United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Armed Services, U.S. Senate

September 1993 AIR FORCE

ACADEMY

Gender and Racial

Disparities

GAO/NSIAD-93-244

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-254084 

Letter Date Goes Here

The Honorable Sam Nunn

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to your request and that of the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Manpower

and Personnel, we reviewed the treatment of women and minorities at all three of the service

academies. This report deals with the Air Force Academy. Specifically, the report addresses 

(1) differences in performance indicators between men and women and between whites and

minorities, (2) cadets’ 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.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier,

we plan no further distribution of it until 15 days from the date of issue. At that time, we will

send copies to interested congressional committees, other interested Members of Congress, the

Secretaries of Defense and the Air Force, and the Superintendent of the Air Force 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 to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Frank C. Conahan

Assistant Comptroller General
Executive Summary

Purpose Concerned about how well the military 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 the issue. In April, GAO reported on

disparities at the Naval Academy, and GAO is currently preparing a report

on the Military Academy. This report deals only with the Air Force

Academy and addresses (1) differences in performance indicators between

men and women and between whites and minorities, (2) cadets’

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 performance

indicators.

Background Congress authorized the creation of the Air Force Academy in 1954, and as

the newest of the U.S. service academies, it has admitted minorities since

its creation. The first graduating class, the class of 1959, included one

Asian American but no blacks. At that time, the Academy did not maintain

records on other ethnic groups such as Hispanics and Native Americans.

The first graduating class to include blacks was the class of 1963, which

had three black graduates. Women were not allowed to attend the

Academy until 1976. In that year, the entering class included 157 women,

or about 10 percent of the class. Of the 1,406 cadets admitted to the

graduating class of 1993, 173 (about 12 percent) were women, and 272

(about 19 percent) were minorities.

Results in Brief Performance indicators for male and female cadets showed mixed

results—each group fared better in some comparisons and worse in

others. For example, women have not fared as well as men in their

admissions qualification rates and their physical fitness test scores.

Women also had higher attrition rates than men did, and proportionately

fewer women were in the top 15 percent of their graduating classes. Men,

however, received proportionately fewer admissions offers than women

and had lower academic admissions scores.

While minority cadets had comparable physical fitness scores, they had

lower academic admissions scores, academic grade point averages, and

military performance averages than white cadets. Minorities were also

subjected to proportionately more academic and honor reviews than

whites were. Minority cadets had higher attrition rates, and

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Executive Summary

proportionately fewer minority cadets were either in the top 50 percent or

the top 15 percent of their graduating classes.

A GAO survey of cadets revealed perceptions that women and minorities

generally received treatment equal to that of men and whites. However, a

higher percentage of men than women perceived that women were treated

better, and a slightly higher percentage of women than men perceived that

they were treated worse. Similarly, a higher percentage of whites than

minorities perceived that minorities were treated better, and a higher

percentage of minorities than whites perceived that they were treated

worse.

Over the past few years, the Academy has taken a number of steps that

should help women and minorities succeed at the Academy. However, it

does not have a consolidated data base to analyze changes in student

performance indicators. Neither has it established criteria for determining

when performance differences are significant. Finally, the Academy has

not documented specific actions it has taken or plans to take to implement

prior equal opportunity recommendations.

Principal Findings

Gender Differences in

Academy Student Data

Overall, GAO made gender comparisons across 12 indicators, covering

various areas of Academy performance. In 2 of the 12 indicators,

significance tests consistently showed that women did better: offer rates

and academic admissions scores. In 3 of the 12 indicators, significance

tests consistently showed that men did better: qualification rates, physical

fitness scores, and attrition rates. In four indicators, comparisons show

mixed results: academic grade point averages, cumulative military

performance averages, Academic Board review and separation rates, and

class standings.

While women’s overall grade point averages were lower than men’s,

women tended to receive lower grades than men in their freshman and

sophomore years but higher ones in their junior and senior years. For the

classes of 1980-92, about 40 percent of female cadets left before

graduating, as compared to 33 percent of male cadets who did so. While

the percentages of female and male cadets in the top halves of their

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Executive Summary

graduating classes were essentially equal, a smaller percentage of female

cadets were in the top 15 percent.

Racial Differences in

Academy Student Data

In 7 of the 12 indicators GAO used to measure performance, significance

tests consistently showed that whites did better: qualification rates,

academic admissions scores, academic grade point averages, cumulative

military performance grades, Academic Board review and separation rates,

attrition rates, and class standings. In only one of the indicators—offer

rates—did significance tests clearly show that minorities did better. In

three indicators, comparisons showed mixed results: physical fitness

scores, rates of conduct review, and honor charge and conviction rates.

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, 29 percent of minority cadets, versus

53 percent of whites, graduated in the top halves of their classes. Six

percent of minority cadets, versus 16 percent of white cadets, graduated in

the top 15 percent. Regression analysis results indicate that a correlation

between lower grades and minority students exists even after the

difference in success predictor scores is accounted for. Also, a

significantly higher proportion of minority cadets were subjected to

academic reviews than were white cadets, and a significantly higher

proportion of minority cadets were academically disenrolled from the

Academy.

Minority cadets fared worse than white cadets in the earlier stages of the

honor adjudicatory process but better at the Honor Sanctions Board stage

(during which cadets are recommended for disenrollment). Minorities

were more frequently accused of, investigated for, and found guilty of

honor offenses, but they were disenrolled less frequently than their white

counterparts. Minority and white cadets fared the same in the conduct

review process.

Perceptions of the

Treatment of Women and

Minorities

The majority of cadets responding to a GAO questionnaire perceived that in

general women and minorities received the same treatment as men and

whites by faculty members and by disciplinary boards. However, over

one-third of the men believed that women received better treatment by the

disciplinary, honor, and academic review boards and the faculty. Similarly,

between one-quarter and one-third of the whites believed that minorities

received better treatment in these categories, while about one-quarter of

minority respondents believed that minorities received less favorable

treatment.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Executive Summary

Academy Actions to

Address Issues That Affect

Women and Minorities

Over the past few years, the Academy has taken a number of steps to

address issues affecting women and minorities. For example, it requires

that all cadets complete courses in human relations and has created

several councils and committees to offer guidance and counseling to

students in the treatment of women and minorities. In 1992, the Academy’s

Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership administered to 3,900

of the Wing’s 4,400 cadets a survey of attitudes and behaviors toward

sexual harassment and racial discrimination. In February and March 1993,

the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute visited the Academy

and made recommendations to improve the human relations climate there.

Finally, on May 20, 1993, the Academy’s Ad Hoc Committee on Respect

and Dignity issued a report recommending major human relations

initiatives.

Nevertheless, the Academy has no consolidated data base with which to

systematically track cadets’ performance while at the Academy. Because it

lacks such a data base, the Academy and others have had difficulties

obtaining the information needed to determine changes in the extent of

any disparate treatment. The 1992 survey the Academy conducted to

measure cadets’ attitudes identified areas in which relations among

whites, minorities, and women could be improved. However, the Academy

has not determined whether disparities in cadet performance are

statistically significant. Nor has the Academy prepared a document

outlining actions to be taken in response to the survey. This lack makes

evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions difficult.

Recommendations GAO recommends that the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy take

actions to improve the monitoring and evaluation of gender and racial

disparities. Such actions should include (1) developing a comprehensive

data base of student performance data, (2) establishing criteria for

determining when student performance differences are significant, and

(3) preparing a consolidated program document to track

recommendations and corrective actions.

Agency Comments As requested, GAO did not obtain fully coordinated Department of Defense

comments on this report. However, GAO did discuss a draft of this report

with senior officials from the Academy and cognizant officials of the Air

Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They suggested a

number of technical clarifications, which have been incorporated in this

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Executive Summary

report, and indicated that the Academy was taking actions in line with

most of GAO’s recommendations.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

Representation of Women and Minorities at the Academy 10

The Academy’s Organizational Structure 11

Admission and Graduation Requirements 12

Cadet Life 13

Air Force Academy’s Review Systems 14

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 14

Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators

Reveal Gender

Disparities

17

Cadets’ Perceptions of the Treatment of Women 17

Performance Indicators for Male and Female Cadets Show Mixed

Results

18

Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators

Reveal Racial

Disparities

33

Cadets’ Perceptions of the Treatment of Minorities 33

Majority of Performance Indicators Showed Whites Did Better 34

Chapter 4 

Academy Is

Addressing Issues

Involving Women and

Minorities, but

Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’

