Table 5.

Simulation results: robustness checks.

		Robustness checks
	Main specification	Alternate 1	Alternate 2	Alternate 3
Weight placed on Proxyi (i.e., θ) to fully restore URM share	2.6	2.5	3.6	2.3
Predicted cumulative GPA in UT classes	2.929	2.930	2.932	2.932
Change relative to passive affirmative action ban	−0.023	−0.022	−0.019	−0.020
Change relative to traditional affirmative action	−0.015	−0.014	−0.011	−0.012
Efficiency of proxy-based affirmative action	99.2%	99.3%	99.3%	99.3%
Predicted likelihood of graduating from UT within six years	74.4%	74.4%	74.5%	74.5%
Change relative to passive affirmative action ban	−0.75%	−0.72%	−0.65%	−0.65%
Change relative to traditional affirmative action	−0.53%	−0.51%	−0.44%	−0.44%
Efficiency of proxy-based affirmative action	99.0%	99.0%	99.1%	99.1%
For every 10,000 enrollees, UT should expect this many fewer graduates	−75	−72	−65	−65

Notes: Alternate 1: likelihood of being a URM computed as the sum of the likelihoods of being black, Hispanic, and American Indian.

Alternate 2: likelihood of being a URM predicted only using variables that have same sign effect on likelihood of graduation.

Alternate 3: likelihood of being a URM predicted using squared and cubed continuous variables and full set of interactions.

“Efficiency” is defined as college performance under proxy-based AA/college performance under passive AA ban.