those associated with the Academy regarding the fairness of treatment
of female and minority cadets, and (3) determine what actions the
Academy has taken to enhance the success of women and minorities at
the Academy. 

We performed our review at the Military Academy at West Point, New
York, where we reviewed policies, regulations, and procedures and
interviewed Academy officials, faculty members, and groups of cadets. 
We also administered three questionnaires to cadets, faculty members,
and other Academy staff.  The questionnaires were administered to
randomly selected personnel in the spring of 1991.  They covered a
range of student-related subjects, including the treatment of women
and minorities.  A detailed description of the questionnaire and
related methodological issues appears in appendix I. 

The performance indicators we used to make gender and racial group
comparisons were selected to cover a spectrum of student experiences
beginning with application for admission and ending with graduation. 
The available data varied in the time periods covered.  Some data
were available by class year, while other data were available by
academic year or for only 1 or 2 years.  The following are groups of
indicators we used to compare cadet experiences. 

  Admissions data:  (1) the rate of qualification, (2) rate at which
     admission was offered, and (3) CEER scores of those admitted. 

  Performance data:  (1) academic grade point averages, (2) military
     development indexes, and (3) physical education grades. 

  Honor system data:  (1) the rate at which cadets were charged with
     violations of the Honor Code, (2) the rate at which honor
     charges against cadets were dismissed, (3) the rate at which
     honor hearings resulted in findings of guilt, (4) the rate at
     which cadets found guilty were recommended for separation, and
     (5) the rate of election as honor representatives. 

  Academic Board data:  (1) the rate at which cadets were reviewed
     for multiple or repeated failures by the Academic Board\4 and
     (2) the rate at which cadets were recommended for separation by
     the Academic Board. 

  Graduation data:  (1) the attrition rate (the rate at which cadets
     separated from the Academy) and (2) the rate of appearance in
     the top quarter of the graduating class. 

To assess whether any pattern existed with regard to the direction of
observed differences in the indicators, we determined the number of
times each gender or race subgroup was lower or higher on each
measure for each period examined.  We then considered the likelihood
of obtaining that observed distribution of lows and highs if there
were no systematic differences between the subgroups. 

To assess whether observed gender or racial differences in indicators
were significant, we applied tests of statistical significance and
used a rule of thumb (called the "four-fifths test") on our
comparisons.  A more detailed description of the performance
indicators used, the source of that data, and the types of tests used
to assess differences appears in appendix II. 

Changes in the components of certain of the Academy's grades and in
the compilation of cadets' overall class standings occurred in 1990. 
As a result, we assessed and compared military performance data and
physical education grades on a class-by-class basis.  Due to
uncertainties about the completeness and accuracy of cadet conduct
data, we did not use the conduct system as one of our indicators. 

We discussed a draft of this report with senior officials from the
Academy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.  They suggested a
number of technical clarifications, which have been incorporated in
this report. 

Our review was performed from March 1991 to January 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\3 Other reports in this series are DOD Service Academies:  More
Changes Needed to Eliminate Hazing (GAO/NSIAD-93-36, Nov.  16, 1992);
Naval Academy:  Gender and Racial Disparities (GAO/NSIAD-93-54, Apr. 
30, 1993); Air Force Academy:  Gender and Racial Disparities
(GAO/NSIAD-93-244, Sept.  24, 1993); and DOD Service Academies:  More
Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual Harassment (GAO/NSIAD-94-06, Jan. 
31, 1994). 

\4 The Academic Board considers standard disposition and nonstandard
disposition cases.  Standard disposition refers to less serious
failures for which separation from the Academy or repeating a year
are not likely consequences.  Nonstandard disposition refers to the
most serious cases such as cadets deficient in three or more courses. 
These are cadets considered for separation, delayed graduation, or
other individual attention. 


INDICATORS REVEAL SOME GENDER
DISPARITIES
============================================================ Chapter 2

The experience of male and female cadets was somewhat mixed across
most of the indicators.  On average, women have generally not fared
as well as men in their academic or military grades.  Women also had
a higher rate of appearance before the Academic Board for serious
academic failures, but were recommended for separation at a somewhat
lower rate.  An analysis of honor system proceedings showed women
encountered different experiences than men under that system--while
women were charged at about the same rate as men, their cases were
more likely to be dismissed, and while women were more likely to be
found guilty, they were less likely to be recommended for separation. 
Women's rates of attrition have consistently been higher than men's. 
With regard to offers of admission and physical education grades,
female cadets have fared better than their male counterparts.  The
major proportion of each gender group perceived that female cadets
were treated essentially the same as male cadets.  However, a
significant percentage of the males indicated a belief that women
were treated better than men in certain areas of Academy life. 


   CADETS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE
   TREATMENT OF WOMEN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

In our questionnaire, we asked respondents to indicate whether they
believed that women were treated better than, the same as, or worse
than men by faculty, tactical officers, disciplinary boards, honor
boards, and the Academic Board.  Two-thirds or more of the female
cadets indicated that women were treated the same as other cadets;
the remainder were divided in their opinions as to whether they
believed women were treated more or less favorably by the various
boards and by staff and faculty. 

While about half of the male cadets thought women were treated the
same as men, almost as many men thought women had received favored
treatment by the Academic Board, by conduct boards, and by tactical
officers.  In contrast, three quarters of the male cadets thought
women were treated the same as men by honor boards, and two-thirds
thought women were treated the same by faculty.  In general, only 1
to 2 percent thought women were treated less favorably by any of
these groups (see
fig.  2.1). 

   Figure 2.1:  Cadets'
   Perceptions of the Treatment of
   Women by Various Academy Groups

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses to GAO questionnaire. 

Most staff and faculty thought female cadets were treated the same as
males by all boards, but some perceived favored treatment.  Eighteen
percent thought the Academic Board treated female cadets more
favorably than male cadets.  Small percentages of the staff and
faculty thought women were treated less favorably than men by the
various boards. 


   PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE
   INDICATORS FOR MALE AND FEMALE
   CADETS SHOW MIXED RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

We made gender comparisons across 11 indicators of the Academy
experience.  In 1 of the 11 indicators, significance tests and
consistent direction of the disparities clearly indicated a
difference between the experience of women and men--women
consistently left the Academy at a higher rate.  Women tended to fare
better than men with regard to offers of admission and physical
education grades.  All other indicators displayed somewhat mixed
results.  Table 2.1 presents the results of the tests performed on
the various indicators in summary form.  A discussion of these
indicators and our analysis follow. 



                                    Table 2.1
                     
                          Summary of Gender Comparisons

                                          Comparison  Comparison     Comparisons
                               Number of      s that      s that     that showed
Performance     Data          comparison     favored     favored   men and women
indicator       available              s       women         men           equal
--------------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  --------------
Qualification   Classes of             5       1 (0)      4 (0\)               0
 rates           1988-92
Offer rates     Classes of             5     5 (2\a)       0 (0)               0
 (see fig.       1988-92
 2.2)
Academic        Classes of             5     4 (1\b)       1 (0)               0
 predictor       1988-92
 scores
 (see fig.
 2.3)
Academic grade  Classes of            40    13 (2\b)    25 (8\b)               2
 point           1988-92
 averages by
 semester (see
 figs. 2.4 and
 2.5)
Physical        Classes of             5     4 (1\b)       1 (0)               0
 education       1988-92
 grades
 (see fig.
 2.6)
Military        Classes of            34    10 (3\b)   24 (15\b)               0
 development     1988-92
 grades by
 semester (see
 fig. 2.7)
Cadet           Classes of             8         1\c         7\c               0
 leadership      1988-91
 positions
 (see text)
Honor charge,   Academic               5     2 (2\a)     3 (1\a)               0
 dismissal,      years 1988-
 conviction,     91
 and
 recommended
 separation
 rates and
 selection as
 Honor
 Representativ
 e (see fig.
 2.8)
Academic Board  Academic               8     3 (2\a)     5 (3\a)               0
 review and      years 1988-
 separation      91
 rates
 (see figs.
 2.9 and 2.10)
Attrition       Classes of             5       0 (0)     5 (4\a)               0
 rates (see      1988-92
 fig. 2.11)
Class           Classes of             5       1 (0)     4 (2\a)               0
 standings       1988-92
 (see fig.
 2.12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  ( ) indicates the number of significant differences using one
or both types of tests. 