Performance Are

Needed

48

Required Courses on Human Relations 48

Several Groups Have Been Established to Promote Equal

Opportunity

49

Academy’s Social Climate Survey 50

Recommendations of the Defense Equal Opportunity

Management Institute

51

Alleged Sexual Assault Prompts Academy to Undertake

Initiatives

51

Academy Has Prepared No Timetable for Responding to

Problems Revealed in Survey

52

Academy Lacks Consolidated Data Base for Tracking Disparities 53

Academy Does Not Analyze Disparities to Determine Statistical

Significance

53

Conclusions 53

Recommendations 54

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Contents

Appendixes Appendix I: The Air Force Academy’s Review Systems 56

Appendix II: Description of Questionnaire Methodology 58

Appendix III: Analysis of Academy Data 60

Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 64

Tables Table 2.1: Summary of Gender Comparisons 19

Table 3.1: Summary of Racial Comparisons 35

Table II.1: Sampling Errors for Various Academy Subgroups 59

Figures Figure 1.1: Percentage of Minority Groups in Student Body 11

Figure 2.1: Cadets’ Perceptions of the Treatment of Women by

Various Academy Groups

18

Figure 2.2: Qualification Rates for Men and Women 20

Figure 2.3: Rates at Which Male and Female Eligible Candidates

Received Offers

21

Figure 2.4: Average Female and Male Academic Admissions

Scores

22

Figure 2.5: Male and Female Cadets’ Grade Point Averages for the

Classes of 1988 Through 1992

23

Figure 2.6: Males’ and Females’ Average Physical Fitness Test

Scores

26

Figure 2.7: Males’ and Females’ Cumulative Military Performance

Averages for the Classes of 1988 Through 1992

27

Figure 2.8: Male and Female Attrition Rates 31

Figure 3.1: Cadets’ Perceptions of the Treatment of Minorities by

Various Academy Groups

34

Figure 3.2: Qualification Rates for Whites and Minorities 36

Figure 3.3: Rates at Which Eligible White and Minority

Candidates Received Offers

37

Figure 3.4: Average Academic Admissions Scores for Minorities

and Whites

38

Figure 3.5: Grade Point Averages of Minority and White Cadets

for the Classes of 1988 Through 1992

40

Figure 3.6: Average Physical Fitness Scores for Whites and

Minorities

42

Figure 3.7: Whites’ and Minorities’ Cumulative Military

Performance Averages for the Classes of 1988 Through 1992

43

Figure 3.8: Attrition Rates for Minorities and Whites 46

Figure I.1: The Air Force Academy’s Review Committees 56

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The U.S. Air Force Academy provides a 4-year educational and military

program that culminates in a bachelor’s degree. While attending the

Academy, cadets receive pay currently amounting to $543.90 a month. In

return for their education, cadets agree to serve a minimum of 5 years on

active duty after graduation.1

 Upon graduation, cadets are commissioned

as second lieutenants in the U.S. Air Force.

Cadet life at all military service academies is demanding and, in many

ways, different from life at “typical” U.S. universities. In addition to

completing the course work and maintaining at least a 2.0 cumulative

academic grade point average (on a 4-point scale), cadets must participate

in rigorous military training activities and compete in intramural or

intercollegiate sports. Little time remains for rest and relaxation.

Representation of

Women and Minorities

at the Academy

As the newest of the U.S. service academies, the Air Force Academy has

admitted minorities2

 since its creation by Congress in 1954. The first

graduating class, the class of 1959, included one Asian American but no

blacks. At that time, the Academy did not maintain records on other ethnic

groups such as Hispanics and Native Americans. The first graduating class

to include blacks was that of 1963, with three black graduates.

Women, on the other hand, were not allowed to attend the Academy until

1976. In that year, the entering class included 157 women, or about

10 percent of the class, and 192 minorities, or about 12 percent. The 1980

graduating class, the first to include women, included 97 women, or about

11 percent of the class, and 97 minorities, also about 11 percent.

Since then, the percentages of minority and women graduates of the

Academy have fluctuated year to year but have not changed significantly.

From 1980 through 1990, the percentages of women in the graduating

classes ranged from 7 to 13 percent, and the percentages of minorities

from 11 to 16 percent. Of the 1,406 cadets admitted to the graduating class

of 1993, 173 (about 12 percent) were women, and 272 (about 19 percent)

were minorities.

1

This obligation will increase to 6 years beginning with 1996 graduates.

2

A “minority” is defined as one whose racial or ethnic origin is American Indian or Alaskan native,

Asian or Pacific Islander, black, or Hispanic. These categories, according to the Office of Management

and Budget, are to be used in maintaining and reporting federal statistics.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Percentage of Minority

Groups in Student Body (as of June 4,

1993)

Source: Academy records.

The Academy’s

Organizational

Structure

The Superintendent is the commanding officer of the Air Force Academy

and of the military post. The Superintendent is assisted by a staff that

helps coordinate academic, military, and athletic training. The following

positions have been established by statute: (1) a Dean of the Faculty, who

is a permanent professor; (2) a Commandant of Cadets; (3) 21 permanent

professors; (4) a chaplain; and (5) a Director of Admissions. The Dean is

responsible for the academic programs; the permanent professors and the

Director of Admissions exercise command only in the academic

department. The Commandant oversees the cadets and supervises their

military and physical training and discipline.

The “Cadet Wing” (or the student body) is made up of 4 groups of 10

squadrons, each squadron consisting of about 110 cadets. Each group is

directed by an Air Force officer with the title “Air Officer Commanding.”

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

A chain of command of both Air Force and cadet officers oversees the

Cadet Wing. The Commandant of Cadets, a commissioned officer, directs

the Wing, and his or her staff guides it, provides military instruction, and

directs cadet aviation programs. Commissioned officers and cadets

interact regarding proposed changes to policies and regulations.

Upper-class cadets (seniors and juniors, who are referred to as “first-class”

and “second-class” cadets, respectively) fill leadership positions within the

Cadet Wing. They lead the Wing during the school year and manage and

instruct the summer programs and various aviation courses.

Admission and

Graduation

Requirements

To qualify for admission to the Academy, an applicant must meet several

requirements. He or she must (1) be at least 17 years old and no older than

21 on July 1 of the year entering the Academy; (2) be a U.S. citizen

(international students authorized admission are exempt from this

requirement); (3) be of high moral character; (4) meet leadership,

academic, physical, and medical standards; and (5) be unmarried, with no

dependents. In addition, to receive an appointment to the Academy, an

applicant must be nominated, usually by a Member of Congress. A Member

of Congress and the Vice President may each recommend no more than 

5 cadets for admission to the Air Force Academy at any one time, but they

may nominate up to 10 candidates for each vacancy. Other nomination

categories include (1) the children of deceased or disabled veterans or

career military personnel and (2) enlisted members of the regular Air

Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard.

Academic Admissions

Scores

The Academy uses a rating system to determine applicants’ eligibility for

admission. This system combines an applicant’s high school or college

academic performance, college entrance examination scores, athletic

performance, and public or community leadership positions into a

composite admissions score. The composite admissions score is made up

of three components:

• The academic component, 60 percent of the composite score, includes

high school or college academic performance, as well as scores achieved

on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the American College Testing.

• The extracurricular component, 20 percent of the total composite score,

includes athletic participation, leadership positions in public or

community affairs, and work experience.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

• The admissions panel component, 20 percent of the total composite score,

includes the results of the faculty and staff review, the candidate fitness

test, the Liaison Officer interview, and the writing sample review.

According to Academy officials, the academic component is a good

predictor of academic success at the Academy. Academy officials maintain

that cadets who enter the Academy with the highest academic admissions

scores are those who will most likely earn the highest grades at the

Academy, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender.

Graduation Requirements To graduate from the Academy, a cadet must demonstrate an aptitude for

commissioned service, leadership, and acceptable conduct. Specifically, a

cadet must maintain a cumulative academic grade point average of 2.0,

must maintain a cumulative military performance average of 2.0 (also on a

scale of 4.0), and must fulfill all physical education requirements.

Cadets’ success at the Academy affects their career choices. Those in the

top 15 percent of their classes are given preference for graduate school.

Also, the higher their class standing, the better their chance of receiving

the post-Academy assignment they desire. For example, slots for certain

flight programs are limited and very popular among top-ranking graduates.

Cadet Life A typical daily schedule for cadets begins with reveille at 6:30 a.m. and

concludes with taps at 11:00 p.m. In between, cadets typically attend three

to four 50-minute academic periods. The cadets also have to march to

breakfast and lunch (but not to dinner), and after classes, they participate

in mandatory athletic activities (either intercollegiate athletics or

intramural teams). Intercollegiate athletes usually practice or compete

every afternoon and frequently on weekends. Intramural teams meet two

afternoons a week after classes, leaving three afternoons for studying or

conducting personal business. In addition, cadets participate daily in

various military activities.

Because of their demanding academic schedules, many cadets take

additional academic instruction after classes or during other unscheduled

times. Cadets spend many evenings studying in their rooms or in the

library. Frequently, cadets are required to attend parades and inspections

on Saturday mornings, but they usually have Saturday afternoons and

Sundays free.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Each year, the new class enters in the summer and begins an intensive

5-week period of military training called “Basic Cadet Training.” In their

second year, cadets are required to take Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and

Escape training during the summer. Cadets also take a 1-week continental

U.S. field trip during which they visit two Air Force bases to acquaint them

with the missions of major air commands. They also participate in

parachuting or “soaring.”3

 In their third summer, cadets begin to train both

third-class (sophomore) and fourth-class (freshmen) cadets. Cadets may

serve as instructors in Basic Cadet Training; Survival, Evasion, Resistance,

and Escape training; parachuting; soaring; navigation; or other programs.

They also participate in Operation Air Force, a 3-week worldwide program

at an operational Air Force base, to observe and gain a better

understanding of the duties of officers and enlisted personnel.

Air Force Academy’s

Review Systems

The Academy’s various review and disciplinary functions are carried out

under the auspices of a legislatively established Academy Board (10 U.S.C.

9351). Composed of senior Academy officers, the Board reviews cadets

who are deficient in conduct; integrity; and physical, military, and

academic performance. The Board recommends whether deficient cadets

should be discharged or separated from the Academy. (See app. I for a

discussion of the Academy’s review systems.)

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the former

Chairman of its Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel asked us to

examine the treatment of women at the military academies. Subsequently,

former Congressman Albert G. Bustamante asked us to review the

treatment of minorities. This report responds to both requests. We have

previously reported on disparities at the Naval Academy4

 and are

preparing a report on the Military Academy.

The objectives of our review were to (1) assess whether significant

differences exist between men and women and between whites and

minorities on a variety of performance indicators, (2) identify cadets’

perceptions regarding the fairness of treatment of female and minority

students, and (3) determine what actions the Academy has taken to

enhance the success of women and minorities at the Academy.

3

In the Academy’s soaring program, cadets are taught to fly sailplanes and/or motorgliders at altitudes

in excess of 30,000 feet.

4

See also Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities (GAO/NSIAD-93-54, Apr. 30, 1993).

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

We performed our review at the Air Force Academy, in Colorado Springs,

Colorado, where we reviewed policies, regulations, and procedures and

interviewed Academy officials and faculty members. We also administered

three questionnaires: one to cadets, one to faculty members, and one to

the Commandant’s staff and other officers. In the spring of 1991, we

administered questionnaires to randomly selected samples of 493 cadets,

representing all four classes then at the Academy, and 157 faculty

members. We also administered a questionnaire to 52 members of the

Commandant’s staff (all Air Officers Commanding and those officers

charged with formulating policy for the Cadet Wing), 7 chaplains, and

6 counselors. The questionnaires 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 II.

The performance indicator data we used to make gender and racial group

comparisons covered a spectrum of student experiences, from application

through graduation. The available data varied in the time periods covered.

Some data were available by class year, some by academic year, and some

from secondary sources.

We discussed with Academy officials the indicators that would best

capture cadet performance. On the basis of these discussions, we selected

the following indicators.

• Admissions data: (1) the percentage of eligible candidates who received

offers from the Academy and (2) the academic admissions scores of those

entering the Academy.

• Performance data: (1) the academic cumulative grade point average,

which is the numeric average of academic course grades achieved by a

cadet; (2) the military performance average, which is the numeric average

of grades achieved by a cadet through semester evaluations of military

performance and of aptitude for commissioned service; (3) representation

in cadet leadership positions, ranging from sergeant to colonel; and

(4) physical fitness scores on a test composed of five events: pull-ups, the

standing long jump, sit-ups, push-ups, and the 600-yard run.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 1 

Introduction

• Adjudicatory system data: the rate at which cadets appeared before the

Academy’s honor, academic, and conduct adjudicatory systems5

 and the

outcomes.

• Graduation data: (1) the attrition rate (the rate at which cadets separate

from the Academy) and reasons for attrition; (2) the graduation rate, or the

rate at which cadets satisfactorily complete the academic, aptitude,

conduct, athletic, and military training requirements and receive a degree;

and (3) class standing, or the ranking of cadets at graduation, based on the

weighted combination of 70-percent academic grade point average and

30-percent military performance average.

We used statistical significance tests and a rule of thumb based on

comparisons of subgroup percentages (called the “four-fifths test”) to

assess whether any observed gender or racial disparities were significant.

A detailed description of the kinds of performance indicators used, the

source of that data, and the types of tests used to assess differences

appears in appendix III.

To assess whether any regularity existed with regard to the direction of

observed differences, we identified the number of times each subgroup

was lower or higher on each measure for each period we examined. We

then considered the likelihood of getting that observed distribution of

lows and highs if there were no systematic differences between the

subgroups.

As requested, we did not obtain fully coordinated Department of Defense

comments on this report. However, we did discuss a draft of this report

with senior officials from the Academy and cognizant officials of the Air

Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They suggested a

number of technical clarifications, which have been incorporated in this

report, and indicated that the Academy was taking actions in line with

most of our recommendations.

We performed our review from January 1991 to June 1993 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

5

The Academy has three other adjudicatory systems: the Military Review Committee, the Summer

Training Review Committee, and the Physical Education Review Committee. However, there were too

few cases handled by the Military Review Committee and the Physical Education Review Committee

to adequately analyze case data. Additionally, we did not analyze data for the Summer Training Review

Committee.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Male and female cadets’ performance was mixed across the full set of

indicators. On average, women have not fared as well as men in their

admissions qualification rates and their physical fitness test scores. In

addition, women had higher attrition rates than men did, and

proportionately fewer women were in the top 15 percent of their

graduating classes. On the other hand, men received proportionately fewer

admissions offers than women and had lower academic admissions scores.

Nearly all the women and most of the men we surveyed at the Academy

perceived that women were treated the same as men.

Cadets’ Perceptions of

the Treatment of

Women

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, air officers commanding, disciplinary boards, honor

boards, and academic boards.

Between 82 and 89 percent of female cadets and 49 and 65 percent of male

cadets believed that women were treated the same as men by these

various groups. Less than 10 percent of female cadets and less than

5 percent of male cadets believed that women were treated worse than

men by any of these groups. Between 34 and 48 percent of male

respondents believed that female cadets received preferential treatment,

but only 10 percent of the female respondents shared that perception (see

fig. 2.1).

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

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

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaire.

Performance

Indicators for Male

and Female Cadets

Show Mixed Results

Overall, as summarized in table 2.1, we made gender comparisons across

12 indicators, covering various areas of Academy performance. In 2 of the

12 indicators, significance tests consistently showed that women did

better: offer rates and academic admissions scores. In 3 of the 12

indicators, significance tests consistently showed that men did better:

qualification rates, physical fitness scores, and attrition rates. In four

indicators, comparisons show mixed results: academic grade point

averages, cumulative military performance averages, Academic Board

review and separation rates, and class standings. A discussion of these

indicators and our analysis follow.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Table 2.1: Summary of Gender Comparisons

Performance indicator Data available

Number of

comparisons

Comparisons

that showed

that women

did better

Comparisons

that showed

that men did

better

Comparisons that

showed men and

women equal

Qualification rates (see fig. 2.2) Classes of 1991-95 5 0 (0) 5 (5a) 0

Offer rates (see fig. 2.3) Classes of 1991-95 5 5 (5a) 0 (0) 0

Academic admissions scores (see 

fig. 2.4)

Classes of 1988-94 7 7 (4b) 0 (0) 0

Academic grade point averages by

semester (see fig. 2.5)

Classes of 1988-92 40 17 (7b) 21 (11b) 2

Physical fitness scores (see fig. 2.6) Classes of 1988-92 5 0 (0) 5 (4b) 0

Cumulative military performance

averages by semester (see fig. 2.7)

Classes of 1988-92 40 22 (0b) 15 (3b) 3

Cadet leadership positions (see text) Classes of 1988-92 5 2c 3c 0

Rates of conduct review (see text) Academic years

1987-89

1 0 (0a) 0 (0a) 1

Honor charge and conviction rates 

(see text)

Academic years

1987-89

4 4 (0a) 0 (0) 0

Academic Board review and separation

rates (see text)

Academic years

1987-89

4 1 (1a) 3 (1a) 0

Attrition rates (see fig. 2.8) Classes of 1980-92 13 2 (0a) 11 (7a) 0

Class standings (see text) Classes of 1988-92 10 4 (0a) 6 (2a) 0

Note: ( ) indicates the number of significant differences using one or both types of tests.

aWe used both a statistical significance and the 4/5s test for these comparisons.

bWe used a statistical significance test for these comparisons.

cWe were unable to test significance due to data limitations.

Qualification Rates and

Admissions Offers

Qualification Rates Were

Higher for Men

Admission standards, with the exception of some allowances for physical

differences, are the same for women and men. For the classes of 1991 to

1995, male applicants were eligible at a higher rate than were female

applicants. Female applicants were eligible about 18 percent of the time,

while male applicants were eligible about 28 percent of the time (five

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

gender comparisons, one for each of five classes).1 The higher rate for men

was significant for all the classes, as shown in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Qualification Rates for Men

and Women

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Women Received

Admissions Offers at

Higher Rates

Academy data indicate that for the classes of 1991 to 1995, 66 percent of

the eligible female applicants received offers of admission from the

Academy, while only 52 percent of the eligible male applicants did (five

gender comparisons, one for each of five classes). The higher rate for

women was significant for all the classes, as shown in figure 2.3.

