I was listening to Michael Medved's show yesterday while I was out running errands. The hour was devoted to a study which showed that affirmative action in law school admissions actually hurts minorities.
The study was done by Richard H. Sander, a tenured law professor at UCLA and lifelong supporter of racial preferences.
Sander's study shows that racial preferences in law school admissions result in a counterproductive mismatch between the academic abilities of black beneficiaries of racial preferences and the law schools to which these students are admitted under "affirmative action". According to Sander's research, this mismatch demonstrably results in a much higher failure rate than would otherwise be the case if the black students were admitted to law schools which more closely matched the their academic preparation and abilities.
In other words, black law school students are actually hurt by affirmative action (racial preference) policies. According to Sander, black law school students would do much better academically and professionally if racial preferences either did not play a role in their admission to law schools, or played a significantly reduced role.
The results don't particularly surprise me. Top tier schools are the most demanding academically. It's far more competitive and more difficult to succeed. Sure, the rewards from graduating from such schools are greater, but, simply put, not everyone has what it takes to graduate from these schools. I know I certainly couldn't have, and I don't think I'm a slouch.
The issue is sensitive for a number of reasons both of historical discrimination and current day competitiveness. In a misguided attempt to compensate for past discrimination, top tier schools are admitting minority candidates who aren't up to the rigors of their programs. These same candidates would most likely succeed at second tier schools, graduating and, most importantly, passing the bar.
Regardless of which law school one attends, all potential attorneys must pass the state bar to become licensed practitioners. Whether you go to Harvard or South Texas, you have to pass the same Texas State Bar Exam to practice law in Texas. This was a key argument I didn't hear made in all the argumentation about the study. It doesn't really do any good to send underqualified students to top tier schools if they can't get the education they need to perform on the only test that really matters: the bar exam. Without the bar card, it doesn't matter which school gave you that doctorate of jurisprudence.
I think it is safe to say that if minority students received better educations in public school, they would perform better by the time they were choosing law schools. For those favoring affirmative action and other remedies for discrimination, I think that is the place to focus. Whether the answer to that problem is more money (I don't think so) or more testing (many others don't think so) or something else, pushing unqualified students into schools which ill-suit their abilities isn't the answer. Creating situations in which more minorities students succeed is.
|