Affirmative action still hasn’t been shown to reduce the number of black lawyers: A response to Sander

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Ian Ayres , Richard Brooks , Zachary Shelley
{"title":"Affirmative action still hasn’t been shown to reduce the number of black lawyers: A response to Sander","authors":"Ian Ayres ,&nbsp;Richard Brooks ,&nbsp;Zachary Shelley","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2021.106032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Sander (2019) attempts to revive the claim that “mismatch” between the credentials of students that receive racial preferences in law school admissions and the average observable academic credentials of their peers leads to fewer black lawyers. This article examines Sander’s study and explains the reasons why second-choice analyses, and Bar Passage Study data in particular, are poor sources for causal inferences about academic mismatch. Sander’s paper makes indefensibly strong assumptions about the inferences that can be drawn between evidence on distinct types of mismatch, overclaims results that lack robustness across different subsamples of the underlying data, and misinterprets other results that in fact cut against the article’s claim. Ultimately, as originally reported in Ayres &amp; Brooks (2005), the data do not provide evidence that affirmative action reduces the number of black lawyers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 106032"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818821000569","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sander (2019) attempts to revive the claim that “mismatch” between the credentials of students that receive racial preferences in law school admissions and the average observable academic credentials of their peers leads to fewer black lawyers. This article examines Sander’s study and explains the reasons why second-choice analyses, and Bar Passage Study data in particular, are poor sources for causal inferences about academic mismatch. Sander’s paper makes indefensibly strong assumptions about the inferences that can be drawn between evidence on distinct types of mismatch, overclaims results that lack robustness across different subsamples of the underlying data, and misinterprets other results that in fact cut against the article’s claim. Ultimately, as originally reported in Ayres & Brooks (2005), the data do not provide evidence that affirmative action reduces the number of black lawyers.

平权法案仍未被证明能减少黑人律师的数量:对桑德的回应
桑德(2019)试图重振这样一种说法,即在法学院录取中获得种族优先权的学生的学历与同龄人的平均可观察学历之间的“不匹配”导致黑人律师减少。本文考察了Sander的研究,并解释了为什么第二选择分析,特别是律师资格研究数据,是关于学术不匹配的因果推论的糟糕来源。桑德的论文对可以从不同类型的不匹配证据中得出的推论做出了无可辩驳的强有力的假设,夸大了在基础数据的不同子样本中缺乏稳健性的结果,并误解了实际上与文章主张相悖的其他结果。最终,正如Ayres &布鲁克斯(2005),数据并没有提供证据,平权行动减少了黑人律师的数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
38
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信