Table 3.

Simulation results: displacement of admission slots.

		Percent admitted under
				Proxy-based affirmative action with weight on predicted likelihood of being a URM
		Traditional affirmative action	Passive affirmative action ban	0.1	0.6	1.1	1.6	2.1	2.6
All applicants	Admitted under traditional affirmative action	100	97	97	98	98	97	96	95
	Admitted under passive affirmative action ban	97	100	100	99	97	96	95	94
	Not admitted under traditional affirmative action	0	7	7	5	5	6	8	10
	Not admitted under passive affirmative action ban	7	0	0	3	5	8	10	12
URM applicants	Admitted under traditional affirmative action	100	83	84	87	90	91	91	92
	Admitted under passive affirmative action ban	100	100	100	99	99	99	98	98
	Not admitted under traditional affirmative action	0	0	0	0	2	7	14	21
	Not admitted under passive affirmative action ban	29	0	1	8	15	21	27	33
Non-URM applicants	Admitted under traditional affirmative action	100	100	100	100	100	98	97	96
	Admitted under passive affirmative action ban	96	100	100	98	97	96	95	94
	Not admitted under traditional affirmative action	0	9	8	7	6	6	7	8
	Not admitted under passive affirmative action ban	0	0	0	1	2	3	4	6