1

For presentation purposes, we do not always illustrate each comparison that we made because the

pattern across semesters or class years was often similar. When we made comparisons for multiple

years or semesters, we parenthetically note the numbers of comparisons we made.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Figure 2.3: Rates at Which Male and

Female Eligible Candidates Received

Offers

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Academic Admissions

Scores

Our review of the classes of 1988 through 1994 showed that the average

academic admissions scores of female cadets were consistently higher

than those of male cadets (see fig. 2.4). This analysis involved seven

comparisons, one for each of seven classes. The scholastic prediction

system used in the Academy’s admissions process is aimed at identifying

applicants most likely to perform well there. The minimum composite

admissions score for entrance is 2700. This score is calculated on the basis

of academic performance (60 percent); extracurricular activities

(20 percent); and faculty and staff review, a fitness test, a Liaison Officer

interview, and a writing sample review (20 percent). Since women tended

to have higher admissions scores, we would expect that for these classes,

on average, women would be more successful at the Academy than men.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Figure 2.4: Average Female and Male

Academic Admissions Scores

aDifference was significant using one or more tests.

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Military and Academic

Performance and Physical

Fitness

In general, we found the following:

• Over cadets’ entire 4-year period at the Academy, women’s grade point

averages were slightly lower than men’s. However, while female cadets

generally received lower academic grade point averages than male cadets

did during their early years, the opposite pattern generally existed in their

junior and senior years.

• Women had lower physical fitness test scores than men did.

• In military performance, female cadets received grades generally

comparable to those of male cadets.

• Female representation in cadet military leadership positions reflected their

class representation.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Academic Grades In the classes of 1988 through 1992, female cadets generally received lower

cumulative academic grade point averages than male cadets during their

freshman and sophomore years at the Academy. This analysis involved

comparisons for 8 semesters for 5 classes, totaling 40 comparisons. The

semester grades for the five classes have been combined in figure 2.5 for

illustrative purposes. As shown in the figure, women got better grades in

their junior and senior years.

Figure 2.5: Male and Female Cadets’

Grade Point Averages for the Classes

of 1988 Through 1992

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

To assess whether the observed differences between the academic

performance of male and female cadets were due to differences in

academic potential that existed at the time they entered the Academy, we

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

performed a series of regression analyses.2 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 composite scores3

 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 in 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 for each of

the 5 classes) where the independent effect of gender could be assessed.

Overall, the Academy’s entrance predictor composite scores were able to

account for a relatively low proportion (23 percent to 35 percent) of the

total variation in semester grade point averages. After controlling for

differences in entrance predictor composite scores, gender still explained

a small (0.2 percent to 2.2 percent) but statistically significant (at the

95-percent level of confidence) proportion of the variance in grade point

averages in 34 of the 40 regression analyses. All 40 regression coefficients

were negative and ranged from –0.03 to –0.22. The average regression

coefficient for gender across the 40 regressions was about –0.13, meaning

that the grade point average of a female cadet averaged 0.13 lower than

than of a male cadet of the same race with a comparable entrance

predictor composite score. Thus, gender was correlated with academic

performance beyond the difference that could be explained by differences

in entrance predictor composite scores.

Physical Fitness Grades Physical education standards at the Academy were derived on the basis of

the historical achievement of separate gender groups over time, as they

are intended to compensate for the physiological differences between men

and women. For example, the minimum standard for pull-ups for male

cadets is seven, while the standard for female cadets is one; these

standards recognize males’ greater upper body strength. The minimum

standard for sit-ups for male cadets is 58, while the standard for female

cadets is 60; these standards take into account females’ greater abdominal

strength. Males must run 600 yards in 2:03 minutes; women in 2:23

minutes. Males must complete a long jump of 7 feet; women must jump 

2

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.

3

We used the composite 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.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

5 feet, 9 inches. Narrative responses to our questionnaire revealed that

some male cadets perceived the physical fitness test standards as favoring

females.

Despite this perception of favoritism, the average physical education

grades for the women in the classes of 1988 through 1992 were

consistently lower than those of their male counterparts. (See fig. 2.6.) To

pass the physical fitness test, which is composed of five athletic events, a

cadet must accumulate at least 250 points and meet the minimum

standards established for each of the five athletic events. Meeting the

minimum standards alone results in a score of only 139 points, so a cadet

must surpass the minimum standards in some events to attain a passing

score. A cadets who fails the fitness test is reviewed by the Physical

Education Review Committee, placed on athletic probation, and assigned

to a physical reconditioning program.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Figure 2.6: Males’ and Females’

Average Physical Fitness Test Scores

aDifference was significant using one or more tests.

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Women’s Military

Performance Was

Comparable to Men’s

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, female cadets’ military performance

averages were comparable to those of male cadets (gender comparisons

for 8 semesters for 5 classes, totaling 40). Female and male cadets’

averages varied slightly with each class’s progression through the

Academy. Females’ averages were usually slightly lower than those of

male cadets during their freshman and sophomore years but slightly

exceeded them during their junior and senior years (see fig. 2.7).

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Figure 2.7: Males’ and Females’

Cumulative Military Performance

Averages for the Classes of 1988

Through 1992

aDifference was significant using one or more tests.

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Women Were

Proportionately

Represented in Leadership

Positions

Cadets assume leadership positions beginning in their junior year. For

wing-level or group-level positions, cadets are interviewed by a board of

officers and senior noncommissioned officers prior to selection. Record

reviews are conducted to ensure credibility, and potential capabilities

must have been demonstrated prior to the interview. For squadron-level

positions, cadet squadron commanders are selected by their Air Officers

Commanding. The cadet squadron commander then makes the selections

for the top three positions and reviews the selections for the remaining

squadron positions. All squadron positions are subject to approval by the

Air Officer Commanding. According to Academy officials, cadets generally

hold only one leadership position (wing, group, or squadron level) but in

some cases can hold more than one.

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, female cadets were represented in

cadet leadership positions in proportion to their representation in their

senior class. (We selected senior class leadership representation for

comparison because, according to Academy officials, seniors hold the key

leadership positions.) The 5-year average for female representation in

cadet leadership positions (lieutenant and above) was 12 percent, while

female representation in their classes was also 12 percent. This analysis

involved five comparisons, one for each of the 5 years for which data were

available.

Conduct, Honor, and

Academic Review Systems

Gender-based differences also existed in the disposition of cases reviewed

by two of three adjudicatory systems (conduct, honor, and academic).4

 In

terms of the numbers of cases processed by the systems and the case

outcomes, female cadets generally fared about the same as male cadets

did in the conduct system, better in the honor system, and worse in the

academic review system.

Men and Women Reviewed for

Conduct at Equal Rates

For academic years 1987-89, female and male cadets fared about the same

in the conduct review process. During this period, the Commandant’s

Disciplinary Board reviewed 146 cases. The rate of review (that is, the

number of cases as a percentage of the female or male population) was

about 1.1 percent for both men and women.

Women Accused and Convicted

of Honor Offenses at Lower

Rates Than Men

Overall, female cadets fared better than male cadets did throughout the

honor system. The differences in review outcome rates, however, were not

significant in any of the comparisons. For academic years 1987-89, the

4

Between the fall of 1987 and the spring of 1990, both the Military Review Committee and the Physical

Education Review Committee reviewed too few cases to allow for analyses of any gender-based

differences.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

honor system reviewed 812 cases in which cadets had been accused of

honor code offenses. Of these cases, 94 involved female cadets, and 718

involved male cadets.

Female cadets were accused of honor offenses at a slightly lower rate than

were male cadets: 5.3 percent versus 6 percent.5

 Female cadets also fared

better than male cadets in the Honor Investigative Panel process. The

Panel forwarded to the Wing Honor Board about 45 percent of the female

cadet cases it reviewed, compared to about 52 percent of the male cadet

cases.

In the cases reviewed by the Wing Honor Board, female cadets again fared

better than male cadets. The Wing Honor Board found cadets in violation

of the Honor Code in 40 percent of the female cases, versus about

43 percent of the male cases. Similarly, female cadets fared better than

male cadets in the percentage of cases forwarded to the Honor Sanctions

Board. This Board recommended disenrollment in about 27 percent of

cases involving female cadets, versus about 30 percent of cases involving

male cadets.

Women Generally Fared Worse

in Academic Review System

Female cadets fared worse than male cadets did in the earlier two stages

of the academic review process but fared better at the Academy Board

stage. Our review encompassed academic years 1987-89.6

 During that time

period, the academic review system reviewed 904 cases in which cadets’

academic performance was below Academy standards. Of these cases, 159

involved female cadets (about 18 percent), and 745 involved male cadets

(about 82 percent).

The Academic Review Committee reviewed proportionately more female

cadet cases than male cadet cases: about 6 percent versus about 4 percent.7

 The female cadets’ significantly higher review ratio may be related to their

lower academic grade point averages. Again, according to Academy

officials, the higher review rate for female cadets may be partly explained

by the greater percentage of female cadets who were involved in

time-consuming extracurricular activities such as varsity athletics. Female

cadets also fared slightly worse than male cadets in terms of the numbers

5

The rate is defined as the number of cadets accused of honor violations as a percentage of the cadet

subgroup (for example, female or male) population for the time period studied.

