Arc
12-21-2004, 02:26 AM
Richard Sander is a Professor of Law at UCLA’s Law School. In this month’s Stanford Law Review his “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” is ruffling some of the usual suspects feathers.
Sander’s says:
Affirmative action sets up many black law students for failure because it places them in schools where they cannot compete academically, according to a study by a UCLA law professor who says ending racial preferences at law schools would likely increase the number of African-American lawyers.
…black students who get preferential treatment enter law school with much weaker grades and Law School Admission Test scores — the best predictors of law school success — than white students. This “mismatch” leads to black students dropping out at greater rates than whites and having more trouble passing the bar exam.
Blacks are the victims of law school programs of affirmative action, not the beneficiaries…” The number of lawyers produced by American law schools each year and subsequently passing the bar would probably increase if those schools collectively stopped using racial preferences.”
Reaction and rebuttal to his study from the MSA, (mainstream academia), was predictable both in its content and swiftness. Some of the criticism of Sander’s conclusions came from professors Lempart, Clydesdale and Kidder. (No kidding!)
Although they did not disagree about the poorer performance of blacks compared to whites, they said that factors other than grades contributed to the gap. “Something about the atmosphere of law school exacerbates the entering educational gaps of minority and other atypical law students...”
The authors described Sander’s forecasts as “irresponsible” and said the document was based on “a series of statistical errors, oversights and implausible...assumptions.”
Sander's reply:
“Once some honest conversation about affirmative action practices is underway, it will be much easier to talk about constructive solutions.”
Some of Sander’s findings:
After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black students are in the bottom tenth of their classes compared with 5 percent of white students. About two-thirds of black students are in the bottom fifth of their classes. Without racial preferences, 14 percent fewer black students would be admitted to law schools, but those admitted would be more successful.
About 19 percent of blacks and 8 percent of whites drop out of law school. If preferences had been abolished, the number of black attorneys emerging from the Class of 2004 would have been 8 percent higher.
Blacks are nearly six times as likely as whites to fail the bar exam on multiple tries. Without racial preferences, the number of black students who would pass the bar exam on the first try would likely increase by 22 percent.
Of all students who started law school in 1991, 48 percent of blacks and 78 percent of whites graduated, took the bar and passed it on their first attempt. Without racial preferences, 74 percent of black students would be likely to make it from the first day of law school to passing the bar on the first try because fewer unqualified students would be admitted to law school, there would be less attrition and academic performance — the principal predictor of success in passing the bar exam — would improve.
I don't know how valid and reliable Sander's study or findings are. But for some reason I get the impression that there is zero possibility that any evidence no matter how convincing or impeccable would dissuade the AA and MSA crowd.
Note how careful the article is to label the race of Sander and to inject certain PC slants.
The complete California Bar Journal's article is here. (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/December2004&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2004-12_TH_01_Black-law-students.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines)
Sander’s says:
Affirmative action sets up many black law students for failure because it places them in schools where they cannot compete academically, according to a study by a UCLA law professor who says ending racial preferences at law schools would likely increase the number of African-American lawyers.
…black students who get preferential treatment enter law school with much weaker grades and Law School Admission Test scores — the best predictors of law school success — than white students. This “mismatch” leads to black students dropping out at greater rates than whites and having more trouble passing the bar exam.
Blacks are the victims of law school programs of affirmative action, not the beneficiaries…” The number of lawyers produced by American law schools each year and subsequently passing the bar would probably increase if those schools collectively stopped using racial preferences.”
Reaction and rebuttal to his study from the MSA, (mainstream academia), was predictable both in its content and swiftness. Some of the criticism of Sander’s conclusions came from professors Lempart, Clydesdale and Kidder. (No kidding!)
Although they did not disagree about the poorer performance of blacks compared to whites, they said that factors other than grades contributed to the gap. “Something about the atmosphere of law school exacerbates the entering educational gaps of minority and other atypical law students...”
The authors described Sander’s forecasts as “irresponsible” and said the document was based on “a series of statistical errors, oversights and implausible...assumptions.”
Sander's reply:
“Once some honest conversation about affirmative action practices is underway, it will be much easier to talk about constructive solutions.”
Some of Sander’s findings:
After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black students are in the bottom tenth of their classes compared with 5 percent of white students. About two-thirds of black students are in the bottom fifth of their classes. Without racial preferences, 14 percent fewer black students would be admitted to law schools, but those admitted would be more successful.
About 19 percent of blacks and 8 percent of whites drop out of law school. If preferences had been abolished, the number of black attorneys emerging from the Class of 2004 would have been 8 percent higher.
Blacks are nearly six times as likely as whites to fail the bar exam on multiple tries. Without racial preferences, the number of black students who would pass the bar exam on the first try would likely increase by 22 percent.
Of all students who started law school in 1991, 48 percent of blacks and 78 percent of whites graduated, took the bar and passed it on their first attempt. Without racial preferences, 74 percent of black students would be likely to make it from the first day of law school to passing the bar on the first try because fewer unqualified students would be admitted to law school, there would be less attrition and academic performance — the principal predictor of success in passing the bar exam — would improve.
I don't know how valid and reliable Sander's study or findings are. But for some reason I get the impression that there is zero possibility that any evidence no matter how convincing or impeccable would dissuade the AA and MSA crowd.
Note how careful the article is to label the race of Sander and to inject certain PC slants.
The complete California Bar Journal's article is here. (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/December2004&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2004-12_TH_01_Black-law-students.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines)