Balkinization: The Blind Spot of Liberal Academics

Comments:

Brian, you write as if sending kids to State U. is a form of child abuse. I do not think Maryland offers the same quality education as Swarthmore does, but our students graduate, move on in the world, and do so without considerable debt. And, by the way, outside of a few star professors, the vast majority of academic salaries in the liberal arts for the past 20 years have not kept up with inflation. In terms of real dollars, when I had a liberal arts salary I never earned even a below average wages for a Columbia law school graduate fresh out of the market in 1981. Oh, and there are no bonuses, just parking fees.

# posted by

Mark Graber : 9:59 AM

Mark,

My post focuses on elite institutions because they lead these developments in the various ways I mention (to be clear about the target of my post, note the panelists). I did not have the University of Maryland in mind. And I am aware that many profs. earn dismal salaries.

As a graduate of the University of Oregon, moreover, I don't demean the education a person can receive at state schools. But the fact remains that elite degrees (including degrees from elite stae schools, which are not distinguishable from private schools today) carry extra weight in the job market.

The education may be the same, but not the opportunities that follow. I don't think there is any question about this.

Brian

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 10:25 AM

"A serious argument can be made that institutions of higher education, particularly elite institutions, are inflicting greater damage to social justice right now than all the CEOs and hedge fund folks pulling down $30 million-plus a year."

no, a serious argument to that conclusion really cannot be made. a hyperbolic, attention-grabbing claim can be made, sure; maybe a facile, superficial argument along with it. but not a serious argument.

look, the comparison just fails basic tests of scale. i agree with you that both kinds of inequality are lamentable, and should be attacked. but the scope of the inequality in the concentration of income and wealth in this country, and the exacerbation of that effect by the regressive inheritance laws, utterly dwarfs any counter-egalitarian effects of restrictions in academics.

look, i agree with your point; the ivies and the elites should do more to fulfill their promise that all and only the kids who can make best use of their education will receive their education. the sooner that all the wealthy elite colleges and u's go to 100% free rides for smart kids who need them, the better.

but the absurdity of this final comparison undercuts the impact of your argument. it's like saying that wealth inequality is a huge problem in america, but an even bigger problem is that the rich eat more fresh fruits and vegetables than the poor do.

sure, that's a problem, too. but a bigger problem? no. there's no "serious argument" to be made.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:29 AM

and i guess i should say:

what gets up my nose about this sort of rhetoric is that it strikes me as typical of one of the worst vices of cartoon liberalism: the willingness to blame yourself in grotesque disproportion instead of confidently placing the blame on others when it belongs there.

can we, as liberal academics, have more effect on academic policy than we can on wall street policy? yeah, maybe; there's a least a serious argument to be made there (though the board of trustees really doesn't ask my opinion very often).

should we, as liberal academics, avoid the sin of complacency and remember that our institutions may not be spotless and pure? yeah, sure; who said otherwise?

but this degree of overcompensation is just ludicrous. you know, lincoln knew that there were racists in the north, too. but he didn't sit around saying "well, we northern abolitionists are doing greater damage to the cause of black liberty by our racist attitudes than the southern slaveholders are doing by their actions. guess we'd better clean our own house here before we say anything to offend others!"

a sense of proportion, please, and less liberal self-hatred.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:39 AM

I think Brad DeLong's point is also well-taken:

"The population of people qualified and wanting to go to elite American colleges has multiplied between five and tenfold over the past half century. During that time the University of California has scaled itself up roughly from 4,000to 40,000 undergraduates a year. Harvard has received roughly $15 billiion or so in gifts to carry out its mission as a charitable philanthropy and yet has only managed to scale up from roughly 1200 to 1600 undergraduates a year."

The elite institutions are constraining membership to an ever-decreasing percentage of the nation's population. That can't be good.

The education may be the same, but not the opportunities that follow. I don't think there is any question about this.