6

Academic Review Committee data for the classes of 1988 and 1989 were unavailable; the Academy

retains such data for only 1 year following a class’s graduation.

7

The rate is defined as the number of cadet cases reviewed by the Committee as a percentage of the

cadet subgroup (for example, female or male) population for the time period studied.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

of cases forwarded by the Academic Review Committee to the Academy

Board: 34 percent versus about 30 percent. While women’s rate was

higher, this difference was not significant.

While female cadets’ cases were reviewed at higher rates than those of

their male counterparts, women fared better at the Academy Board review

stage. The Board recommended disenrollment in about 43 percent of the

cases involving female cadets, compared to about 56 percent of the cases

involving male cadets. This percentage represents a significantly lower

rate for women. Despite this lower rate, however, less than 1 percent of

male or female cadets were disenrolled for academic reasons (0.7 percent

of men and 0.9 percent of women).

Women Had Higher

Attrition Rates

For the classes of 1980 through 1992, proportionately more female cadets

than male cadets left the Academy before graduating. For all classes,

averaged together, about 40 percent of the female cadets left before

graduating, compared to about 33 percent of the male cadets. For 7 of the

13 classes, the differences in attrition rates were significant (see. fig. 2.8).

This analysis involved 1 gender comparison for each of the 13 classes,

totaling 13 comparisons.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

Figure 2.8: Male and Female Attrition Rates

aDifference was significant using one or more tests.

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

While the number of both female and male cadets who leave the Academy

declined significantly over their 4-year period at the Academy, women

generally left the Academy slightly later than men did. For example, for the

classes of 1988 through 1992, 54 percent of all women who left the

Academy did so in their freshman year, compared with 64 percent of the

men. During their sophomore year, 28 percent of the female attrition took

place, compared with 20 percent of the male attrition.

Fewer Women Graduated

in the Top 15 Percent of

Their Classes

In the classes of 1988-92, the percentages of female and male cadets in the

top halves of their graduating classes were essentially equal (49.9 percent

of males and 50.9 percent of females). However, in four of the five

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 2 

Academy Indicators Reveal Gender

Disparities

graduating classes, a smaller percentage of female cadets than male cadets

graduated in the top 15 percent of their classes. For the classes of 1988

and 1990, these percentages were significantly smaller. This analysis

involved two gender comparisons for each of the classes, totaling 

10 comparisons.

Class standings are important because they determine selection

preference for flight school and because graduates in the top 15 percent of

each class are given preference for future graduate education.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

On average, minorities had comparable physical fitness scores but lower

academic admissions scores, academic grade point averages, and military

performance averages. Minorities were also subjected to proportionately

more academic and honor reviews than whites were. Minority cadets had

higher attrition rates, and proportionately fewer minority cadets were

either in the top 50 percent or the top 15 percent of their graduating

classes. The differences in these indicators were often significant. The

majority of cadets who responded to our questionnaire perceived that

minorities were treated the same as whites.

Cadets’ Perceptions of

the Treatment of

Minorities

In our questionnaire, we asked respondents to indicate whether they

believed minorities were treated better than, the same as, or worse than

whites by faculty, air officers commanding, disciplinary boards, honor

boards, and academic boards. The majority of both white and minority

cadets believed that minorities were treated the same as whites at the

Academy. However, white cadets were more likely than minorities to

perceive minority cadets as receiving preferential treatment. In addition,

minorities were more likely than whites to perceive minority cadets as

receiving less favorable treatment (see fig. 3.1).

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

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

Source: Responses to GAO questionnaire.

Majority of

Performance

Indicators Showed

Whites Did Better

Overall, as summarized in table 3.1, we made racial comparisons across 

12 indicators, covering various areas of Academy performance. In 7 of the 

12 indicators, significance tests consistently showed that whites did better:

qualification rates, academic admissions scores, academic grade point

averages, cumulative military performance grades, Academic Board

review and separation rates, attrition rates, and class standings. In only

one of the indicators—offer rates—did significance tests clearly show that

minorities did better. In three indicators, comparisons showed mixed

results: physical fitness scores, rates of conduct review, and honor charge

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

and conviction rates. A discussion of these indicators and our analysis

follow.

Table 3.1: Summary of Racial Comparisons

Performance indicator Data available

Number of

comparisons

Comparisons

that showed

that minorities

did better

Comparisons

that showed

that whites did

better

Comparisons that

showed

minorities and

whites equal

Qualification rates (see fig. 3.2) Classes of 1991-95 5 0 (0) 5 (5a) 0

Offer rates (see fig. 3.3) Classes of 1991-95 5 5 (5a) 0 (0) 0

Academic admissions scores (see 

fig. 3.4)

Classes of 1988-94 7 0 (0) 7 (7b) 0

Academic grade point averages, by

semester (see fig. 3.5)

Classes of 1988-92 40 0 (0) 40 (40b) 0

Physical fitness scores (see fig. 3.6) Classes of 1988-92 5 3 (1b) 2 (0b) 0

Cumulative military performance

grades, by semester (see fig. 3.7)

Classes of 1988-92 40 1 (0b) 39 (18b) 0

Cadet leadership positions (see text) Classes of 1988-92 5 0 0 5

Rates of conduct review (see text) Academic years

1987-89

1 1 (0a) 0 (0) 0

Honor charge and conviction rates (see

text)

Academic years

1987-89

4 1 (1a) 3 (2a) 0

Academic Board review and separation

rates (see text)

Academic years

1987-89

4 1 (0a) 3 (3a) 0

Attrition rates (see fig. 3.8) Classes of 1980-92 13 1 (0a) 12 (4a) 0

Class standings (see text) Classes of 1988-91 10 0 (0) 10 (10a) 0

Note: ( ) indicates the number of significant differences using one or both types of tests.

aWe used both a statistical significance and the 4/5s test for these comparisons.

bWe used a statistical significance test for these comparisons.

Qualification and Offer

Rates

Qualification Rates Were

Higher for Whites

Admissions standards are the same for minorities and whites. For the

classes of 1991 through 1995, a lower percentage of the minorities who

applied to the Academy were deemed eligible. Specifically, during these

years, about 28 percent of all white applicants, but only about 18 percent

of minority applicants were determined to be qualified (five comparisons,

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

one for each class).1 The higher rate for whites was significant for all the

classes, as shown in figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Qualification Rates for

Whites and Minorities

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Offer Rates Were Higher

for Minorities

Academy data indicate that for the classes of 1991 through 1995, 

76 percent of the eligible minority applicants received offers from the Air

Force Academy but only 51 percent of the eligible white applicants did so

1

For presentation purposes, we do not always illustrate each comparison that we made because the

pattern across semesters or class years was often similar. When we made comparisons for multiple

years or semesters, we parenthetically note the numbers of comparisons we made.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

(five comparisons, one for each of five classes). The higher rate for

minorities was significant for all the classes, as shown in figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Rates at Which Eligible

White and Minority Candidates

Received Offers

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Minorities Had Lower

Academic Admissions

Scores

Our review of the classes of 1988 through 1994 showed that the average

academic admissions scores of qualified minority cadets were consistently

lower than those of white cadets (see fig. 3.4). This analysis involved seven

comparisons, one for each of seven classes.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Figure 3.4: Average Academic

Admissions Scores for Minorities and

Whites

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Minorities Had Lower

Academic and Military

Performance Grades

Consistent with Academy success predictors, the academic performance

grades of minorities were below those of whites. Minorities’ military

performance grades were also below those of whites. However, minority

cadets received higher physical fitness scores in three of the five classes

we reviewed. Also, minority representation in cadet military leadership

positions was proportionate to their representation in their classes.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Minorities’ Academic

Grades Were Lower Than

Those of Whites

Minority cadets in the classes of 1988 through 1992 consistently received

lower grade point averages than white cadets did. This is consistent with

Academy officials’ view of the predictability of academic admissions

scores. Specifically, cadets who enter the Academy with lower academic

admissions scores (as was the case with minority cadets) would not be

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 eight semesters for five classes, totaling 

40 comparisons. The semester grades for the five classes have been

combined in figure 3.5.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Figure 3.5: Grade Point Averages of

Minority and White Cadets for the

Classes of 1988 Through 1992

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

To assess whether the observed differences between the academic

performance of white and minority cadets were due to differences in

academic potential that existed at the time they entered the Academy, we

performed a series of regression analyses.2

 For the classes of 1988, 1989,

1990, 1991, and 1992, we ran regression analyses on the cadets’ cumulative

2

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.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

grade point averages at the end of each of their eight semesters. Entrance

predictor composite scores3

 were entered into the regression equation as

the first step, with gender entered as a second step, and race4

 entered as a

third step. All three variables were entered in 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 for each of

the 5 classes) where the independent effect of race could be assessed.

