Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Attacking the ‘Mismatch’ Critique of Affirmative Action

One of the more influential and controversial studies of affirmative action in recent years came from Richard H. Sander in 2004. The law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles analyzed statistics about black law students and argued that they show that affirmative action hurts them by helping many gain admission to institutions where they are unlikely to be top students. This “mismatch,” he argued, led to academic performance at lower levels than the same students would have achieved at the less prestigious law schools to which they could have earned admission without the consideration of race.

Sander’s theory set off political and academic fireworks. They may be reignited with the release of a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that examines much of the same data Sander used. The new analysis — with the sort of detail normally used by critics of affirmative action — backs Sander’s claims on the substantially different qualifications, on average, between black and white law school applicants. And it also finds gaps in performance in law school.

But the new research — using simulations of admissions without affirmative action — finds that race-neutral policies wouldn’t send black students to law schools where they would do better. Rather there would be a huge falloff in black law enrollments — far more than might be counteracted by some black students doing better on bar exams. The elimination of race-based admissions policies, the authors write, would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools, the paper says. Even if some positive impact took place in the experience of black students who did enroll, there would be at least a 50 percent reduction in the production of black lawyers, they write.

The study — by Jesse Rothstein of Princeton University and Albert H. Yoon of the University of Toronto — starts off by reviewing the Sander data and its significance. Rothstein and Yoon note that a key part of Sander’s thesis is that “affirmative action influences which schools African American students attend, but has only small effects on whether these students attend law school at all.”

Rothstein and Yoon then turn to data about students who applied to law school in 1991 — similar to the data Sander used. (They authors of the new paper note that changes in the performance of black students have been very modest since then, suggesting that similar findings would be possible with today’s data, although more recent data sets are less complete.) The authors also note that the Sander argument — left unchallenged — has the potential to undercut the political and legal arguments for affirmative action. From President Lyndon Johnson through recent Supreme Court arguments, defenders of affirmative action have assumed that its practice promoted black advancement rather than hindering it.

Notably, Rothstein and Yoon accept that the “mismatch” theory is “plausible,” given that admitting a student to a law school above his or her abilities could frustrate and “demoralize” him or her. Further, they note that the requirement to pass the bar means that students who get through law school but can’t practice are sure to feel particularly poorly served by the process.

Where Rothstein and Yoon depart from Sander is in their analysis of the differing admissions qualifications and academic performance of black and white law students. Sander uses the data to suggest “mismatch.” For example, 92 percent of white students who enter law school graduate, while only 81 percent of black students do. And of those who graduate from law school, 87 percent of white students pass the bar within a year, compared to 64 percent of black students.

But Rothstein and Yoon focus more on admissions data to suggest that — without affirmative action — many black applicants to law schools would simply never get in.

For example, in the data studied, only 1.5 percent of black students taking the LSAT achieved a score of at least 38. Of all of those admitted to Yale University’s law school, 89 percent had scores of at least 41. While Yale law is among the most competitive law schools in the country, the study notes that there isn’t such a thing as a truly non-competitive law school and that admissions credentials gaps are present at all types of law schools. For example, at American University’s law school for the years studied, 91 percent of admitted applicants had LSAT scores above 32 and college grade-point averages above 2.5. Only 2.2 of law school applicants nationally with those credentials are black. (The LSAT scale has since changed to once in which scores are reported from 120-180.)

The authors conduct a simulation — based on admissions patterns of various types of institutions — to show what would happen to black representation at law schools, and the results are dramatic. Students don’t shift down a prestige level — but disappear. Only at “third tier” law schools would there be any gains for the black enrollment share, and those are small.

Impact of Race-Neutral Admissions on Share of Black Law School Matriculants

Sector

Actual Black %

Black % With Race-Blind Admissions

All

8.0%

3.1%

Elite

8.7%

0.9%

Public Ivy

7.9%

1.9%

2nd Tier Public

8.5%

2.1%

2nd Tier Private

5.2%

3.6%

3rd Tier

4.9%

5.7%

The authors of the new study can hardly be described in their analysis as cheerleaders for affirmative action. “Given our findings, it is reasonable to ask whether law schools serve students’ best interests by admitting applicants with low academic credentials, or whether these students would be better off not attending law school,” they write, adding that their analysis “cannot answer this question.”