This strikes me as true. I'm fortunate in living in CA, where the UC system still manages to provide good quality education at a much more reasonable price than private schools. The problem is -- and here I'm judging by the experience of my kids and their friends, who attended a variety of public and private high schools on the Westside of LA -- that the "opportunity crunch" begins in high school. That is, the elite private colleges discriminate in favor of those who come from elite private high schools. While I have less information on graduate programs, my more limited experience there suggests the same is true. It's a self-perpetuating class, not a meritocracy.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:43 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 10:50 AM

I appreciate Brian's reply, but we still need better balance. Several comparisons may be apt. The stars at the elite law schools may earn twice as much as the stars at average State U. Nevertheless, our classmates who went into medical (but not academic medicine), legal practice, or business are earning geometrically what any academic star earns. Graduates of Harvard have greater opportunities than graduates of Maryland, even, I suspect, when we control for talent. Nevertheless, the gulf between Maryland and Harvard is far, far, far less than the gulf between kids who are "stuck" going to Maryland and the desperately poor kids my mother has worked with on Long Island who face enormous obstacles just finishing high school. I think Maryland could do a lot more to offer our kids a better education and Harvard could be cheaper, but when I think of social injustice, I think of the children who cannot even dream of going to a community college.

# posted by

Mark Graber : 10:57 AM

Kid,

As for your second note, you appear to think that it manifests liberal "self-hatred" for a liberal to engage in critical reflection of liberal positions.

I tend to think liberals don't do enough of this (which by your reasoning makes me a really a self-hating liberal). I saw no evidence of at the panel I discussed in the post.

Let me put my point a different way. If we took a public poll asking what causes America more harm today--CEOs making $30 million a year or the cost of higher education--my guess is that both would rank equally high, and the latter might even rank higher.

I'm merely arguing that we should take this seriously.

Brian

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 11:07 AM

"As for your second note, you appear to think that it manifests liberal "self-hatred" for a liberal to engage in critical reflection of liberal positions."

the fault there lies either with my failure to make myself clear, or with something else.

i had thought it was quite clear that what struck me as liberal self-flagellation was not, as you suggest, any engagement in "critical reflection of liberal positions," but rather--and only--what i took to be the grotesque disproportion of your final suggestion that problems in the academy do "greater damage" than problems of inequality in income and wealth.

only if you construed me as complaining about the comparison, rather than reflection in general, could you make any sense out of my analogy to lincoln.

so: i complain about a lack of proportion, about breast-beating cries of "oh, i'm so much *worse* than they are" when in fact it is doubtful that you are even as bad.

and you suggest i am objecting to any and all "critical reflection."

yeah. i must not have made myself clear.

is my position clearer now?

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:15 AM

Mark,

Again, I don't disagree with your comments, especially about the plight of the kids trying to graduate from high school, for whom getting into a community college might be out of reach. Nothing I said lessens the significance of any of that.

What you say about the earning potential many professors have given up is also correct. It's also fair to say, however, that we have the compensation of almost complete freedom of our time, and nearly complete freedom to decide how we direct our productive activities.

This freedom is worth more to many academics than the money they sacrifice. When I think about my fellow law graduates, I don't envy their bigger houses, better stuff, nice savings accounts, and more exotic vacations (though I would be happy to have it all); and I certainly don't envy the work they do or the hours they put in. Rather, I feel comparatively fortunate in many ways.

Brian

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 11:22 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 11:27 AM

Kid,

I'm inclined to agree with your main point, except that I can't help but wonder whether it is correct.

All societies have wealth disparity, so the questions are who is harmed and how those harms are distributed. CEO's get their money by extracting a greater share of the profits relative to workers. It's harder for me to identify who hedge fund managers are taking their excessive gains from (I think from other rich people).

Either way, there's a lot of harm that follows (although there are also secondary benefits from wealth accumulation and spending), so I'm with you there.

But a great deal of harm--widely distributed harm--also follows from restricting access to the most valued degrees. You assume that this harm is lower that the rich getting richer, and you may be right, but I suspect its ramifications are much deeper and broader than we appreciate.

Brian

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 11:30 AM

I wonder if your panel had any libertarian or pro-free market capitalist intellectuals for "balance."

Wealth is created from the top and it is not a zero sum game. Re the "self-perpetuating class, not a meritocracy," if you score above a 170 and have a GPA of 3.5 or over from any college in the country, you might not get into Yale or your first choice, but can almost guarantee getting into a law school which when you graduate will, with modest effort, secure a job that can make you rich.

However, being able to score a 170 or above takes considerable brain power that only a relatively elite few have.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 11:51 AM

Professor Tamanaha does raise an interesting point for liberals in academia who generally support redistribution of wealth. Are liberal academics willing to walk the walk of redistribution by foregoing a portion of their own income and benefits to redistribute them to less wealthy students in order to allow them to attend "name schools."

This libertarian sees no problem with the price of elite schools. It is set by a market where there are increasing applicants for a scarce few "name schools."