Overall, the Academy’s entrance predictor composite scores were able to

account for a relatively low proportion (23 percent to 35 percent) of the

total variation in semester grade point averages. After controlling for

differences in entrance predictor scores, race explained a small

(0.2 percent to 2.0 percent) but statistically significant (at the 95-percent

level of confidence) proportion of the variance in grade point averages in

all 40 regression analyses. All 40 regression coefficients were negative and

ranged from –0.08 to –0.19. The average regression coefficient for race

across the 40 regressions was about –0.14, meaning that the grade point

average of a minority cadet averaged 0.14 lower than that of a white cadet

of the same gender with a comparable entrance predictor composite

score. Thus, race was correlated with academic performance beyond the

difference that could be explained by differences in entrance predictor

composite scores.

Minorities Had Higher

Physical Fitness Scores in

Three of Five Classes

For the graduates of the classes of 1988 through 1992, minorities had

better physical fitness test scores than whites in three of the five classes

(see fig. 3.6). As stated in chapter 2, all cadets are required to take and

pass (with at least 250 points) the physical fitness test, which is composed

of five athletic events.

3

We used the composite 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.

4

Race was coded into two groups: minorities (including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native

Americans) and whites.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Figure 3.6: Average Physical Fitness

Scores for Whites and Minorities

aDifference was significant using one or more tests.

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Minorities Had Lower

Military Performance

Grades

In reviewing 40 semesters of military performance data for the classes of

1988 through 1992, we found that the cumulative military performance

averages of minority cadets were generally lower than those of white

cadets (comparisons for 8 semesters for 5 classes, totaling 40). An

Academy official stated that the distribution of military performance

grades should be even for all cadet subgroups. Accordingly, minority

cadets should fare as well as white cadets in this area. The data, however,

demonstrated otherwise (see fig. 3.7).

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Figure 3.7: Whites’ and Minorities’

Cumulative Military Performance

Averages for the Classes of 1988

Through 1992

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

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Minorities Were

Proportionately

Represented in Leadership

Positions

Minority cadets in the classes of 1988 through 1992 were represented in

cadet leadership positions in proportion to their representation in their

senior classes. For example, the 5-year average for minority representation

in cadet leadership positions (lieutenant and above) was 13 percent, while

minority representation in the class as a whole was also 13 percent. This

analysis involved five comparisons, one for each of the 5 years for which

data was available.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Conduct, Honor, and

Academic Review Systems

Minority status-based differences did exist in the disposition of cases

reviewed by two of three adjudicatory systems that we reviewed (conduct,

honor, and academic). Minority cadets fared proportionately worse overall

than did white cadets in both the honor and academic review processes

and about the same in the conduct system.

Whites and Minorities

Reviewed for Conduct at

Equal Rates

For academic years 1987-89, minority and white cadets fared about the

same in the conduct review process. The rate of review by the

Commandant’s Disciplinary Board (that is, the number of cases as a

percentage of the minority or white population) was 1.06 percent for

whites and 1.04 percent for minorities. This analysis involved one

comparison for the classes of 1988 through 1990.

Minorities Were Accused

and Convicted of Honor

Offenses at a Higher Rate

Than Whites

Minority cadets fared worse in the earlier stages of the honor adjudicatory

process but better at the Honor Sanctions Board stage than white cadets

did. For academic years 1987-89, the honor system reviewed 812 cases in

which cadets had been accused of honor code offenses. Of these cases,

157 involved minority cadets, and 655 involved white cadets.

Minority cadets were accused of honor offenses at a higher rate than were

white cadets: almost 8 percent versus about 6 percent.5

 Minority cadets

also fared relatively worse than white cadets did in the Honor Investigative

Panel process. The Panel forwarded to the Wing Honor Board about

62 percent of the minority cadet cases it reviewed, compared to about

49 percent of the white cadet cases. Differences in the rate of accusation

and in the percentage of cases forwarded were both significant.

In the cases reviewed by the Wing Honor Board, minority cadets again

fared worse than did white cadets, though this difference was not

significant. The Board found cadets to be in violation of the honor code in

about 48 percent of the minority cases and about 42 percent of the white

cases.

At the Honor Sanctions Board stage, minority cadets fared better than

white cadets. After reviewing cases forwarded to it, the Honor Sanctions

Board recommended disenrollment in about 23 percent of the cases

involving minority cadets, compared with about 31 percent of the cases

involving white cadets. This difference was significant.

5

The rate is defined as the number of cadets accused of honor violations as a percentage of the cadet

subgroup (for example, minority or white) population for the time period studied.

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Minorities Generally Fared

Worse in the Academic

Review System

As they did in the honor review system, minority cadets fared worse than

white cadets did in the early stages of the academic review process but

fared better at the Academy Board stage. Our review included academic

years 1987-89.6

 During that time period, the academic review system

reviewed 904 cases in which cadets’ academic performance was below

Academy standards. Of these cases, 311 involved minority cadets, and 

593 involved white cadets.

The Academic Review Committee reviewed 10 percent of minority cadet

cases, compared with 3 percent of white cadet cases.7

 According to

Academy officials, cadets who enter the Academy with lower academic

admissions scores (as was the case with more minority cadets) are not

expected to fare as well academically as those who enter with higher

scores and are expected to be overrepresented in the Academic Review

Committee’s caseload.

Minority cadets also fared worse than white cadets in terms of the

numbers of cases forwarded by the Academic Review Committee to the

Academy Board: about 37 percent compared with about 28 percent. This

difference was also significant.

While minority cadets’ cases were reviewed at higher rates than those of

their white counterparts, minority cadets fared better than white cadets at

the Academy Board review stage. The Academy Board recommended

disenrollment in about 49 percent of the cases involving minority cadets,

compared to about 57 percent of those involving white cadets. This

difference was not significant, however.

Despite the Academy Board’s lower rate of recommending minorities for

disenrollment, a significantly higher percentage of minority cadets were

academically disenrolled: 1.78 percent of minorities as compared to

0.53 percent of whites. This percentage was higher for minorities because

the greater proportion of minority cadets academically reviewed was not

offset by the smaller proportion of minority cadets recommended for

disenrollment by the Academy Board.

6

Academic Review Committee data for the classes of 1988 and 1989 were unavailable; the Academy

retains such data for only 1 year following a class’s graduation.

7

The rate is defined as the number of cadet cases reviewed by the Committee as a percentage of the

cadet subgroup (for example, minority or white) population for the time period studied.

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

Attrition Rates For the classes of 1980 through 1992, proportionately more minority

cadets than white cadets left the Academy before graduating. For these 

13 classes, about 38 percent of the minority cadets left before graduating,

compared to about 34 percent of the white cadets (see fig. 3.8). 

This analysis involved 1 comparison for each of the 13 classes, totaling 

13 comparisons. On a class-by-class basis, the differences were significant

in 4 of the 13 classes.

Figure 3.8: Attrition Rates for Minorities and Whites

aDifference was significant using one or more tests.

Source: GAO analysis of Academy records.

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 3 

Academy Indicators Reveal Racial

Disparities

While the number of attritions for both minority and white cadets declined

significantly over their 4-year period at the Academy, minorities generally

left the Academy slightly later than whites did. For the classes of 1988

through 1992, 59 percent of all minority cadets who left the Academy did

so in their freshman year, compared to 63 percent of all white cadets.

During their sophomore year, 26 percent of the minorities left the

Academy, compared with 20 percent of the whites.

Fewer Minorities

Graduated in the Top of

Their Classes

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, minority cadets were

underrepresented in the top halves and top 15 percent of their respective

graduating classes. For all five classes, 29 percent of minority cadets,

versus 53 percent of white cadets, graduated in the top halves of their

classes. Six percent of minority cadets, versus 16 percent of whites,

graduated in the top 15 percent of their classes. Differences in both the top

half and top 15 percent categories were significant.

As noted previously, class standings determine selection preference

consideration for flight school, and graduates in the top 15 percent of their

classes are given preference for future graduate education and/or flight

school selection.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

Over the past few years, the Academy has taken a number of actions to

address issues that affect women and minorities. Among these have been

developing courses in human relations and establishing various officer and

cadet councils and committees. In the spring of 1992, the Academy’s

Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership designed and

administered a survey to 3,900 students to assess their attitudes and

behaviors toward sexual harassment and racial discrimination. In

February and March 1993, at the Academy’s request, the Defense Equal

Opportunity Management Institute evaluated and made recommendations

to improve the human relations climate at the Academy. Finally, on 

May 20, 1993, the Academy’s Ad Hoc Committee on Respect and Dignity

issued a report exploring human relations issues at the Academy and

recommending major initiatives to correct the deficiencies it discovered.

These actions should help women and minorities succeed at the Academy.

However, the Academy (1) lacks a consolidated data base of student

performance indicators; (2) has no method of determining whether

significant disparities exist in cadets’ performance; and (3) has not

prepared a plan listing specific actions to be taken in response to

deficiencies, dates by which it plans to take these actions, or measures by

which it intends to determine the success of its actions.