\a We used both a statistical significance and the 4/5ths test for
these comparisons. 

\b We used a statistical significance test for these comparisons. 

\c We were unable to apply tests of statistical significance due to
data limitations. 


      ADMISSIONS PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

Applicants who complete the admissions requirements become candidates
for admission to the Academy.  Candidates who meet the Academy's
academic, physical, and leadership standards and receive a nomination
are considered qualified for admission.  Women were qualified at
somewhat lower rates than men.  Nevertheless, they were offered
admission at higher rates than men. 


         QUALIFICATION RATES FOR
         MEN AND WOMEN WERE
         ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR, BUT
         OFFER RATES WERE HIGHER
         FOR WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.1.1

Admission standards, with the exception of some allowances for
physical differences, are the same for men and women.  For the
classes of 1988 through 1992, male candidates were judged qualified
at a higher rate than female candidates in 3 of the years; females
were judged qualified at a higher rate than males in 1 year; and the
rate was equal in 1 year.  None of the differences was significant. 
In each of the 5 years, qualified women were offered admission at
higher rates than men, but the difference in rates was significant in
only 2 of the 5 years.  Figure 2.2 displays the rates of admission
offered qualified male and female candidates. 

   Figure 2.2:  Rates at Which
   Qualified Male and Female
   Candidates Received Offers of
   Admission

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests.


Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


         ACADEMIC PREDICTOR SCORES
         WERE SOMEWHAT HIGHER FOR
         WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.1.2

A major factor in qualification and admission decisions is the CEER
score.  This score is regarded by the Academy as its best predictor
of academic success, and it is an important factor in the admissions
decision process.  In 4 of the 5 years, women's average CEER scores
were higher than men's.  The difference, however, was significant in
only one of the years.  Figure 2.3 compares the average CEER scores
of entering male and female freshmen for the classes of 1988 through
1992. 

   Figure 2.3:  Average Female and
   Male CEER Scores

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  CEER scores below 520 indicate academic risks; CEER scores
above 650 indicate scholars. 

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


         ACADEMY ABLE TO MEET
         GOALS FOR WOMEN WITHOUT
         SPECIAL RECRUITING EFFORT
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.1.3

Without any special recruiting programs for women, the Academy was
able to meet its goal of 10 to 15 percent women for each entering
class from 1988 through 1992.  Officials stated that the percentage
of women in the Corps had been restrained only by the level of
interest among applicants.  They pointed out that today's Army is
about 12 to 13 percent women and that their goal is consistent with
this proportion.  Further, the responsible official stated that the
female composition of the Corps is about right given women's interest
in the Academy and their competitiveness for admission. 


      INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC,
      PHYSICAL, AND MILITARY
      PERFORMANCE SHOW MIXED
      RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

The following differences appeared in the grades achieved by male and
female cadets: 

  Over cadets' entire 4-year period at the Academy, women achieved
     somewhat lower grade point averages than men.  However,
     examination of semester-by-semester data showed that female
     cadets' academic grade point averages were lower in their
     freshmen and sophomore years and more similar to those of male
     cadets in their junior and senior years. 

  Women's average physical education grades were significantly better
     than men's in one of the five graduating classes.  In three of
     the other four classes, women's grades exceeded men's, but
     differences were not significant. 

  Male cadets' average military performance indexes exceeded those of
     female cadets' in four of the five classes. 


         WOMEN'S ACADEMIC GRADE
         POINT AVERAGES WERE
         GENERALLY LOWER IN FIRST
         TWO YEARS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.1

We compared the academic grade point averages of five classes of male
and female cadets, by semester, for each of eight semesters, for a
total of 40 comparisons.  The semester grades for the five classes
have been combined in figure 2.4 for illustrative purposes.  As shown
in the figure, women's grades were consistently lower in the freshman
and sophomore years, and they exceeded men's in second semester
senior year. 

   Figure 2.4:  Male and Female
   Cadets' Grade Point Averages
   for the Classes of 1988 through
   1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

Examination of the semester-by-semester data showed that while female
cadets in the classes of 1988 and 1989 received generally lower grade
point averages than male cadets throughout their 4 years, female
cadets in the classes of 1990 and beyond received lower grade point
averages only in their freshman and sophomore years.  In their junior
and senior years, these female cadets achieved higher grade point
averages than the male cadets (see fig.  2.5). 

   Figure 2.5:  Male and Female
   Cadets' Grade Point Averages
   for the Classes of 1990 through
   1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

To assess whether observed differences between the academic grades of
male and female cadets were due to differences in academic potential
that existed at the time they entered the Academy, we performed a
series of regression analyses.\1 For the classes of 1988, 1989, 1990,
1991, and 1992, we ran regression analyses on the cadets' cumulative
grade point averages at the end of each of their eight semesters. 
Entrance predictor scores (CEER scores)\2 were entered into the
regression equation as the first step, with race entered as a second
step, and gender added as a third step.  All three variables were
entered into each equation, regardless of any other criteria so that
the direction of the relationship could be determined.  This resulted
in 40 separate regression analyses (8 each for the 5 classes) where
the independent effect of gender could be assessed. 

Overall, the CEER scores accounted for a modest proportion (34 to 45
percent) of the total variation in grade point averages.  After
controlling for differences in CEER scores, gender still explained a
small (0.02 percent to 3.9 percent) but statistically significant (at
the 95-percent level of confidence) proportion of the variance in
grade point averages in 18 of the regression analyses.  All 40
regression coefficients for gender were negative and ranged from
-0.02 to -0.19.  The average regression coefficient for gender across
the 40 regressions was about -.08, meaning that the grade point
average of a female cadet averaged 0.08 lower than that of a male
cadet of the same race with the same CEER score.  Thus, gender was
correlated to some extent with academic performance beyond the
difference that could be explained by differences in CEER scores. 


--------------------
\1 A regression analysis is a statistical technique that allows the
effects of multiple predictor variables to be simultaneously
assessed.  By entering the predictor variables into the regression
analysis in separate steps, the unique contribution of a predictor
variable to the variation in a criterion variable can be determined
while the effects of all other measured predictor variables are
controlled. 

\2 We used the CEER scores as an independent variable in this
analysis because they are the main indicator that Academy officials
use to predict academic success.  We did not examine the development
of this measure, and we make no assumptions about its validity in the
admissions process. 


         WOMEN'S PHYSICAL
         EDUCATION GRADES WERE
         GENERALLY HIGHER THAN
         THOSE OF MEN
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.2

Women received higher average grades than men in physical education
in four of the five classes we reviewed.  The difference was
significant for one of the five classes.  However, male and female
cadets are not subject to the same requirements in this area. 

Physical education grades are based on a compilation of grades earned
in subcourses such as aerobics, basketball, or close quarters combat
as well as performance on the Academy's physical fitness test and its
indoor obstacle course.  The Academy requires cadets to take 4 years
of physical education with each year regarded as a course.  The
content of the subcourses differs somewhat for men and women during
their first
2 years.  For example, men take boxing and wrestling while women take
self-defense.  Requirements are the same in the later 2 years as
cadets, who have learned to physically train and develop others,
acquire skills in lifetime sports (such as golf and tennis). 

As cadets progress, a higher percentage of their physical education
grade is based on the physical fitness and indoor obstacle course
tests as an indicator of their commitment to assume responsibility
for developing himself or herself physically.  Standards for the
Academy's physical fitness test are based on the Army's standards. 
Because of physiological differences, both the Army's and the
Academy's physical fitness test standards are different for men and
women.  For example, to receive a score of 90 on the push-up event,
men must perform 72 push-ups in 2 minutes; women must do 48.  To
receive a score of 90 in the sit-up event, men must do 82 and women
must do 84 in a 2-minute period.  To receive a score of 90 on the
2-mile run, men must achieve a time of 12 minutes and 57 seconds;
women must achieve the same distance in 15 minutes and 54 seconds.  A
male or female receiving scores of 90 on each of these events would
receive a "B" for the test. 