I did the math before I went to university and found that the "name schools" were simply not cost effective unless one wanted to work insane hours for a large firm in a major city to repay the student loans with less of a net return on my education investment than the alternatives.

Instead, I chose state schools for my undergrad and law education, received a good education, saved the amount of a house and could afford to work where I wanted in the DA's office for a low salary to get trial experience, which translated into better paying positions for a greater net return on my education investment. There is more to life than work and I value my freedom

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:44 PM

Wealth is created from the top

No, it isn't.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 12:49 PM

Bart said: "There is more to life than work and I value my freedom."

Wisdom indeed. Enjoy the Rockies, Bart. I spent many a summer hiking and climbing there!

There is a grounding to the universe in scambling on the lichen-covered rocks of a summit that is beyond what is in our classrooms, offices, conferences, or courts!

# posted by

Michael Sweney : 3:00 PM

It's fine to argue that barriers exist to entry into elite colleges, but you need to be clear about which barriers you mean. The high price of tuition at Harvard or Yale isn't such a significant barrier to poor or middle class students who manage to _get admitted_ to Harvard or Yale. They receive financial aid packages calculated on the basis of their family's income. The barriers to _getting admitted_ can be pretty serious for poor students who receive lousy high school educations and as a result tend not to score as well on standardized tests and not to submit professionally-edited application essays. Admissions offices try to counteract this, and it turns out to be extremely difficult. But it is very rare for a student talented enough to get admitted to one of the elite colleges and then turn down the offer of admission because the school wants them to come up with $47,000 per year in cash.

# posted by

Unknown : 3:56 PM

Whatever. Can we at least agree that Harvard, which has a fund large enough that they could live off the interest without charging students a cent of tuition, should stop getting donations? At some point the endowment is big enough already, you don't have to stack the gold bars any higher.

# posted by

Brett : 4:11 PM

in any case, this is not a question of quality education. it is a question of access to a diminishing pool of high-paying jobs.

of course the rich and well off are fine with any situation that allows them to groom their children. at one time, maybe there were enough high paying jobs to go around for all college graduates. now there's not and it's the ivy leagues and private colleges that monopolize the pipe line.

There is not a shred of evidence for this. Well paying jobs have increased over time and continue to do so. The increase in "new millionaires" has been dramatic in the United States. Perhaps increases in well paying jobs have not tracked increases in college graduates; but to argue their numbers have diminished over time is unsupported by the data.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 6:53 PM

Color me skeptical. What is your basis for claiming that "More and more people, from the poor to the upper middle class" are being closed out of elite higher education because they can't afford it? Maybe it's true, but you haven't provided so much as a scintilla of evidence.

Nor do I find it particularly important from the point of view of equity. The vast majority of students admitted to elite colleges come from families in the top decile of income. If you expand that to the top quintile, it's at least 90-something percent, if it wasn't before. The number of students from the bottom 60% of the income distribution is miniscule. Whether it's going up or going down, it's so small that it can't possibly have any measurable effect on equity.

# posted by

Unknown : 7:49 PM

It seems pretty indisputable that elite higher education is perpetuating inequality, and I do believe that as liberal academics we have to acknowledge that simple fact. However, because liberal academics (even the most progressive ones) still believe in competition and merit at some deep level, they're never going to be able to completely eradicate the problem. Ultimately, almost everyone seems to get caught up in fundamentally inegalitarian assumptions, and this is revealed when they talk about the most "talented" students or the most "deserving" students. When push comes to shove, every academic I know still believes in the myth and the fantasy that is the deserving and talented student, the one who worked his or her way up the social ladder regardless of other personal circumstances. I just have to wonder if that myth is what needs to go before the paradox that is liberal elite academia lives up to its principles. I hate to be a pessimist, but I also can't help but wonder if the perpetuation of that myth is a product of our own feelings of insecurity about who we are, where we came from, and how we got here.

Of course, it is hard to imagine an academic world without competition and rank ordering of some kind (especially in a culture like law school which is built around it), but it seems that we have a choice: throw competition away and deal with uncertainty or keep these assumptions and always be forced to admit that there will always be an ivory tower which most will never see. You can't easily believe in inequality and at the same time wage a war to eradicate it. Doing so may not even be very responsible to those who are going to be teased into thinking they can compete with the culture elite.

# posted by

DW : 12:35 AM

Should the focus be upon why college tuition increases post WW II significantly exceed cost of living increases? Is there a "bubble" involved that just might burst or leak air?