Required Courses on

Human Relations

Over the past few years, the Academy has developed the following core

curriculum and selected topics in human relations for all classes of the

Cadet Wing:

• During basic cadet training, cadets take one 1-hour class session in human

relations. This class covers Department of Defense, Air Force, and Cadet

Wing regulations on sexual and racial harassment and discrimination and

on the importance of an equitable work environment. In addition, each

spring semester, all officers, noncommissioned officers, and cadets who

are scheduled to teach basic cadet training are required to attend

preparatory classes. In these classes, instructors are taught how to work

with new cadets and how to emphasize sensitivity in areas such as

harassment, discrimination, and equal treatment.

• During their freshman year, cadets take one 50-minute class session in

“Human Relations (Stereotypes, Values, and You).” During their

sophomore year, they take one 50-minute class session per semester on

sexual harassment. During their junior year, cadets take one 50-minute

class session per semester in “Human Relations in Leadership.” During

their senior year, they take classes entitled “Professional Relationships”

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

and “The Commander’s View of Human Relations.” All these classes are

part of the Academy’s “Professional Military Training.”

• In their freshman year, cadets also receive a lesson in Behavioral Science

110 on sexual harassment and date rape.

Several Groups Have

Been Established to

Promote Equal

Opportunity

Over the past few years, the Academy has established several councils,

committees, and programs to promote and enhance an equal opportunity

environment:

• The Cadet Counseling and Leadership Development Center is staffed by

male and female, black and white clinical personnel. Directed by a Deputy

Head of the Department of Behavioral Sciences, it is responsible for

counseling and guiding cadets in all areas of human relations and

leadership. In accordance with Air Force Academy Regulation 537-37, on

the “Cadet Wing Social Actions Program,” the Center is also responsible

for investigating complaints involving sexual and racial harassment.

• The Specialist Program is a 40-hour seminar that trains

commander-selected third-class cadets to be peer counselors. This

seminar teaches cadets to resolve human relations problems at the lowest

level (in the squadron) and promotes their recognition of serious issues

that need to be brought forward for further review and resolution.

• The Cadet Human Relations Council is chaired by the Cadet Vice Wing

Commander (a senior cadet) and is made up of 12 cadets. Its purposes are

to support the Air Force’s equal opportunity and treatment program and to

provide a channel of communication through which the Commandant can

make cadets aware of policies, programs, and problems.

• The Cadet Interaction Committee is chaired by the Vice Commandant of

Cadets and is made up of 12 members. The Committee’s purposes are to

summarize input received from the Cadet Human Relations Council and

other sources sensitive to human relations issues and to propose

recommendations to the Superintendent to facilitate the successful

assimilation of women and minorities into the Cadet Wing.

• The Professional Interest Council consists of concerned cadets and

officers who meet regularly to discuss issues affecting the assimilation of

women into the Cadet Wing, as well as broader issues affecting all cadets.

• The Way of Life Committee originally started as a black student union.

Membership was later opened to all minority and white cadets. The

Committee’s purpose is to address social and “quality of life” issues that

have a direct impact on the enrollment and attrition rates of not only

minority but also female cadets.

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

Academy’s Social

Climate Survey

On March 18, 1992, the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership

administered an attitudinal survey of cadets. Of the 4,400 cadets in the

Wing, approximately 3,900 completed the survey. The survey assessed

cadets’ attitudes and behaviors in four areas: sexual harassment, racial

discrimination, religious discrimination, and alcohol use.

Through its survey, the Academy discovered differences in the perceptions

of its male and female and white and minority cadets.

Survey Findings on the

Racial Climate at the

Academy

According to the attitudinal survey results, cadets perceived a high degree

of racial tolerance, acceptance, and integration at the Academy. However,

the survey also indicated that equal opportunity training programs, while

popular with black cadets, were unpopular with white cadets. Regarding

reporting channels, black cadets were more willing to bypass the chain of

command than were white cadets.

Academy officials reported that, in their view, the survey revealed that

racial problems at the Academy were not of great magnitude. Even so,

officials concluded that the racial climate could be improved, especially as

it related to the Social Actions programs and the use of the chain of

command.

Survey Findings Related to

Gender Issues at the

Academy

The survey’s findings involving gender indicated that there was more

hostility toward female cadets than toward minority ones. Although

women were seen as effective in leadership roles, they continued to be the

target of sexist jokes or demeaning remarks on a daily basis. In addition,

the superior/subordinate relationship between male and female cadets

was more than occasionally compromised by their fraternization.

The survey also indicated differences in perceptions of the way male and

female cadets were treated. For example, 52 percent of the male cadets

and 42 percent of the female cadets reported that Air Officers

Commanding did not treat male and female cadets equally. Fifty-six

percent of male cadets and 65 percent of female cadets reported the

faculty treated males and females equally. (The wording of the question

did not allow Academy officials to determine whether the unequal

treatment was perceived as better or worse.)

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

Recommendations of

the Defense Equal

Opportunity

Management Institute

On December 7, 1992, the Commandant of Cadets requested a Staff

Assistance Visit from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management

Institute to assess the quality of human relations training at the Academy

and to help revise the cadet social climate survey. Between February 22

and March 1, 1993, a team of three members from the Institute visited the

Academy to perform this evaluation. After its evaluation was completed,

the team reported its findings and made recommendations.

The team’s overall conclusion was that the Cadet Wing’s human relations

climate was good, “even though personal interviews revealed sexist and

racist attitudes/behaviors and sexual harassment exist in the cadet

environment.” The team stated that “Command staff was knowledgeable of

existing human relations problems/incidents and managing them properly.

However, the existence of sexist and racist behaviors (e.g., jokes and

racially derogatory remarks) if left unchecked could eventually detract

from the Academy’s mission.”

The team recommended that the Academy take the following actions,

among others:

• Revise the lesson plans in its Professional Development Program to

remove bias and emphasize the value of diversity.

• Design operating procedures and instructions for the Academy’s Social

Actions program to ensure that it complies with Air Force regulations.

• Increase the publicity for and participation of cadets and officers in the

Academy’s human relations councils, committees, and clubs.

• Administer another social climate survey after changes have been made to

the wording of certain questions.

• Continue to hold forums to communicate to the cadet population the

negative aspects of the polarization of the Academy’s subgroups from its

majority population.

• Sensitize Academy staff members and cadets to the divisive impact of

demeaning remarks about other groups.

Alleged Sexual

Assault Prompts

Academy to

Undertake Initiatives

On February 14, 1993, a female Academy cadet alleged that she was

sexually assaulted by three to five men dressed in civilian clothing. The

Academy’s Superintendent met with female cadets on February 23 and

with male cadets on February 25 to discuss the incident. On February 24,

the Superintendent established an Ad Hoc Committee on Respect and

Dignity, made up of officers and cadets, to determine whether the reported

assault represented an isolated event or was a symptom of broader and

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

more underlying problems. Focus groups were held on March 6 and on

April 8 to discuss the human relations climate at the Academy. The

Superintendent also collected data from female and male cadets in the

form of administered questionnaires. The Committee administered

questionnaires to 60 staff members.

Among the many concerns surfaced in the focus groups were that some

cadets perceived that (1) minority celebrations and organizations devoted

to racial/ethnic/gender pride contribute to distrust and a sense of isolation

among minority cadets, (2) human relations infractions result from

“unintentional insensitivity,” and (3) there is a sanctioned quota system

(“reverse discrimination”) for the inclusion of female and minority cadets

in key leadership positions.

The Committee’s May 20, 1993, report to the Superintendent concluded

that “Some at the Academy have lost sight of the fundamental necessity of

treating others with respect and dignity.” Among the Committee’s

far-reaching goals for the Academy were to (1) devise a set of “institutional

outcomes” to guide its curriculum, policies, feedback, and reward

structures; (2) reexamine the Academy’s division into three mission

elements headed by the Dean of the Faculty for academics, the

Commandant of Cadets for military performance, and the Director of

Athletics for athletic development; and (3) create an Office of Character

Development, which would devise a master plan for cadets’ character

development.

Academy Has

Prepared No

Timetable for

Responding to

Problems Revealed in

Survey

The Academy has taken some actions in response to the social climate

survey’s findings and to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management

Institute team’s recommendations. Its recent efforts arising from

allegations of sexual assault show that the Academy is reexamining its

human relations climate. However, the Academy has not always prepared

a document consolidating a list of all specific actions to be taken in

response to particular recommendations, timetables for these actions, or

ways to measure the Academy’s actions over time. Without such a plan,

the Academy cannot systematically correct deficiencies or measure its

progress in doing so.

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

Academy Lacks

Consolidated Data

Base for Tracking

Disparities

During our review, we experienced many difficulties in collecting

Academy data on cadets’ performance. We began by gathering data from

various Academy sources. Some information was available in the form of

computer disks; other information was available only in hard-copy form.

Thus, to analyze the data by class, gender, and race, we had to go through

a series of steps to merge data bases. The Academy had no consolidated

data base on cadets’ performance measures.