We compared the grades of male and female cadets in physical
education over their 4 years.  Because of the 1990 change in the
physical education course structure and the change in the way grades
were compiled, we analyzed cadets' grades by class (see fig.  2.6). 

   Figure 2.6:  Male and Female
   Cadets' Average Physical
   Education Grades

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

Academy officials were aware that women's grades were generally
higher than men's.  They were also aware that women consistently
scored lower than men on the physical aptitude test administered to
all candidates for admission.  The Academy's director of physical
education acknowledged the disparity and explained that the women
attending the Academy are above average in physical conditioning and
training and tend to score fairly high against the Army's physical
fitness standards.  However, he said that the Academy believes it is
important that its physical fitness standards be linked to the Army's
physical requirements. 


         WOMEN'S MILITARY
         PERFORMANCE GRADES WERE
         GENERALLY LOWER THAN
         MEN'S
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.2.3

Military performance indicators of female cadets were lower than
those of male cadets in four of the five classes we reviewed; the
difference was significant in only 1 year.  The semester military
development index is a primary indicator of military performance. 
The elements making up this index were substantially changed after
graduation day in 1990 when conduct and physical education were
dropped as elements of the index.  As a result, we made comparisons
among cadets using this index for the years before it was changed. 
Thus, we performed 34 comparisons\3 of semester data.  Figure 2.7
illustrates the mixed results of the 34 comparisons.  Female cadets'
averages were lower in about two-thirds of the comparisons. 

   Figure 2.7:  Average Semester
   Military Development Indexes
   for Men and Women, Classes of
   1988 through 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

\b Contains data for the classes of 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. 

\c Contains data from the classes of 1988, 1989, and 1990.


Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

For the classes of 1991 and 1992 with partial data, we examined the
overall cumulative military performance scores.  Women's scores were
lower than men's in both classes.  We performed significance tests on
cumulative indexes under both the old system and the new system. 
While cumulative indexes of women were often lower than those of men
under both systems, the difference was significant in only one year. 

Military development indexes are a compilation of grades achieved in
various military-related endeavors.  Two main components of the
grades that remained constant after the 1990 change were grades in
military science courses and a combination grade-- referred to as
military development--compiled from the ratings of military staff and
higher ranked cadets.  The military development grade represents a
cadet's performance within the Corps. 


--------------------
\3 The comparisons involved 8 semesters of data each for the classes
of 1988 through 1990; 6 semesters of data for the class of 1991; and
4 semesters of data for the class of 1992, for a total of 34
comparisons. 


      WOMEN WERE PROPORTIONATELY
      REPRESENTED IN LEADERSHIP
      POSITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

Cadets are assigned to their positions in the Corps by the
Commandant.  The highest position a cadet can attain is First Captain
of the Corps of Cadets.  However, there are other significant
leadership positions that give cadets exposure to planning and
overseeing activities and to leading others.  The Academy uses these
assignments to both reward and challenge outstanding cadets as well
as to enable some cadets to work on areas in which they are weak. 
Among senior cadets in the classes of 1988 to 1991 (8 semesters of
data), women were selected for top positions at lower rates than men
in 7 of 8 semesters. 


      WOMEN'S EXPERIENCES UNDER
      THE HONOR SYSTEM DIFFERED
      FROM MEN'S
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4

Figure 2.8 shows the experience of men and women with regard to the
honor system.  While women were charged with violation of the Honor
Code at a higher rate than men, a significantly higher percentage of
their cases were dropped as a result of an initial inquiry that
precedes an honor hearing.  The inquiry serves to determine whether
an Honor Code violation may have occurred or whether the case should
not go forward to a hearing for reasons such as insufficient
information.  While women were found guilty of Honor Code violations
at a rate higher than men, the Superintendent recommended separation
for women less frequently than for men. 

   Figure 2.8:  Male and Female
   Honor System Experience,
   Academic Years 1988-91

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


         ELECTION OF WOMEN AS
         HONOR REPRESENTATIVES WAS
         DISPROPORTIONATELY LOW
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.4.1

The honor system is run by junior and senior cadets who are elected
by cadets to the position of honor representative.  Honor
representatives investigate honor charges and determine which cases
should go forward, and they constitute four of the nine members of
any honor board--with the others randomly selected from the Corps. 
For academic years 1991 and 1992, women's participation as honor
representatives was disproportionately low.  During academic year
1991, 1.4 percent of eligible female cadets and 4.3 percent of
eligible male cadets served as honor representatives.  Similarly, in
academic year 1992, 0.5 percent of eligible female cadets and 4.4
percent of eligible male cadets served as honor representatives.  The
differences were significant in both years. 


      WOMEN REVIEWED MORE
      FREQUENTLY BY THE ACADEMIC
      BOARD FOR SERIOUS FAILURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.5

For academic years 1988 through 1991, the records of female cadets
were reviewed by the Academic Board for serious failures at a higher
rate than male cadets, but they were generally recommended for
separation at a lower rate.  Our analysis included the 647 cadets who
were considered as nonstandard disposition cases by the Academic
Board during that 4-year period.  In 3 of the 4 years, the rate at
which the records of female cadets were reviewed by the Academic
Board for serious failures was significantly higher than the rate at
which those of male cadets were reviewed.  In the fourth year, the
rate at which the records of female cadets were reviewed was higher,
but the difference was not significant
(see fig.  2.9). 

   Figure 2.9:  Male and Female
   Academic Board Appearance Rates

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

As a result of consideration by the Academic Board, cadets are either
allowed to remain at the Academy or are recommended for separation. 
The rate at which women were recommended for separation was lower
than the rate at which men were recommended for separation in 3 of
the 4 years.  The differences in the rates were significant in only
two years (see fig.  2.10). 

   Figure 2.10:  Rate at which the
   Academic Board Recommended
   Cadets for Separation, by
   Gender

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

Academy officials stated that they were aware of women's higher rate
of consideration in nonstandard disposition cases by the Academic
Board as well as their lower separation rate.  They attributed some
of the problems women experience to difficulties with mathematics and
some science courses.  The Academy is studying this phenomenon and
monitoring the studies of other researchers in this area. 


      WOMEN HAD HIGHER ATTRITION
      RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.6

Since women were admitted to the Academy, proportionately more female
cadets than male cadets left the Academy before graduating.  For the
classes of 1988 through 1992, women's attrition was consistently
higher than men's, and the difference was significant on one or more
tests in four of the five classes (see fig.  2.11). 

   Figure 2.11:  Male and Female
   Attrition Rates

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

The Academy has studied attrition patterns extensively.  Its studies
show similar patterns of male and female attrition during its 4-year
program, but women attrit at a higher rate.  However, the studies
have shown that the attrition pattern of female cadets differs
somewhat from that of the male cadets during the sophomore year. 
Academy data on attrition of all classes from 1980 to 1991 show that
about 9 percent of all female cadets left the Academy during their
sophomore year while about 4 percent of all male cadets left at this
time.  Some adjustments were made to the Academy program to address
this difference (see ch.  4). 


      WOMEN GRADUATED IN THE TOP
      QUARTER OF THEIR CLASS AT A
      RATE CLOSE TO, BUT LOWER
      THAN MEN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.7

Class standing is not just a compilation of grades.  It is a weighted
average designed to reflect a cadet's total contribution at the
Academy.  The computation of class standing was changed in 1990, and
it currently weights academic performance as 55 percent; military
performance, including all ratings from the chain of command, ratings
for summer performance and course work in Military Science, as 30
percent; and physical performance, including physical education
grades as well as participation in intramural, club, or varsity
sports, as 15 percent.  Class standing provides the order in which
cadets select their Army branch and initial assignment location.  It
may also affect them later in their careers in competition with other
officers for assignments or promotions. 

The percentage of male cadets who graduated in the top quarter of
their class generally exceeded the percentage of female cadets in
that quartile, in the four classes of 1988 through 1991.  In two of
those years, the difference was significant.  In the class of 1992,
the percentage of female cadets in the top quarter of the class
exceeded the percentage of male cadets, but the difference was not
significant (see fig.  2.12). 