But they argue that their work does definitively debunk the “mismatch” thesis. “We find that affimative action is pivotal in achieving racial diversity in law schools, and that any resulting mismatch effects are concentrated among students who would not be admitted to any law school without preferences,” the authors write. “As a policy matter, reasonable people may disagree about whether the costs of ‘taking a chance’ on marginal black applicants outweigh the benefits, and we have little that is new to say about this. Our analysis suggests, however, that one cannot credibly invoke mismatch effects to argue that there are no benefits.”

Sander, the mismatch proponent, could not be reached for comment. But his Web site contains many articles and data sets he has set up to back up his views.

Scott Jaschik

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Here is a free version of the same paper.

This article would be much better if they used a matching analysis (aka Rubin Causal Model approach) as does Ho, who they (appropriately) site.

Ho, Daniel E. (2005). “Why Affirmative Action Does Not Cause Black Students to Failthe Bar,” Yale Law Journal 114(8), June: 1997-2004.

Still, I suspect that such an analysis would generate the same result. There is no good evidence that the mismatch effect, to the extent it exists at all, is large enough matter, especially at elite schools.

David Kane, at 7:35 am EDT on September 3, 2008

Decimate

Decimate is the wrong word for the title of this article. Decimate means to reduce by a factor of 10.

K Leavitt, at 8:40 am EDT on September 3, 2008

Actually, decimate does not refer to a reduction by a factor of 10, but by 10% (1 out of 10), e.g., decimating a group of 100 students results in a group of 90

jk, at 10:25 am EDT on September 3, 2008

Published version of paper

Readers may be interested in the published version of the paper discussed in this article,

Rothstein, Jesse and Albert Yoon, “Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions: What Do Racial Preferences Do?” University of Chicago Law Review, volume 75, issue 2 (Spring 2008), pp. 649-714.

Here is a link:http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/archive/v75/75_2/Rothstein75-2.pdf

Jesse Rothstein, at 10:40 am EDT on September 3, 2008

Decimate

From the Oxford American College Dictionary:

Decimate: v. 1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of (drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of something)

Also from the same dictionary:

Merit: n. the quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deserve praise or reward.

Can the determination of merit include a consideration of a student’s racial/ethnic background, and whether that background is pertinent to a final determination of admissibility?

Admission to law school, after all, is only partly about who will succeed and who will not succeed. An equivalent part of the decision to admit is about choosing among equally meritorious students to find a class that the school is obligated to serve through its mission, whether public or private.

Adonis Metriotitis, at 1:20 pm EDT on September 3, 2008

Rothstein

According to the IHE report, Rothstein et al conclude that “The elimination of race-based admissions policies, the authors write, would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools.”

So what?

DBL, at 1:20 pm EDT on September 3, 2008

decimate

The original meaning of “decimate,” as stated by one person above, is indeed to kill 1 out of 10, that is reduce by 10%.

This was a punishment in Roman Army for an army unit that really behaved badly: execute every 10th soldier.

For people who are interested, there is some short discussion in:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate

Zvi Kedem, at 2:00 pm EDT on September 3, 2008

Rothstein & Yoon

My colleagues and I have spent a good time closely studying the Rothstein & Yoon paper (which has been out in various draft forms for years), and we are unimpressed. Though both authors are capable economists, here their ingenuity is devoted to creating misleading strawmen rather than really grappling with the mismatch evidence or presenting full results from their anayses. For example, their conclusion that eliminating preferences would have catastropic effects on black enrollment is based on an analysis of data from 1991. My work — the analysis they are critiquing — used 2001 data and discusses at some length how much things changed between 1991 and 2001. It is disingenuous, to say the least, for them to rely on older data and not grapple with the newer data. Similarly, Rothstein & Yoon ignore the most compelling published evidence of law school mismatch — the so-called “first-choice/second-choice” analysis in my “Reply to Critics” — on the grounds that the analysis would tend to understate actual mismatch effects. But if this analysis shows strong mismatch effects despite being biased against showing such effects, that’s hardly a reason to neglect the data! These are perhaps some of the reasons why the Journal of Labor Economics rejected the Rothstein-Yoon paper for publication. Anyone interested in more on these issues is welcome to contact me at sander@law.ucla.edu.