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute had similar

problems with the Academy’s data systems when it did its study. For

example, in its report, the team noted that the Academy had no

data-capturing systems to track disciplinary and rehabilitative actions in

regard to violations of Air Force Regulation 30-2. The team was therefore

unable to compare this type of data with similar Air Force-wide data. One

of the team’s recommendations was for the Academy to consider

establishing a system for capturing and tracking human relations incidents

and complaint data.

Academy Does Not

Analyze Disparities to

Determine Statistical

Significance

We discussed with Academy officials the various cadet performance data

they collect and how they use it. According to Academy officials, they

collect and maintain performance data primarily to identify trends or

patterns over time. However, they do not use measures such as statistical

tests, the four-fifths rule, or regression analysis to determine when

differences in the data may indicate significant disparities between various

groups.

Conclusions One of the first steps in dealing with disparities is recognizing where they

exist. The Academy has taken some steps aimed at ensuring fair treatment

for all cadets. These steps appear to be positive and should help to address

any disparities. The recent actions taken by the Ad Hoc Committee on

Respect and Dignity, for example, appear to represent a major step

forward.

However, for these types of efforts to be most effective, more needs to be

done. Specifically, during our own work, we encountered time-consuming

difficulties in collecting the needed performance indicator and

adjudicatory data because the Academy had no standardized, consolidated

data base.

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Chapter 4 

Academy Is Addressing Issues Involving

Women and Minorities, but Methods for

Monitoring Cadets’ Performance Are

Needed

In addition, while the Academy may track cadets’ performance data over

time and may discover differences in cadets’ performance in adjudicatory

outcomes, it does not apply statistical analyses to determine which

differences are significant and which are not. Without applying criteria to

these differences, the Academy does not have sufficient assurance that it

is focusing its attention on the ones meriting further attention.

Finally, in order to monitor the effectiveness of various actions, the

Academy has not documented the specific actions it has taken or plans to

take in response to recommendations designed to reduce gender and

racial disparities. Neither has it established timetables for implementing

initiatives or measures to determine these initiatives’ success over time.

Recommendations As part of the Air Force Academy’s efforts to ensure the fair and equal

treatment of all cadets and to improve efforts to monitor gender and racial

disparities, we recommend that the Superintendent of the Air Force

Academy

• develop a relational data base capability allowing routine analysis of key

performance indicators;

• establish criteria for assessing when disparities warrant more in-depth

attention and corrective action; and

• prepare (1) a plan of action and milestones document to track actions

taken in response to problems revealed through studies or surveys and

(2) specific measures with which to assess the effectiveness of the

Academy’s actions over time.

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix I 

The Air Force Academy’s Review Systems

As directed by 10 U.S.C. 9351, the Academy Board is responsible for

reviewing cadets’ conduct and physical, military, and academic

performance at the Air Force Academy. The Academy Board consists of 

10 senior Air Force officers and is chaired by the Superintendent of the

Academy. To help carry out its statutory obligation, the Academy Board

has established several committees (see fig. I.1).

Figure I.1: The Air Force Academy’s Review Committees

Note: The Commandant’s Disciplinary Board, while not an official standing committee of the

Academy Board, operates similarly.

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix I 

The Air Force Academy’s Review Systems

The Academic Review Committee evaluates cadets who are deficient in

academics. This Committee may recommend that cadets be placed on

remedial plans or academic probation. It may also refer a cadet whose

academic deficiency demonstrates a lack of aptitude for commissioned

service to the Academy Board for disenrollment or denial of graduation.

The Military Review Committee evaluates the records of cadets whose

conduct or aptitude for commissioned service is questionable. It may place

a cadet on conduct or aptitude probation; refer cadets to the Academy

Board for possible disenrollment; or, in the case of first-class (senior)

cadets, deny or delay graduation.

The Physical Education Review Committee evaluates cadets whose

physical fitness or performance in physical education or intramural

training is deficient. It may prescribe corrective measures, refer cadets to

the Academy Board for possible disenrollment, or delay or deny the

graduation of a first-class cadet.

The Summer Training Review Committee evaluates cadets whose

performance or conduct during cadet summer training programs

demonstrates questionable aptitude for commissioned service. It may

prescribe corrective measures, refer cadets to the Academy Board for

possible disenrollment, or deny the graduation of a first-class cadet.

The Honor Sanctions Board reviews the cases of all cadets found in

violation of the cadet honor code. It may prescribe corrective actions or

refer cadets to the Academy Board for possible suspension or

disenrollment.

The cadet disciplinary system is administered by the Commandant of

Cadets, who is an Air Force officer. The Commandant refers serious

conduct violations to the Commandant’s Disciplinary Board. On the basis

of the Disciplinary Board’s recommendations, the Commandant may either

prescribe corrective actions or recommend that cadets be disenrolled

from the Academy.

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix II 

Description of Questionnaire Methodology

This appendix describes our questionnaire development process, sampling

approach, response rates, weighting 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

We developed questionnaire items to address the full scope of the broader

review. We pretested the questionnaire with a diverse group of cadets who

represented different classes, genders, and races. The questionnaire was

also extensively reviewed by (1) Air Force Academy officials, (2) the

Defense Advisory Commission on Women in the Service, and (3) our

consultants familiar with the academies.

Sampling

Methodology

To ensure that an adequate number of women and minorities 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.

Questionnaire

Response Rates and

Weighting of Data

We administered the questionnaires in March 1991. We assured

respondents of anonymity, and we did not take attendance.

We received completed questionnaires from 493 Academy cadets (a

response rate of about 91 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 Since we surveyed samples of cadets rather than entire populations, the

results we obtained were subject to some degree of uncertainty, or

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.

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix II 

Description of Questionnaire Methodology

“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

4.3 percent.

The sampling errors for various subgroups cited in this report appear in

table II.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, according to the table, the sampling error is 

2.8 percent (there was a 10-90 percent response split). 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 2.8 percent, or

between 7.2 percent and 12.8 percent.

Table II.1: Sampling Errors for Various Academy Subgroups

Percentage split in responses

Subgroup Population Sample 05/95 10/90 15/85 20/80 25/75 30/70 35/65 40/60 45/55 50/50

All cadets 4,354 493 2.2 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3

Men 3,804 379 2.6 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9

Women 550 114 5.2 6.2 7.0 7.6 8.0 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.6

Whites 3,639 347 2.8 3.5 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.2

Minorities 715 146 4.5 5.4 6.1 6.6 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.6

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix III 

Analysis of Academy Data

Type and Sources of

Data

During our review, we analyzed the computerized records of over 

9,900 cadets from the classes of 1988 through 1994. We converted this 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. We then

developed data files for each semester and class. We developed

information on military performance grades, leadership positions,

cumulative and semester academic grade point averages, attrition,

physical education grades, and class standings.

The Air Force 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 freshman

through senior years).

Other kinds of information were not available on any computerized data

base. 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 applications, qualified applicants, and admissions by gender

and race/gender for the classes of 1980-93.

• The Academic Review Committee allowed us access to the hard-copy files

it maintains in the Registrar’s Office on Academic Board decisions. We

extracted relevant information for all the students who appeared before

the Academic Board during academic years 1987-89.

• Officials in the Commandant of Cadets’ Plans and Policies Division

provided us with hard-copy files on conduct offenses charged during

academic years 1988-90. The information contained the name of the

offender, the dates of the conduct board’s hearing, the type of offense, and

the punishment. The information also included the gender and

race/ethnicity of offenders.

• The Director of Honor and Ethics provided us with hard-copy files

containing all honor offense cases charged between March 1987 and 

May 1990. The information contained the type of offense, the date of the

offense, the dates of hearings and decisions, the punishment, and the

gender and race/ethnicity of the offender.

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix III 

Analysis of Academy Data

Assessment of

Disparities

The information we used to compare the various subgroups is “population

data”—that is, it includes every student enrolled in that class. Therefore,

any observed differences between subgroups are real 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 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.

The “Four-Fifths” Test 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 apply to decisions involving negative consequences, such as

1

For a discussion of applying statistical significance tests to population data, see R. E. Henkel, Tests 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).

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).

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix III 

Analysis of Academy Data

disciplinary, honor offense, attrition, and academic failure rates. We used

a rate 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.

Chi-Square Test 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 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 the criterion for

assessing statistical significance.

Each Kind of Test Is

Problematic

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.

3

SPSS User’s Guide, 3rd ed. (Chicago: SPSS, Inc., 1988).

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix III 

Analysis of Academy Data

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.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Norman J. Rabkin, Associate Director

William E. Beusse, Assistant Director

Martha J. Dey, Adviser

Beverly C. Schladt, Site Senior

Julia M. Kennon, Computer Specialist

Denver Regional

Office

Thomas R. Kingham, Regional Management Representative

Rudolfo G. Payan, Evaluator-in-Charge

Richard Y. Horiuchi, Site Senior

Douglas C. Hsu, Evaluator

Maria Durant, Evaluator

Terry Hanford, Operations Research Analyst

Norfolk Regional

Office

Paul A. Gvoth, Jr., Operations Research Analyst

(391162) Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-93-244 Air Force Academy
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100