E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Does Affirmative Action Reduce the Number of Black Lawyers?
Ian Ayres
In a recently published article in Stanford Law Review, UCLA law professor Richard Sander argues that affirmative action reduces the number of practicing black lawyers. Even though Sander estimates that affirmative action increases the number of African-American students entering law schools, he argues that affirmative action causes these students to have poorer entering credentials than their peers, to have dramatically lower grades, to fail out of law school and to fail the bar at disproportionate rates. Sander argues that without affirmative action, African-American students would not be overmatched by their peer students and would therefore earn higher grades and become lawyers at substantially higher rates. In a forthcoming response in the Stanford Law Review, Richard Brooks and I evaluate Sander’s claims. We replicate his results concerning racial disparities in grades and in the probability of becoming a lawyer. But we challenge his claim that these disparities are caused by affirmative action. We find evidence that affirmative action increases the likelihood that blacks will become lawyers. When we look at African Americans with the same entering credentials, we find that those that go to a higher quality law school have a higher probability of becoming a lawyer. This means that we find a “reverse mismatch” effect – in that students can be pulled along by higher quality peers to achieve more. The possibility of a reverse mismatch effect should not be so surprising. Long before I studied this issue, I had long advised my nephews and cousins to shoot for the stars in trying to attend the best possible college – saying to them, “If you haven’t been rejected by more than half of your colleges, you haven’t shot high enough.”
But Brooks and I find in the 1991 data even with the help of affirmative action that a large proportion of black students are at risk of not graduating from law school. On the first day of law school, we estimate that 42.6% of blacks entering law school had less than a 50% chance of becoming lawyers. (while virtually no whites students -- .23% -- were in this high risk category). These at-risk students predominantly attend low ranking law. While Sander’s lobbies for a world where without affirmative action where the top ranking law schools would become largely all-white, we consider a world where some of the African-American students attending lower ranking law schools would choose not to attend if they knew the real risks involved. Posted
2:20 PM
by Ian Ayres [link]
Comments:
"Maybe the schools just shuttle the vast majority of their students through, whether they perform adequately or not; that's certainly the opinion of most students."
I sincerely hope this is not the case... I would hope that students realize that one advantage of failing early is that, in the end, you save time and money.
Borrowing 150,000 for a top law school, being 'shuttled through' and then not passing the bar exam ends up harming students far more than shifting gears after the first semester.
ayers' and brook's results sound similar to the conclusions reached in 'Shape of the River' - it certainly seems intuitively plausible to me, i know i lifted my effort a lot after shifting to Yale Law School from a relaxed graduate program. i think that was mostly because of my peers (although i'm not prepared to call them 'higher-quality' peers).
also, i don't want to sound like too much of a snob here but harvard and yale law schools shouldn't be setting up grade curves that lead to many failing grades. while grade inflation is rampant in the ivies' undergrad colleges (and at yale law school where about 50% of class grades are 'honors') the reality is that poor work at these schools may still be decent. a professor shouldn't give a failing grade unless a student has truly failed to learn the material. a failing grade should mean more than falling in the bottom 5th (or 2nd or whatever) percentile. on the other hand, Cs could be given out for falling in a low percentile.
oh, and yale law school does give grades (H, P, LP, F). As one professor explained, 'the grading system is designed to give employers the impression that 80% of the students graduated in the top 10% of the class.'
I've known law school students that never became lawyers. And, I've sat on juries where both opposing counsel and the judge did such a bad job that passing the bar cannot be said to have effectively screened incompetence.