I paid tuition for my third year of law school (1953-54) in the amount of $400.00. As a commuter student, I did not have the direct expense of room and board. It was not that difficult to earn and save enough for tuition and books by working summers and perhaps during Christmas holidays (e.g., US Post Office). Books were not that expensive back then. So I had no debt, other than moral obligations to my supportive parents.

Jumping ahead to the late 1980s and 1990s, I incurred college expense for three children who completed college, not as commuters. I took out no loans nor did my children. Fortunately I was doing well in my law practice. I was concerned with the problems my children might face if they had to start their post college careers in debt. (The thrift habits learned from the Great Depression as a child kept me from getting too deeply in debt.)

The real estate bubble was enhanced by tax policy to a certain extent, what with mortgage interest and property tax deductions available to reduce federal income taxes. But student loans are not subsidized in the same manner. Perhaps student loan debt results in increases in starting salaries for college (and law school) graduates so that these student loans may be repaid. There may be various types of economic spiralling pumping up the potential "bubble." What happens when the job market for college (and law school) graduates eases?

This gives rise to aristocracy versus meritocracy in post high school education. Yes, competition is important. But is there economic fairness? How about a comparison with other highly industrialized nations that provide perhaps more meritocracy than aristocracy in higher education?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:21 AM

"When push comes to shove, every academic I know still believes in the myth and the fantasy that is the deserving and talented student, the one who worked his or her way up the social ladder regardless of other personal circumstances."

Because it's not a myth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_D._Dinh

If you want to deal with actual myths that liberal elites deal with it's that you can take any child at random, from any family, at birth and give him a privileged upbringing with the right environmental components and he or she will be able to reason like Jack Balkin or Eugene Volokh.

That's like saying you can randomly select a child and train him to be an Olympic powerlifter who can bench press 800lbs. Sorry, but by virtue of my birth, even into a moderately wealthy middle class family who could have made whatever sacrifices necessary, I would never be able to be such an Olympic powerlifter. With all that work I might end up with a nice swimmer's build but not close to being able to bench press 800 lbs.

Here is the real unfairness with which I don't see liberal academics adequately dealing: The market in general and elite academic institutions in particular tend to reward "muscle heads," that is folks like Eugene Volokh, Jack Balkin, etc. who can do the equivalent of benching 800 lbs with their brains.

Of course this needs to be cultivated in the right "environment," just like no Olympic athlete ever got there without the right kind of intense training. But there is also a biological or genetic component that has to be there and 97% of the population probably doesn't have underlying genetic talent to say score a 170 or above on the LSAT. (With my 161 I got after lots of hard work studying for the test, this means even me.)

The danger I see with liberal academics is that they deny the meritocracy and try to blame it all on wealth and privilege. The end result of this logic is Lani Guinier's suggestion that you get into Harvard Law via a lottery, which will destroy its high academic standards.

The more honest way to view things is to recognize that yes, these elite institutes are indeed meritocratic in that they do indeed get the "best and brightest." But that, such an elite meritocracy that ends up rewarding lots of wealth and status to folks, is, in itself, unfair. It turns life into one big race where the winners, by accident of birth -- genetics and environment -- end up the most talented and able to win the race.

If life truly were fair in the sense that leftist egalitarians wish, I'd be able to be that 800lb powerlifter. That's the reality we've got to deal with.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 11:20 AM

But there is also a biological or genetic component that has to be there and 97% of the population probably doesn't have underlying genetic talent to say score a 170 or above on the LSAT. (With my 161 I got after lots of hard work studying for the test, this means even me.)

The mistake you're making is equating someone's LSAT score with "merit". We all agree that "merit" should decide; we just disagree on how to measure "merit".

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:34 PM

Scoring a 170 on the LSAT is a proxy for having intense brain power. It's like saying how is benching 800 pounds "merit." Simple: It shows that you are really freakin' strong.

If you can score a 170 on the LSAT, you've pretty much won life's genetic lottery. Again, I would agree, it's not fair. But it is "merit."

Here is my plan on how to make the IVYs more fair without utterly destroying merit standards. Come forth with some cutoff say 3.0 GPA from any college and a 150 on the LSAT. Such a person would be fairly intelligent and can make a good lawyer, but doesn't possess the "superstar" criteria. Then put all of the applications that at least meet those standards in a box and hold a lottery for who gets into Harvard or Yale. If that means more folks of modest backgrounds who won't be able to afford tuition, part 2 would be come up with intense financial aid packages even if it means more tapping into the endowments to guarantee such folks don't drop out for that reason.

