AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TRACKED; STUDY: PREFERENCE RECEIVERS HARD TO SINGLE OUT.

Byline: Ethan Bronner The New York Times

In a report certain to fuel the debate over affirmative action, an extensive study of doctors trained at the University of California, Davis, over a 20-year period found that those admitted with special consideration for factors like race or ethnic origin had remarkably similar postgraduate records and careers to those admitted on academic merit alone.

The report, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that students receiving admissions preferences - not all of them members of minority groups - performed less well in the basic science courses of the first two years of training, were less likely to graduate with honors and more likely to repeat the certification examination to become doctors.

But the two groups graduated at essentially the same high rate and, following graduation, they followed parallel paths, completing residency training at the same rate, receiving similar evaluations by residency directors, selecting their specialties in the same percentages and establishing practices with almost the same racial mixes.

The research was undertaken by two professors of medicine at the Davis campus following the UC board of regents' decision two years ago to bar any consideration of race or ethnicity in admitting students. In its decision, the regents cited concerns about the quality of students admitted under affirmative action programs, a fixture in higher education since the Supreme Court's landmark 1978 Bakke case, which originated at the Davis medical school.

Advocates of affirmative action praised the findings as proof that those who were given admission preferences have careers similar to those who were not.

``This is a highly significant study, what I would call a landmark study, which shows we should do more with applicants from special circumstances who are not quite optimal tickets in their grade point averages and test scores,'' said Dr. William Jacott, head of the family practice department at the University of Minnesota medical school and a trustee of the American Medical Association.

Opponents of affirmative action pointed out that if the two graduating groups ended up practicing on a similar ethnic mix, one major argument put forward in favor of affirmative action - that minority populations will be better served by such graduates - loses its power.

The study was conducted by Dr. Robert C. Davidson of the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Davis campus and Dr. Ernest L. Lewis, associate dean for student affairs and a member of the Department of Urology at Davis. Both have served for many years on the school's admissions committee and were granted access to school records for the admissions in question, those for students who began their studies between 1968 and 1987. They also wrote to the graduates' residency programs and directors as well as to the graduates themselves to assess postgraduate careers.

Their data contain several ambiguities due to the circumstances of admission over the years. For example, in the group admitted under special consideration, only 53.5 percent were members of minority groups. The rest were beneficiaries of such consideration because of their previous experience, like volunteering in the community or serving in the Peace Corps, or careers like teaching or nursing. These students were admitted even though their undergraduate grades and test scores were below the standard required by the medical school.

In addition, 4 percent of the students admitted without preferences were members of minority groups.

The study coincides with growing concern over the value, effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action nationwide. This is especially true in California with the UC regents move two years ago and last year's referendum, Proposition 209, barring race and gender considerations in state hiring and promotion.