Richard Sander, Professor of Law at UCLA, at 2:30 pm EDT on September 3, 2008

Attacking the ‘Mismatch’ Critique of Affirmative Action”

well, i am so surprised and shocked! studies show that a despised and repressed identifiable minority dos not do as well as the privileged and hyper privlidged majority.who could of predicted that???!!!

thomas smith, at 7:00 am EDT on September 4, 2008

Test scores don’t disriminate on your internal plumbing or the amount of melanin in your skin. They discriminate against stupid and unprepared.

Giving preference to anyone based on any physical characteristic is morally wrong. Even if you take the stance that the government is trying to right historical wrongs, then we need to define who was historically wronged and by whom? Does a black from Brazil who immigrated in 1980 get preference over the grandson of an Irish male who immigrated in 1930? Neither had to do with Slavery. Both have probably been wronged sometime in the life by society. In fact, I can’t think of any group that hasn’t been wronged. Remember, not every black american is a decendant of a slave, and very few white americans are decendents of a slave owner. Even so, why should 5 generations later pay for a mistake his great great great grandfather made if he himself has never been a racist or discriminated against anyone? What about the white endentured servants? What about No Irish need apply? What about the whites who died on the Union side of the civil war? Should they not be given preference even though their ancestors died fighting against slavery?

Why should any ‘white’ person not be given the same opportunity and criteria for admission? Why give preference at all?

To define by someone by skin color is to discredit everything they bring to the table as an individual. To say a white male from France, Russia, Austrailia, and South Africa are all the same culture mindset is ridiculous, and to base preference on skin color is just as wrong and ridiculous.

Its funny to me that “diversity” proponents are usually race and gender concious only. What about height, weight, socioeconomic status, religion, or any other characteristic that defines us as different from one another? Don’t these all give a different perspective on life and contribute to non-likeminded thinking? Do you not think that a short, fat, poor person has a difference perspective on life regardless of skin color? What about the fact that the DOJ reports that 94% of all violent crime is black on black. Are we supposed to take this into admissions considerations also? What about the fact that are more poor white people in American than any other group (total, not percentage within group)? Why not have affirmative action in sports? Because it makes just as little sense as affirmative action in employment and admissions. Its wrong, and doesn’t yield optimal results. Give every individual an equal opportunity based on the same admissions/qualifications criteria....and let the cards fall where they may.

Treat them not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Sound familiar?

Ward Connerly Supporter, at 9:15 am EDT on September 4, 2008

To Ward Connerly Supporter

1.Cultural diversity is good, icluding cultures of dark-skinned peoples. So gender equity also is good—good for us all.

2. Not so sure northern white soldiers set out to free the slaves in CW. In the beginning northern generals posted pickets around plantations in conquered territory to keep slaves from fleeing. Lincoln’s aim was to save the union and return slavesto owners after the war. Only when England did not ally with the South after Antietam did Emancipation begin to take on propaganda value.

3. “Give every individual an equal opportunity and let the cards fall where they may.” That’s just it. The more educated, professional people of color we have, the more equalizing will be the opportunity for their offspring. Opportunity starts in early childhood. Up until the late 20th century there was a long, long history of affirmative action for upper class whites.

4. Yes, there’s much poverty among whites. You yourself, however, point out the greater concentration of poverty among people of color, which indicates an ongoing racism in any number of forms. A decent, truly democratic society would not tolerate racism, sexism or poverty. It would restructure its economy in a number of ways to eliminate poverty and the classism that goes with it.