Then Harvard and Yale Law will have a more modest student body and I predict, the market will so learn to value a Harvard or a Yale law JD less and figure out other proxies for lawyer superstardom. In that event, a Harvard or a Yale JD can no longer count on easily being able to secure a good 6-figure job upon graduation but will have to work really hard for it and only have their top 10 or 20% being able to get such jobs like the non-elite law schools. A Harvard Law degree won't be valued much differently than a Temple, Rutgers or a Maryland law degree.

Likewise the monopoly such elite law schools have on law professorships will be destroyed and folks like me with a JD from Temple will have a better shot at law professorships.

And then fairness will be achieved.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 1:05 PM

Scoring a 170 on the LSAT is a proxy for having intense brain power.

No it isn't. Like all quasi-IQ tests, it's flawed. It doesn't even correlate particularly well with law school grades, much less something really meaningful like success as a lawyer. All the LSAT really does is test how well you take standardized tests.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:47 PM

"All the LSAT really does is test how well you take standardized tests."

And folks with higher IQs are the ones who take standardized tests better.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 5:08 PM

BTW: I don't have a problem with changing criteria. The "merit" way would say -- what are we objectively trying to test for. Grades? Bar passage rates? Something you can put numbers behind. Being an effective lawyer is useless unless you can put some kind of numbers behind that standard (i.e., billable hours, cases won or lost on appeal, etc.). And tweak the criteria so they are better predictors. The problem is I see no good reason to believe "better predictors" will equate with "more egalitarian results." In fact what if those better predictors worsen such inequalities.

As it stands the LSAT/GPA matrix is the best predictor, however flawed. The merit way says only replace it with something that is a better predictor. If you are going to replace it with something that achievers "fairer" results, then you are elevating "fairness" over "merit."

I'd be more sympathetic to your point of view if folks like you were more honest and said this meritocratic rat-race that rewards super brainy folks is just unfair, so lets value "fair results" over "merit" and implement something like I articulated with a lottery to get into Harvard where anyone with Bachelors a 3.0 and a 150 on the LSAT is qualified for it.

There is no doubt this will lower the academic standards; but it will also increase "fairness."

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 5:17 PM

I think higher education is pretty far removed from the main causal actors in the increasing disparity between those at the top and everyone else. The middle classes are pushed towards the bottom, and social strata become more fixed. These are structural features of the global economy that are driven by neo-liberal economic policies, i.e., globalization. Schools, for the most part, are service providers; they do not cause globalizing effects. How the academy does contribute is by failing to instill a moral compass in its students/products. This is espceially keen in law schools, with the emphasis on positivism. Students are taught how to parse the edges of the law without at the same time being taught about the relationship (or any relationship) between morality and law. The positivist credo is demeaned into instruction about the black letter because that is what pays - the globalizing corporations need to know very well what that is. Maybe the much-criticized liberalness of the academy is closer to the liberaliness of "neo-liberalism" than anyone wants to admit. Schools aren't the problem anymore than law is the problem - both are instrumentalized by morality; in the case at hand the distorted and cruel privileging of profits.

# posted by

john lunstroth : 7:09 PM

And folks with higher IQs are the ones who take standardized tests better.

I assume you can see the circularity of this reasoning.

I don't have a problem with changing criteria. The "merit" way would say -- what are we objectively trying to test for. Grades? Bar passage rates? Something you can put numbers behind. Being an effective lawyer is useless unless you can put some kind of numbers behind that standard (i.e., billable hours, cases won or lost on appeal, etc.). And tweak the criteria so they are better predictors.

Agreed.

The problem is I see no good reason to believe "better predictors" will equate with "more egalitarian results."

Contrary to your stereotype, I'm not worried about egalitarian results. What I want is a meritocracy, but I want a true one, not one subject to class and other biases. Most especially, I don't want a biased measure which the proponents treat as "objective".

As it stands the LSAT/GPA matrix is the best predictor, however flawed.

The best predictor of what? First year grades? Talk about the soft tyranny of low expectations.

Assuming LSAT/GPA is the best available predictor, that doesn't mean we should use it. The best available "high" temperature superconductor is only good at about 350 degrees below zero. That's not very useful for the real world.