   Figure 2.12:  Rates of Males
   and Females Ranked in the Top
   Quartile of Their Graduating
   Class

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO anaylsis of Academy records. 


INDICATORS REVEAL RACIAL
DISPARITIES
============================================================ Chapter 3

Qualified minorities were offered admission to the Academy at
consistently higher rates than qualified whites.  On all other
indicators, however, minorities did not fare as well as whites did. 
Consistent differences appeared in average academic predictor scores,
academic grade point averages, physical education grades, military
performance scores, and class standing upon graduation.  Other
indicators--review by the Academic Board for serious failures and
treatment under the honor system--also showed minorities to have
fared worse than whites.  The differences in these indicators were
often significant.  Most minorities and whites believed that minority
cadets were treated the same as whites. 


   CADETS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE
   TREATMENT OF MINORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Our questionnaire asked respondents to indicate whether they believed
minorities were treated better than, the same as, or worse than
whites by faculty, tactical officers, disciplinary boards, honor
boards, and the Academic Board.  The majority of both white and
minority cadets believed that minorities were treated the same as
whites.  The proportions of white and minority cadets that perceived
equal treatment were similar.  However, among those perceiving
treatment to be different, minorities were more evenly divided as to
whether the treatment was more or less favorable.  Whites that
indicated perceptions of different treatment for minorities generally
perceived that treatment as more favorable (see fig.  3.1). 

   Figure 3.1:  Cadets'
   Perceptions of the Treatment of
   Minorities by Various Academy
   Groups

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses to GAO questionnaire. 

The one area in which a substantial proportion of respondents
perceived a difference in the treatment of white and minority cadets
was in actions by the Academic Board.  Forty-one percent of whites
thought minorities received preferential treatment by the Academic
Board, compared to 13 percent of minorities.  This perception was
shared by 30 percent of Academy staff and 19 percent of the faculty. 
Regarding treatment by other boards, staff and faculty generally
perceived equal treatment of minority and white cadets. 


   MOST INDICATORS SHOW WHITES DID
   BETTER THAN MINORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Overall, as summarized in table 3.1, we made racial comparisons
across 11 indicators, covering various areas of Academy performance
or experience.  In 8 of the 11 indicators, the pattern of the data
showed that white cadets did better:  qualification rates, academic
predictor scores, academic grade point averages, physical education
grades, military performance scores, cadet leadership positions,
attrition, and appearance in the top quarter of graduating classes. 
The differences were often significant.  The experience of minorities
was mixed with regard to the honor system and the Academic Board. 
Minorities were more likely than whites to be charged with an honor
offense, but more likely to have the charge dismissed or be found not
guilty, and more likely to be separated if found guilty.  Similarly,
minorities were more likely to be reviewed for serious failures by
the Academic Board, but less likely to be recommended for separation. 
Only in regards to offers of admission did minorities fare better
than whites.  A discussion of these indicators and our analysis
follow. 



                                    Table 3.1
                     
                          Summary of Racial Comparisons

                                          Comparison  Comparison     Comparisons
                               Number of      s that      s that     that showed
Performance     Data          comparison     favored     favored  minorities and
indicator       available              s  minorities      whites    whites equal
--------------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  --------------
Qualification   Classes of             5       1 (0)     4 (3\a)               0
 rates (see      1988-92
 fig. 3.2)
Offer rates     Classes of             5     5 (5\a)       0 (0)               0
 (see fig.       1988-92
 3.3)
Academic        Classes of             5       0 (0)     5 (5\b)               0
 predictor       1988-92
 scores
 (see fig.
 3.4)
Academic grade  Classes of            40       0 (0)   40 (39\b)               0
 point           1988-92
 averages by
 semester (see
 fig. 3.5)
Physical        Classes of             5      0 (0)\     5 (4\b)               0
 education       1988-92
 grades by
 year (see
 fig. 3.6)
Cumulative      Classes of            34     0 (0\b)    33(29\b)               1
 military        1988-92
 development
 grades by
 semester (see
 fig. 3.7)
Cadet           Classes of             8         1\c         7\c               0
 leadership      1988-91
 positions
 (see text)
Honor charge,   Academic               5     2 (0\a)     3 (2\a)               0
 dismissal,      years 1988-
 finding of      91
 guilt,
 recommendatio
 n of
 separation,
 and election
 as Honor
 Representativ
 e (see text)
Academic Board  Academic               8      3 (0\)    5 (4\a\)               0
 review (see     years 1988-                       \
 text)           91
Attrition       Classes of             5      1 (0)\      4(3\a)               0
 rates (see      1988-92
 fig. 3.8)
Class           Classes of             5       0 (0)     5 (5\a)               0
 standings       1988-92
 (see fig.
 3.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  ( ) indicates the number of significant differences using one
or both types of tests. 

\a We used both a statistical significance and the 4/5ths test for
these comparisons. 

\b We used a statistical significance test for these comparisons. 

\c We could not apply tests of statistical significance due to data
limitations. 


      ADMISSIONS PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1


         QUALIFICATION RATES WERE
         HIGHER FOR WHITES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.1.1

For the period 1988 through 1992, about 80 percent of all white
candidates and 75 percent of all minority candidates were judged
qualified.  Specifically, for the class of 1988, minority and white
candidates were qualified for admission at equal rates; for the
classes of 1989 through 1992, minorities were qualified at lower
rates than whites.  The higher rate of qualification for whites was
significant in 3 of the 4 years on at least one test of statistical
significance as shown in figure 3.2. 

   Figure 3.2:  Qualification
   Rates for Minority and White
   Candidates Offer Rates Were
   Higher for Minorities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


         OFFER RATES WERE HIGHER
         FOR MINORITIES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.1.2

Academy data showed that for the classes of 1988 through 1992, 80
percent of all qualified minority candidates received offers of
admission from the Academy, and 68 percent of all qualified white
candidates did so.  The higher rate for minorities was significant
for all the classes, as shown in figure 3.3.  Academy officials cite
the difficulty of attracting qualified minorities as a reason for the
difference.  That is, since minorities have historically qualified
for admission at lower rates than whites, the Academy makes
proportionately more offers to qualified minorities to meet its
goals. 

The Academy has established goals for the admission of blacks,
Hispanics, and "other minorities." In recent years, the Academy's
goals have been met or exceeded, except for the goal for blacks.  For
the classes of 1993-95, the Academy set a goal for entering classes
of 7 to 9 percent blacks.  Despite special recruiting programs, only
6 percent of the entering classes were black. 

   Figure 3.3:  Rates at which
   Eligible White and Minority
   Candidates Received Offers of
   Admission

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


         MINORITIES HAD LOWER
         ACADEMIC ADMISSIONS
         SCORES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.1.3

Academy data on members of the classes of 1988 through 1992 show that
the average academic predictor scores of minority cadets were
consistently lower than those of white cadets.  The differences were
significant for all the classes, as shown in figure 3.4. 

   Figure 3.4:  Average Academic
   Predictor Scores for Whites and
   Minorities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note 1:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Note 2:  CEER scores below 520 indicate academic risks, scores above
650 indicate scholars. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      MINORITIES HAD LOWER GRADES
      IN ALL ASPECTS OF ACADEMY
      PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

Consistent with the Academy's academic success predictor, the
academic grade point averages of minorities were below those of
whites.  Minorities' average grades achieved in physical education
and average military performance scores were also lower than whites'.


         MINORITIES' ACADEMIC
         AVERAGES WERE LOWER THAN
         THOSE OF WHITES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.2.1

Minority cadets in the classes of 1988 through 1992 received lower
grade point averages than white cadets.  This is consistent with
academic predictor scores in the view of Academy officials. 
Specifically, cadets who enter the Academy with lower academic
predictor scores (as was the case with minority cadets) are not
expected to fare as well academically as those who enter with higher
scores. 

In contrast to the differences between female and male cadets' grade
point averages, the differences between minority and white cadets'
grades did not change as each class progressed through the Academy. 
This analysis involved comparisons for 8 semesters for 5 classes,
totaling 40 comparisons.  The differences in the grade point averages
of minorities and whites were significant in 39 of the comparisons. 
The semester grades for the five classes have been combined in figure
3.5. 