Some people just born lazy? I don’t believe it. An unjust system, though, can have very alienating effects on certain members of society—which tends to benefit the upper crusts, and which is NOT good for us all. A system is, after all, a system. The point is to understand and change it.

Malvern Hill, at 12:35 pm EDT on September 5, 2008

Prejudice and Ignorance of “Ward Connerly Supporter”

The comments of “Ward Connerly Supporter” affirm the maxim “Against ignorance the gods themselves struggle in vain.” His or her ignorance on affirmative action and obvious prejudice against black people are unsound, unbecoming, and unchristian. I certainly hope this person is neither a teacher nor an individual whose decisions influence substantial numbers of people; otherwise, I dread the damage his or her thinking will have on those who refuse to think critically and intelligently for themselves. White skin and Nordic physical characteristics have always carried—and continue to carry—privilege in America. When white people stop enjoying the privileges that come with their skin color, then black people will gladly surrender the minimal benefits that come from affirmative action.

The Rev. Dr. Donald Ray Jenkins, Associate Professor of English at Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, at 4:50 am EDT on September 7, 2008

The Problem with Making Assumptions

Affirmative Action is about giving preference to groups based on skin color or gender, which happen to be two things someone is born with, and are not easily changed. You see, Title VII rightfully recognizes that it’s wrong (and illegal) to give preference based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Giving preference to a group physically categorized as ‘white males’ at one point in our history was wrong. It’s equally wrong to give preference to a group categorized as ‘black female’ or ‘baptist egyptian’. Affirmative action just substitutes one WRONG for another WRONG. And Rev. Dr. Donald Jenkins, you should know that two wrongs never make a right.

People like the Reverend enjoy stereotyping and throwing people into groups, so they can perpetuate racism and a victim mentality. The problem with throwing people into groups is that you are, in fact, stereotyping them. Stereotyping is about making assumptions, and you know what happens when you assume, don’t you?

The Reverend would have you believe that Jews have never been oppressed and have enjoyed ‘privilege’ because they are white. As you can see, that’s an erroneous assumption. We can only hope that the Rev continues to teach English, and not philosophy. The right, and proper thing to do is to treat everyone as an individual and NOT by a group you stereotype them to.

I also don’t buy into the white privilege idea, at least not during my generation. It’s another ASSUMPTION. To say that whites enjoy a natural born privilege is ridiculous. The CEO’s of American Express, Merryl Lynch, Symantec, and Time Warner are all black. How did white privilege help them? How about the majority of trailer parks being occupied by whites? How did their privilege help them? Just because all Cardinals are red birds doesn’t mean all red birds are Cardinals. Similarly, people like the Rev. would have you believe that “All people of privilege are white, therefore all white people are privileged". This kind of double talk just doesn’t make sense.

Ward Connerly Supporter, at 4:20 pm EDT on September 10, 2008

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Attacking the 'Mismatch' Critique of Affirmative Action

or search for jobs directly.

Director — School of Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communication (WRTC)
James Madison University

Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job

Criminal Justice — Justice Studies, Assistant/Associate Professor
Florida Gulf Coast University

The University is located in Southwest Florida midway between Naples and Fort Myers. The 760-acre campus is situated in one ... see job

Law-Lecturer, Civil Litigation Clinic
University of Denver

Our curriculum is innovative and global in its perspective, and our faculty are some of the finest in the nation. They love ... see job

Employer Relations Coordinator
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Director of Career and Professional Development
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Director for Faculty Services
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job

Criminal Forensics/Odontologist, Assistant/Associate Professor
Florida Gulf Coast University

The University is located in Southwest Florida midway between Naples and Fort Myers. The 760-acre campus is situated in one ... see job

Juvenile Justice Center Fellow
Suffolk University

Position Summary: Suffolk University Law School’s Clinical Program has an opening for a Fellow to work in ... see job

Assistant/Associate/Full Professor (112156)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Law-Open Rank Faculty
University of Denver

Our curriculum is innovative and global in its perspective, and our faculty are some of the finest in the nation. They love ... see job