Using the LSAT leads to the classic fault of treating every problem as a nail when your only tool is a hammer.

The merit way says only replace it with something that is a better predictor. If you are going to replace it with something that achievers "fairer" results, then you are elevating "fairness" over "merit."

To the extent "fairness" is related to "merit", I have no problem with this. I suspect reasonable people might disagree with what qualifies as "merit" (earn the most money? get appointed the highest judge? have the most prestigious academic appointment?), and thus about what criteria are appropriate, but we can at least begin to work on this problem once we all admit the LSAT is flawed and shouldn't be used.

I'd be more sympathetic to your point of view if folks like you were more honest and said this meritocratic rat-race that rewards super brainy folks is just unfair, so lets value "fair results" over "merit" and implement something like I articulated with a lottery to get into Harvard where anyone with Bachelors a 3.0 and a 150 on the LSAT is qualified for it.

This isn't my point of view. As I said, I want the process to be meritocratic; my criticism of the LSAT is precisely that it's a phony meritocracy.

As for "braininess", sure that's one factor. But there are plenty of other factors as well -- diligence, perseverance, integrity, etc. The LSAT doesn't purport to measure these at all, and it measures "braininess" very poorly.

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:16 PM

Well we should agree that if the LSAT is to be replaced, replace it with something that better predicts hard, objective outcomes, not meaningless fuzzy-headed feel good platitudes that are a smokescreen for more "egalitarian" results. Or if we want more egalitarian results, let's be frank about what we are doing in lowing standards.

And no I don't see the circularity in my reasoning re standardized tests. Pychometricians testify about the existence of "g" or general intelligence which is what IQ tests test. Almost all of these standardized tests are "g-loaded" so to speak.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 10:12 PM

And no I don't see the circularity in my reasoning re standardized tests.

It looked like you were saying (1)that tests such as the LSAT were valid because they measure IQ, and (2) that IQ consists of whatever those tests measure. That's circular.

Pychometricians testify about the existence of "g" or general intelligence which is what IQ tests test.

The existence of "g" is a highly contentious issue. See, e.g., this discussion of the issue and this follow-up post.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:23 PM

The LSAT was created to predict chances of success in the first year of law school only. That's all it was designed to attempt to measure. But from what I've seen, it also correlates with a whole host of other things like bar passage rates.

As it stands, it's the best predictor we have of success in first year of law school. If we are going to change/replace the LSAT, let's replace it with a better predictor, not with nothing.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 12:23 AM

If we are going to change/replace the LSAT, let's replace it with a better predictor, not with nothing.

Using a poor predictor is actually worse than using nothing because it biases the result while giving a false assurance of neutrality. We'd be better off dropping the LSAT entirely or reducing its impact to, say, 10%.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:04 AM

It's not a poor predictor of what it seeks to predict: First year grades.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 12:04 PM

It's not a poor predictor of what it seeks to predict: First year grades.

1. That's a useless thing to predict. Good law school grades are not an end in themselves, they are a step towards the end -- becoming a good lawyer. The only correlations we should care about are those relevant to becoming a good lawyer.

2. LSAT/GPA may be the best predictor we have for first year grades, but (at roughly .4) it is not a "good" predictor.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:00 PM

It doesn't matter whether you think first year grades are "useless"; currently that's what the LSAT's purpose is to predict. One step at a time. Come up with some objective criteria for what you think is better to predict (like bar passage rates or something of the like). Then design a test to predict it. And then change the LSAT.

My predictions would be when such is done, you'll get the same inegalitarian results. And hence the same attempt to "deconstruct" the merit of the tests.

And .4 is certainly better than nothing.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 1:32 PM

{Jonathan]: Pychometricians testify about the existence of "g" or general intelligence which is what IQ tests test.

[Mark Field]: The existence of "g" is a highly contentious issue. See, e.g., this discussion of the issue and this follow-up post.

Contentious is hardly the word for it. The very intention to look for a "g" means that you'll almost assuredly find something (which you can say "Ahah!" and call "g"), but as Mark points out, this is all very circular. What is "g" (other than some funky correlation index)?

Be that as it may, even if there were a "g" of any significance, the obvious cultural loading of any practical tests makes any test scores that ever purportedly measure "g" as well unfair.

If you want an example of cultural loading, note that one question on the WAIS-R (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Revised) is "What color is the American flag"? (I won't invalidate the test by giving the answer ... oh ... right ... nevermind, the answer is "Which 'American flag'"?)