   Figure 3.5:  Grade Point
   Averages of White and Minority
   Cadets for the Classes of 1988
   Through 1992, by Semester

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

To assess whether observed differences between the academic grades of
minority and white cadets were due to differences in academic
potential that existed at the time they entered the Academy, we
performed a series of regression analyses.\1 For the classes of 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, we ran regression analyses on the cadets'
cumulative grade point averages at the end of each of their eight
semesters.  Entrance predictor scores (CEER scores)\2 were entered
into the regression equation as the first step, with gender entered
as a second step, and race\3 added as a third step.  All three
variables were entered into each equation, regardless of any other
criteria so that the direction of the relationship could be
determined.  This resulted in 40 separate regression analyses (8 each
for the classes of 1988-92) where the independent effect of race
could be assessed. 

Overall, the Academy's CEER scores were able to account for a modest
proportion (34 percent to 45 percent) of the total variation in grade
point averages.  After controlling for differences in CEER scores,
race still explained a small (0.02 percent to 6.1 percent) but
statistically significant (at the 95-percent level of confidence)
proportion of the variance in grade point averages in 26 of the 40
regression analyses.  All 40 regression coefficients for race were
negative and ranged from -0.01 to -0.22.  The average regression
coefficient for race across the 40 regressions was about -.09,
meaning that the grade point average of a minority cadet averaged
0.09 lower than that of a white cadet of the same gender with the
same CEER score.  Thus, race was correlated to some extent with
academic performance beyond the difference that could be explained by
differences in CEER scores. 


--------------------
\1 A regression analysis is a statistical technique that allows the
effects of multiple predictor variables to be simultaneously
assessed.  By entering the predictor variables into the regression
analysis in separate steps, the unique contribution of a predictor
variable to the variation in a criterion variable can be determined
while the effects of all other measured predictor variables are
controlled. 

\2 We used the CEER scores as an independent variable in this
analysis because they are the main indicator that Academy officials
use to predict academic success.  We did not examine the development
of this measure, and we make no assumptions about its validity in the
admissions process. 

\3 Race was coded into two groups:  minorities (including blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans) and whites. 


         MINORITIES HAD LOWER
         PHYSICAL EDUCATION GRADES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.2.2

For the graduates of the classes of 1988 through 1992, minorities had
lower physical education grades than whites in all five classes, on a
scale of "A" equals 4.0 (see fig.  3.6).  As stated in chapter 2,
physical education comprises an important piece of the Academy's
program, and it is a factor in a cadet's overall class ranking. 

   Figure 3.6:  Average Physical
   Education Grades for Whites and
   Minorities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


         MINORITIES HAD LOWER
         INDICATORS OF MILITARY
         PERFORMANCE
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.2.3

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, we found that the semester
military development indexes of minority cadets were lower than those
of white cadets in 33 of 34 comparisons.  Because the factors that
made up the military development index were changed in 1990, grades
for cadets beginning in the fall semester of academic year 1991 were
computed on a substantially different basis than the one previously
used.  Figure 3.7 shows the semester military development indexes
earned by white and minority cadets before the change. 

   Figure 3.7:  Average Semester
   Military Development Indexes
   for Whites and Minorities,
   Classes of 1988 through 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

\a Contains data for the classes of 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. 

\b Contains data from the classes of 1988, 1989, and 1990. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

The classes of 1991 and 1992 graduated with part of their military
grades computed under the old system and part under the new.  We
compared the cumulative military performance scores, which make up 30
percent of a cadet's class standing at graduation, for the classes of
1991 and 1992.  For both classes, the average military performance
scores of whites exceeded those of minorities, and the difference was
significant for both graduating classes. 


      MINORITIES SELECTED FOR TOP
      LEADERSHIP POSITIONS AT
      LOWER RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Among seniors in the classes of 1988 through 1991 (8 semesters of
data), minorities were selected for top positions in the Corps of
Cadets at lower rates than whites in 7 of 8 semesters; the difference
was significant in 6 semesters. 


      MINORITIES' EXPERIENCE UNDER
      THE HONOR SYSTEM DIFFERED
      FROM WHITES'
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.4

Although charged with violation of the Honor Code at a higher rate,
minority cadets were more likely than whites to have their cases
dismissed before going to an honor board, and those who went before a
board were less likely to be convicted.  However, minority cadets
convicted of an honor violation were more likely to leave either by
resignation or separation.  For academic years 1988-91, the honor
system reviewed 463 cases in which 410 cadets had been accused of
honor code offenses.  Of these cases, 88 involved minority cadets,
364 involved white cadets, and 11 cases where the official Academy
record did not specify the race of the cadet. 

Minority cadets were accused of honor offenses at an overall higher
rate than were white cadets:  4.9 percent versus about 4.2 percent.\4
However, honor investigations resulted in the dismissal of a higher
percentage of the cases involving minority cadets--59 percent of
cases involving minorities were dropped compared to 52 percent of
cases against whites.  Differences in the rate of accusation and in
the percentage of cases dismissed were not significant. 

Considering the cases that went forward to an honor board, minority
cadets fared better than white cadets--50 percent of minorities
compared to 54 percent of whites were found guilty of violation of
the code.  This difference was not significant. 

When found guilty, minority cadets were more likely to leave the
Academy than white cadets.  A total of 59 percent of minority cadets
and 37 percent of white cadets either resigned or were separated from
the Academy once convicted of honor violations.  Having been found
guilty of an honor code violation, 18 percent of minorities and 11
percent of whites resigned; 41 percent of minorities and 26 percent
of whites were recommended for separation by the Superintendent.  The
differences in the rates of resignation and separation were
significant using one or more tests. 

Minority cadets were elected as honor representatives at lower rates
than white cadets in 1991 and 1992.  In both years, 4.2 percent of
whites were elected as honor representatives, contrasted with 3.2 and
2.7 percent of minorities.  The differences were significant in both
years. 


--------------------
\4 The rate is defined as the number of cadets accused of honor
violations as a percentage of the cadet subgroup (minority or white)
population for the time period studied. 


      MINORITIES GENERALLY FARED
      WORSE IN ACADEMIC REVIEW
      SYSTEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.5

As would be expected from the analysis of academic predictor scores
as well as academic and other performance data from the Academy,
minority cadets were more likely to be reviewed by the Academic Board
for serious failures.  We examined the results of 856 Academic Board
cases involving 647 cadets during academic years 1988 through 1991. 
A higher percentage of minority cadets than white cadets were
reviewed in each of these years; the difference was significant in
each year. 

In cases of serious failures, the Academic Board decides on an
individual basis whether to separate or retain deficient cadets.  The
rate of recommended separation was lower for minority cadets than for
white cadets in 3 of the 4 years and higher in one year, but the
differences were not significant. 


      MINORITY CADETS EXPERIENCED
      GENERALLY HIGHER ATTRITION
      RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.6

Overall, for the classes of 1988 through 1992, proportionately more
minority cadets than white cadets left the Academy before graduating. 
A comparison of attrition rates for these five graduating classes
showed that minority cadets had higher attrition rates in 4 of the 5
years.  The difference was significant in 3 of those years (see fig. 
3.8). 

   Figure 3.8:  Attrition Rates
   for Whites and Minorities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

The attrition rates of minority cadets were fairly steady in the five
classes whose data we examined, except for one class that experienced
a rate of about 5 percentage points higher than the others.  The
attrition rates of white cadets have not been as constant as those of
minorities.  One Academy study of graduation rates showed minority
graduation rates improving over the period 1976 to 1990, with an
overall minority graduation rate of 70 percent for the period 1986 to
1990, compared to a 72-percent graduation rate during that period for
all cadets. 


      FEWER MINORITIES GRADUATED
      IN THE TOP OF THEIR CLASSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.7

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, minorities graduated in the top
quartiles of their graduating classes at a lower rate than whites did
(see fig.  3.8).  Differences were significant for each class. 