As long as there's a significant cultural loading in such tests (as there is in LSATs, GREs, SATs, etc., between-groups comparisons of scores are unfair.

Nest to do what the WAIS-R tells you to do, which is to use it as a diagnostic tool for individual intellectual capability (and a rough one, at that, and only one of many), for the purposes of evaluation and treatment as necessary, by a qualified practitioner able to look at the whole person individually, and quit doing any stoopid group comparisons of mean scores for political and/or ideological ends....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:19 PM

And .4 is certainly better than nothing.

No it isn't, and that's the real problem. As I've pointed above, using a poor predictor is worse than using none at all because of the distortion. It's like using a hammer to drive a screw.

It doesn't matter whether you think first year grades are "useless"; currently that's what the LSAT's purpose is to predict.

Of course it matters. A test which correlates perfectly with running speed would be useless for deciding entry to law school because we recognize that running speed has no relevance to the practice of law. Using such a test for no better reason than that there was a good correlation would be harmful rather than helpful. Similarly, the LSAT has no relevance to the practice of law, so using it is harmful.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:22 PM

Mark,

I'm not going to sit here and defend law school admitters. Needless to say there are arguments for why first year grades are important but I have no desire to rehash them here. Tough, you must think they are real morons for using a test that is a useless predictor. And by the way, it's the lefty liberal egalitarian law professors who ultimately run admissions and are in charge of the GPA/LSAT criteria. They can moan about its unfairness and they do; but ultimately they can put their money where their mouth is. And they don't because they know 1) it's the best predictive system so far, and 2) the only other alternate is something more random, less objective, indeed something that risks total randomness like throwing darts against the wall.

AL" Your "cultural loaded" critique is a proven canard. The "gaps" are just as big in the non-culturally loaded "math" sections. Unless of course you want to argue 2+2 = 4 is "culturally loaded."

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 3:37 PM

Jonathan:

AL" Your "cultural loaded" critique is a proven canard. The "gaps" are just as big in the non-culturally loaded "math" sections.

Even if true, irrelevant to my point. And you ought to provide data to support such assertions.

... Unless of course you want to argue 2+2 = 4 is "culturally loaded."

Why must I choose this assertion to argue my point? Do you always choose your opponent's 'arguments"? FWIW, I think there's a case to be made for cultural loading in the "math" portions as well. And, IIRC, there were/are cultures whose numbering scheme runs "one, two, three, many...." When you're insisting on measuring "innate" characteristics, you'd better take that into account.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:40 PM

I don't need to cite anything. If you research the issue you'll find out I'm right re the "cultural loading" of verbal v. math questions.

And if you concede that math itself is culturally loaded then we have nothing further to discuss. Yes, in Western and many developed Eastern Civilizations we value math such that if you are totally alien to these culture's you might not get it. But being productive in these cultures requires being part of a system that values math, whatever its cultural antecedents. The truly innate is just a red herring and one whose path I have no desire to pursue.

# posted by

Jonathan Rowe : 9:39 PM

Jonathan:

I don't need to cite anything. If you research the issue you'll find out I'm right re the "cultural loading" of verbal v. math questions.

I've done lots of study on the question, including graduate seminars with Prof. Ned Block back when.

If you want people to believe your assertions, it's incumbent on you to back them up.

Yes, there may be gnerally more cultural loading on verbal questions than on math ones, but even math test directions are verbal. To say there is no cultural loading requires you to show evidence of that for a specific test (and for specific test groups).

Not to mention, math scores are only one component of the test results (and if you want to lump them together into Spearman's mythical "g", then you have a problem).

The WAIS-R, used properly, actually has four or five different scores (I can't remember exactly right off hand which), and they're there for a reason. Not like your Cracker-Jack-box Mensa tests, to be sure.

And if you concede that math itself is culturally loaded then we have nothing further to discuss....

I'm not saying that "math itself is culturally loaded". If you can't read what I'm saying and respond to what I said rather than make up stuff for me, then yes, I think we have nothing more to discuss.

Yes, in Western and many developed Eastern Civilizations we value math such that if you are totally alien to these culture's you might not get it.

Huh?

... But being productive in these cultures requires being part of a system that values math, whatever its cultural antecedents....

True. What does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?

... The truly innate is just a red herring and one whose path I have no desire to pursue.

You brought it up. Thats the baggage you get when you go citing "g"....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:46 PM