   Figure 3.9:  Rates of White and
   Minority Cadets Ranked in the
   Top Quartile of Their
   Graduating Class

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All diffeneces were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

As noted previously, class rankings determine order of selection for
Army branch and location of initial assignment and may have an impact
in future years.  Those graduating in the top quartile will generally
receive their first preference in branch selection. 


ACADEMY IS ADDRESSING ISSUES
INVOLVING WOMEN AND MINORITIES,
BUT FURTHER ACTIONS ARE NEEDED
============================================================ Chapter 4

The Academy has monitored the performance and experiences of women
and some minority groups for many years.  Compilations of the results
of this monitoring have been distributed to top Academy officials,
the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and the
Academy's Board of Visitors (which has advisory and oversight
responsibilities).  The Academy's findings were basically similar to
ours--minorities have not had the success of whites at the Academy. 

The Academy, however, does not routinely track data regarding the
experiences of cadets under the Academic Board and the honor and
conduct systems.  Also, it does not assess each of the groups
protected by equal opportunity guidelines and generally does not test
group differences for significance.  In addition, various review
groups have made comments and recommendations about certain
disparities in the past, but the Academy lacks a system to ensure
that recommendations are addressed. 


   THE ACADEMY IS AWARE OF CADETS'
   PERFORMANCE AND PERCEPTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

The Academy has monitored both the performance and perceptions of
female cadets since they were first admitted.  Similarly, it has
studied the performance and experiences of blacks and other minority
groups.  Reports are routinely produced by gender or race showing how
cadets fared in the various stages of the admissions process, in
academic achievements, in receipt of awards and recognitions, and in
attrition.  Some reports have also tracked cadets after their entry
into active duty to evaluate the effectiveness of the Academy's
program. 

In the spring of each year, senior cadets are routinely surveyed
concerning their experiences at the Academy.  The survey asks about
their perceptions of acceptance by peers and equity of treatment by
other cadets, staff, and faculty.  The Academy analyzes the results
by race and gender.  These surveys have shown that while the majority
think that cadets are treated equally by other cadets, staff, and
faculty, regardless of gender or race, substantial proportions of
female respondents thought they had been treated differently.\1 Since
1988, the survey has asked respondents whether they agreed with the
statement that the integration of women has been a success.  Table
4.1 shows the results over a period of years. 



                          Table 4.1
           
               Percentage of First Class Cadets
            Agreeing that the Integration of Women
                      Has Been a Success


Gender          1988    1989    1990    1991    1992    1993
------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Women             60      56      54      60      54      62
Men               43      50      40      43      46      60
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Military Academy analysis of its questionnaires. 

A February 1992 Academy report to the Defense Advisory Committee on
Women in the Services concluded that cadets of both sexes tended to
agree that gender integration had been successful.  However, it
pointed out that "vestiges of resistance" to women at the Academy
continued to persist and that concerns such as perceived special
treatment, differential physical standards, impact of the combat
exclusion policy, privacy in field environments, and incidents of
harassment must continue to be addressed. 

Reports similar to those produced on women have compared the
experiences and performance of blacks to those of other groups. 
Special reports have also been produced on Hispanic, Asian American,
and Native American cadets.  However, Academy officials told us that
because of limited resources and the small numbers in some of the
minority groups, experiences and achievements of these other groups
protected by Department of Defense Equal Opportunity guidelines are
done less frequently. 

Recent senior surveys administered by the Academy asked a question on
cadets' perceptions of the success of integration of minorities into
the Corps.  Cadet responses showed that some cadets perceived
problems in this area (see table 4.2). 



                          Table 4.2
           
               Percentage of First Class Cadets
              Agreeing and Disagreeing that the
             Integration of Minorities Has Been a
                           Success


Racial/ethnic       Class  Class  Class  Class  Class  Class
group of               of     of     of     of     of     of
respondent           1991   1992   1993   1991   1992   1993
------------------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
White                  64     65     74     19     24     18
Black                  39     51     37     46     44     47
Hispanic               58     67     68     24     15     24
Asian                  74     83     72     13     14     21
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Military Academy analysis of its questionnaires. 


--------------------
\1 The wording of the questions used to compile this information does
not permit us to determine the direction (positive or negative) of
any perceived unequal treatment of women or minorities. 


   THE ACADEMY HAS TAKEN STEPS TO
   ENHANCE THE INTEGRATION OF
   WOMEN AND MINORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

In response to its monitoring of cadets' perceptions and experiences,
the Academy has changed several aspects of its academic, military,
and physical training programs.  In recent years, the Academy's
assessments have resulted in changes to its overall program.  Academy
officials said that the impetus for some of the changes was the
desire to strengthen the leadership skills of cadets in recognition
of the diversity of today's Army.  Other initiatives were developed
by its Human Resources Council (HRC), a group of senior officers who
have been specifically charged with assessing the climate of the
Corps. 


      ADJUSTMENTS TO TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1

During recent years, the Academy has added some training to its
curriculum for cadets, as well as for incoming staff and faculty,
designed to increase awareness of treatment of women and minorities. 
Additionally, the material used in existing courses was updated. 

In 1990, the Academy implemented its Cadet Leader Development System
under which cadets experience and practice various levels of
leadership responsibility.  One of the foundations of the leader
development system is consideration of others, including
non-toleration of sexual/racial harassment or discrimination. 
Throughout the 4-year program, cadets receive leadership and human
resources training that includes emphasis on equal opportunity
issues.  Such training progresses from an introduction to equal
opportunity principles and their importance to unit cohesion to
command climate, including equal opportunity and harassment issues
that might be encountered on active duty.  During academic years 1993
and 1994, this training was reviewed and updated as part of an effort
to increase the awareness of cadets about these subjects.  Cadets
have also been required to attend a series of seminars developed
through the HRC concerning current issues, including date rape and
sexual assault. 

For incoming staff and faculty, the Academy requires training in
prevention of sexual harassment.  It also requires training designed
to increase awareness among instructors and others of the impact of
subtle and overt actions, intentional or not, that have the effect of
singling out female or minority cadets.  The latter training consists
of filmed vignettes and group discussion, including discussion of the
behavior of individuals in subgroups that make up less than about 20
percent of the total population. 

The Academy has also made changes as a result of evaluations of its
programs.  For example, monitoring of attrition data showed that
female cadets left in larger proportions than male cadets in their
sophomore year.  A 1991 analysis of the summer field training
experience of cadets just prior to the beginning of their sophomore
year showed that it was perceived to be mostly combat-related and
thus emphasized areas from which women were excluded.  Small changes
in emphasis were made to make this training more relevant to all
cadets. 


      PROGRAMS TO ASSIST ACADEMIC
      RISKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.2

Each year some of the new cadets who are admitted are considered
academic risks.  Such at-risk candidates are taken to fill such goals
as those for athletes, for cadets from more remote areas of the
country, or for racial or ethnic diversity.  To help these cadets
perform successfully, the Academy has provided remedial and study
skills classes.  For example: 

  The Academy requires new cadets whose records indicate background
     deficiencies in mathematics to take a course designed to provide
     them with the necessary preparation for the Academy's program. 
     Requirements for this course include participation in a seminar
     that emphasizes study skills that are especially useful in
     mathematics. 

  In academic year 1992, the Academy began offering a remedial course
     for those cadets who encountered problems with English. 

For academic year 1993, the Academy performed special assessments of
all incoming plebes identified as high academic risks.  Approximately
80 cadets were identified and encouraged to attend a semester-long
seminar on improving study skills.  Sixty-six of the cadets agreed to
complete the study skills course.  While enhancement courses were
available on a voluntary basis in the past, this was the first year
that cadets other than those with mathematics deficiencies were
specifically recommended for such assistance.  The Academy has plans
to evaluate the effectiveness of the program by comparing a group of
students who complete the course with a control group of similar
students from the prior year who did not take the course. 


      HUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL
      ESTABLISHED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.3

During 1988-89, the Academy underwent a review in connection with its
decennial accreditation process.  Prior to a visit by the
accreditation team from the Commission on Higher Education of the
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the Academy
conducted a self-study.  The Academy concluded that, in general, it
had made substantial progress in the integration of women and
minorities into the Corps.  However, it noted that the most troubling
unresolved problem was the continuing low, but significant, levels of
covert individual rejection of women and, to a lesser but still
troubling degree, minorities.  It noted that women reporting
incidents of harassment felt victimized by the process of enforcement
and therefore were reluctant to report incidents. 

The accreditation team confirmed that the assimilation of women had
met with considerable success, but not without a number of continuing
conflicts, ambiguities, and problems.  It also reported that it had
been consistently advised by Academy personnel that the integration
of minority cadets into the Corps was no longer an issue.  However,
the team observed that some black cadets believed their concerns were
ignored because women had replaced them as the newest group within
the Academy, and some felt not accepted in their roles as cadets. 

The accreditation team concluded that some subtle forms of racism and
sexism continued to exist within the Academy because the Academy was
a cross-section of American life.  It urged the Academy to consider
whether treating everyone the same was treating everyone fairly. 
Further, it endorsed the Board of Visitors' recommendations and urged
that more minorities and women be recruited to serve on the staff and
faculty as role models for all of the cadets.  Lastly, the team
encouraged the Superintendent and the Commandant to help the staff
and faculty address their attitudes about women at the Academy and to
ensure that the administration was kept constantly apprised of issues
affecting women and minorities.  Soon thereafter, the HRC was
established to ensure emphasis throughout the Corps on respect for
human dignity and diversity. 

The HRC's first action was to develop the training for instructors
and others on preventing different treatment of female or minority
cadets.  Another effort of this group was to identify date rape, or
date crimes, as an issue of concern on many private and public
campuses.  Acting to prevent this from becoming an issue at the
Academy, the HRC developed training consisting of live vignette
performances accompanied by discussion of the issues.  Recently, the
HRC developed training on cadet eating habits and eating disorders,
another major issue on American campuses. 


   THE ACADEMY LACKS CONSOLIDATED
   DATA BASE FOR TRACKING
   DISPARITIES IN ADJUDICATORY
   SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

While the Academy collects and maintains a large amount of data on
student performance and experiences, some key areas of cadet
experience are available only on hard-copy records.  Thus, we had to
extract the information we analyzed concerning cadets' experience
with the Academic Board and honor systems from Academy paper files. 
The difficulty and time consumed in doing this limited the number of
periods we could assess in these areas.  In addition, we were not
able to analyze cadet experiences regarding the conduct system
because of uncertainties about the completeness and accuracy of the
cadet conduct data.  Academy officials said they assure the fairness
of these systems through a review of negative actions of these
systems and an analysis of system procedures.  However, they do not
perform analyses such as comparisons of rates at which cadets are
reviewed by the systems.  Thus, key areas of student treatment are
not presently being routinely tracked and analyzed. 


   THE ACADEMY LACKS A SYSTEM TO
   MONITOR RECOMMENDATIONS UNTIL
   RESOLUTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

The Academy has done an extensive amount of self-study and has also
been the subject of external reviews.  However, the Academy has no
system for compiling and tracking actions regarding recommendations. 
When comments and recommendations are repeatedly made over time and
little or no change has occurred, it is not possible to determine
whether the implementation of a recommendation was (1) attempted and
was unsuccessful at addressing the problem, (2) not attempted because
Academy officials disagreed with it, or (3) not attempted because of
other priorities or because it was forgotten. 

Effective management practices require managers to promptly evaluate
findings and recommendations, determine the appropriate actions in
response, and complete actions to resolve the situation.  With regard
to the issues of gender and racial disparities, the Academy had no
system to ensure such resolution of findings and recommendations. 

Academy officials appear to have discounted the results of some
studies, but they have not documented the data and rationale that
have led them to take no action.  For example, an Academy official
said that overall, the entry scores of minority cadets have been
lower than those of other cadets and therefore lower grade point
averages would be expected.  Thus, the Academy has not viewed any
further exploration of the situation as necessary.  However, our
regression analyses showed that race was correlated to some extent
with academic performance beyond the difference that could be
explained by differences in CEER scores
(see ch.  3). 

According to Academy officials, they collect and maintain cadet
performance data and survey results to identify trends and patterns
occurring over time.  However, they do not generally use measures
such as those we used (e.g., statistical tests, the four-fifths test,
and a regression analysis) to determine when differences in the data
may indicate significant disparities between various groups that need
to be addressed. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

Despite the Academy's extensive self-evaluation, it has not routinely
studied the effects or results of its adjudicatory systems (such as
the conduct and honor systems), which can result in the separation of
a cadet from the Academy.  Instead, the Academy has relied on
extensive review of each case in which a cadet has been found
deficient.  However, use of this approach can result in gender and
racial disparities in areas such as charge rates going unnoticed. 

The Academy has monitored the grades, honors, and achievements of
some groups of cadets for many years.  However, the Academy does not
routinely monitor each group that is protected by Department of
Defense Equal Opportunity guidelines.  The Academy also has not
routinely applied statistical analyses to the data to determine which
differences are significant.  In addition, the Academy does not have
a system to ensure that study results and recommendations are
implemented into action plans. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:6

As part of the Military Academy's efforts to ensure fair and equal
treatment of all cadets and to improve efforts to monitor gender and
racial disparities, we recommend that the Superintendent of the
Academy

  develop data systems that will permit the routine analysis of the
     honor, conduct, and academic board systems at the Academy for
     gender and race differences;

  routinely monitor and compare performance indicators for all groups
     designated in Department of Defense's Equal Opportunity Program
     and establish criteria for assessing when disparities warrant
     more in-depth attention and corrective action; and

  establish a system to effectively monitor and document the actions
     taken in response to the recommendations of oversight and review
     groups. 


DESCRIPTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE
METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

This appendix describes our questionnaire development process,
sampling approach, response rates, weighing of data, processing of
completed questionnaires, sampling error, and other methodological
issues.  This report is part of a broader review of the Department of
Defense's service academies.  That review focuses on academics,
military performance measurement, hazing, harassment, and the
operation of academy adjudicatory systems in addition to the
treatment of women and minorities. 


   QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

We developed questionnaire items to address the full scope of the
broader review.  We pretested the questionnaire with a diverse group
of cadets, staff, and faculty.  The cadets represented different
classes, genders, and races.  The questionnaire was also extensively
reviewed by (1) Military Academy officials, (2) the Defense Advisory
Committee on Women in the Services, and (3) our consultants familiar
with the academies. 


   SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

To ensure that an adequate number of female and minority cadets were
included, we used a stratified random sample design allowing us to
oversample those two groups.  We used the last digit of the social
security number to randomly select respondents from each strata.\1 We
selected one final digit for all cadets and an additional final digit
for women and minority males.  Our goal was to produce a sample of
about 10 percent of white males, 20 percent of females, and 20
percent of minority males.  We also surveyed all available
student-contact personnel on the Commandant's staff and about 25
percent of the faculty. 


--------------------
\1 The last four digits of social security numbers constitute a
random field based on the order in which individual social security
offices process the applications they receive.  Selecting one final
digit can be expected to yield a sample of about 10 percent. 


   QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES
   AND WEIGHTING OF DATA
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

We administered the questionnaires in March 1991.  We assured
respondents of anonymity, and we did not take attendance.  We
received completed questionnaires from 469 of the 546 Academy cadets
in our sample (a response of about 86 percent).  Since we oversampled
on the female and minority subgroups, we applied weights to the
responses in order to allow them to represent the total Academy
population.  We computed raw weights by dividing the number of
subgroup responses into the subgroup population. 


   SAMPLING ERROR
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

Since we surveyed samples rather than entire populations, the results
we obtained were subject to some degree of uncertainty, or "sampling
error." Sampling errors represent the expected difference between our
sample results and the results we would have obtained had we surveyed
the entire populations.  Sampling errors are smallest when the
percentage split responding to a particular question is highly
skewed, such as 5 percent responding "yes" and 95 percent responding
"no." Sampling errors are greatest when there is about a 50-50
percentage split in responses. 

On the basis of the number of completed questionnaires, we estimate
that our results can be generalized to the cadet population at the
95-percent confidence level, with a maximum sampling error of plus or
minus 4.4 percent. 

The sampling errors for various subgroups cited in this report appear
in table I.1.  The decimal figures in the table are the sampling
errors that correspond to various percentages of respondents
selecting a particular response alternative.  For example, if we
state that 10 percent of the cadets responded in a given way (i.e.,
there was a 10-90 percent response split), according to the table,
the sampling error is 2.9 percent.  This means that we can be
95-percent confident that the percentage of cadets responding that
way in the population is within 10 percent plus or minus 2.9 percent,
or between 7.1 percent and 12.9 percent. 



                                    Table I.1
                     
                       Sampling Errors for Various Academy
                                    Subgroups


                                05/  10/  15/  20/  25/  30/  35/  40/  45/  50/
Subgroup    Population  Sample   95   90   85   80   75   70   65   60   55   50
----------  ----------  ------  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---
All cadets       4,296     469  2.3  2.9  3.2  3.5  3.8  4.0  4.2  4.3  4.4  4.4
Men              3,842     393  2.5  3.2  3.7  3.9  4.2  4.4  4.6  4.7  4.8  4.8
Women              454      76  7.0  8.4  9.1  9.8  10.  10.  10.  10.  10.  11.
                                                      3    6    5    8    9    0
Whites           3,582     357  2.7  3.4  3.9  4.1  4.4  4.7  4.8  5.0  5.0  5.1
Minorities         714     112  5.5  6.5  7.4  7.9  8.3  8.3  8.6  8.8  8.9  9.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANALYSIS OF ACADEMY DATA
========================================================== Appendix II


   TYPE AND SOURCES OF DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

During our review, we analyzed the computerized records of over
10,800 cadets from the classes of 1988 through 1994.  We converted
these data into a different format for statistical analysis.  We did
not verify the computerized information we obtained from the Academy,
but we did review the reformatted information for accuracy and
reliability.  Data that were missing or in error were eliminated
before our analysis was conducted.  We then developed data files for
each semester and class.  We developed information on semester
academic grade point averages, physical education grades, military
performance indexes, leadership positions within the Corps,
attrition, and class standings. 

The Military Academy was generally able to provide computerized data
covering the classes of 1988 through 1994.  However, we generally
restricted our analysis to the fully completed classes of 1988
through 1992, the five classes for which we had all 4 years' worth of
data (for freshmen through senior years). 

Other kinds of information were available either on different data
bases or only from hard-copy records.  Consequently, we extracted
data from hard-copy records maintained by the appropriate Academy
body.  The following is a summary of the types of data and sources we
used: 

  The Office of Institutional Research provided us with statistics on
     the numbers of candidates for admission, qualified candidates,
     and admissions offered by gender and race for the classes of
     1988-95. 

  The Academic Board allowed us access to the hard-copy files it
     maintained on its decisions.  We extracted relevant information
     from all the students who appeared before the Academic Board for
     serious failures (nonstandard disposition cases) during academic
     years 1988-91. 

  The Commandant's office provided us with hard-copy files containing
     all honor offense cases charged during academic years 1988-91. 
     We extracted information on the type of offense, the date of the
     offense, the dates of hearings and decisions, the decisions, and
     the recommended punishment.  We identified the gender and race
     of cadets involved by matching their names and social security
     numbers with our computerized data base. 


   ASSESSMENT OF DISPARITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

The information we used to compare the various subgroups is
"population data"--that is, it includes every cadet enrolled in that
class.  Therefore, any observed differences between subgroups are
actual differences since there is no sampling error in population
measurements.  However, to avoid misinterpreting the importance of
differences or placing too much emphasis on small numerical
differences, we assessed how substantive any observed differences
were.  In effect, we treated the various populations, such as each of
the classes of 1988-92, as if they were subpopulations of a larger
population.\1

To assess whether any regularity existed with regard to the direction
of observed differences, we counted the number of times each subgroup
was lower or higher on each measure for each period examined. 

We used various tests to assess whether a given observed gender or
racial disparity was sufficiently large that we could rule out chance
as the cause. 


--------------------
\1 For a discussion of applying statistical significance tests to
population data, see R.E.  Henkel, Test of Significance(Beverly
Hills, California:  Sage Publications, 1976), pp.85-87; and M.J. 
Hagood, "The Notion of a Hypothetical Universe" in D.  E.  Morrison
and R.  E.  Henkel (eds.), The Significance Test Controversy:  A
Reader(Chicago:  Aldine Publishing Company, 1970). 


      THE "FOUR-FIFTHS" TEST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1

We adopted the "four-fifths" test as one measure of whether an
observed difference between two groups was significant.  This test is
similar to the rule of thumb established by the four federal agencies
responsible for equal employment opportunity enforcement (the
Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management) for
determining whether differences between subgroups in the selection
rates for hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions are
significant.\2

Under the four-fifths test, a selection rate for a subgroup that is
less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of the rate for the group with
the highest selection rate is considered a substantially different
rate.  We recognize that others have applied the four-fifths test
only to selection rates for actions involving positive consequences. 
However, we judgmentally chose to apply the four-fifths test to both
selection and nonselection indicators (such as academic grades).  We
also chose to transform the four-fifths formula to decisions
involving negative consequences, such as honor offense, attrition,
and academic failure rates.  We used "greater than 125 percent"
(five-fourths) as an indicator of a significantly higher rate for a
negative consequence.  That is, for a negative consequence (such as
an honor conviction), a rate of more than 125 percent of the rate for
the subgroup with the lower rate would be considered a significantly
different rate. 


--------------------
\2 See the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures(29
C.F.R.  section 1607).  We recognize that title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which protects individuals against employment
discrimination, does not apply to the uniformed members of the armed
services.  See Roper v.  Department of the Army, 832 F.2d 247 (2nd
Cir.  1987). 


      CHI-SQUARE TEST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2

For categorical data, such as whether a cadet was charged with an
honor offense or not, we used the chi-square test to assess whether
the difference between subgroup proportions was significant.  We used
the standard 0.05 level of significance, meaning that we accepted a
difference between subgroups as statistically significant if there
was a 5-percent or less chance of getting a difference that large if
there were no real difference between the subgroups. 


      T-TEST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.3

For continuous data, such as academic grade point averages, we used
the t-test to assess whether the subgroup means were substantially
different.  We first assessed the variances of each subgroup on each
measure to determine whether or not they were approximately equal. 
If the variances were equal, we used the pooled-variance formula for
the t-test.  If the variances were unequal, we used the
separate-variance formula for the t-test.\3 We used the standard 0.05
probability of error as a criterion for assessing statistical
significance. 


--------------------
\3 SPSS User's Guide, 3rd ed.  (Chicago:  SPSS, Inc., 1988). 


      EACH KIND OF TEST IS
      PROBLEMATIC
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.4

Both the chi-square and the t-tests are relatively sensitive to
differences under some circumstances, but they are relatively
insensitive under others.  The tests that we used tend to be reactive
to the number of cases.  For example, when few people are subject to
a particular kind of action and the resulting number of cases is
therefore small, relatively large subgroup differences may not reach
statistical significance.  As the number of cases increases, smaller
differences between subgroups become significant.  The four-fifths
test, since it focuses solely on the ratio of the two rates, is
unaffected by the number of cases and is therefore sensitive to
differences even when the number of cases is small.  However, when
the number of cases is large, resulting in more stable rates, the
four-fifths test may provide too much latitude before a difference
would be seen as significant. 

Since none of the tests was wholly satisfactory, we chose to apply
multiple tests.  If we found a difference to be significant under any
of the tests, we considered that difference to be significant. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III


   NATIONAL SECURITY AND
   INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Norman J.  Rabkin, Associate Director
William E.  Beusse, Assistant Director
Martha J.  Dey, Adviser


   NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Ruth L.  R.  Levy, Evaluator-in-Charge
Mari M.  Matsumoto, Site Senior
Harvey Freeling, Computer Specialist
Kristen M.  Harmeling, Evaluator
Ernest J.  Arciello, Operations Research Analyst


   DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Rudolfo G.  Payan, Regional Assignment Manager
