Study questions benefits of race-based admission

A new study challenging affirmative action policies at law schools has begun to stir controversy, even though it has not yet been published.

In the study, University of California, Los Angeles law professor Richard Sander argues that black students would be better off without affirmative action, and presents data showing that students who benefit from the policy generally have low grade point averages that hinder their ability to pass bar exams and complete law school.

The study will be published in the November issue of the Stanford Law Review.

"In the case of blacks, at least, the objective costs of preferential admissions appear to substantially outweigh the benefits," Sander wrote in a summary of the study, called "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools."

Job "market data strongly suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions," he wrote. He added that he believes stronger grades, rather than a high-profile school, lead to better employment prospects.

Sander also asserts that "attending an advanced school where one's credentials are far below those of one's peers has a variety of negative effects on learning, motivation and goals that harm the beneficiary of the preference."

The study has legal scholars again debating the merits of affirmative action, a policy that was confirmed as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

"The study has caused a stir among constitutional law professors," Penn Law professor Nathan Persily said, adding that the study seems to make "some pretty bold claims" about affirmative action.

Many law professors and students are questioning Sander's empirical methods.

Nakia Thomas, vice president of the Penn Black Law Students Association, noted that the correlation Sander draws between black passage rates on the bar exam and GPAs is especially problematic.

"I think that portion of the research is definitely questionable," she said.

Thomas also noted that, contrary to Sander's arguments, she believes a law school's prestige matters more than a student's GPA to potential employers. Indeed, on-campus recruiting for law students at Penn has a policy of no GPA disclosure, and students are prohibited from calculating their GPA in accordance with honor code rules.

There have also been many news stories and several articles written in response to Sander's study, including a critique published on the Web site of the Law School Admissions Council.

"We believe that Sander's forecasts are irresponsible," stated the critique, written by a number of law professors from across the country. "Sander's article is premised upon a series of statistical errors, oversights, and implausible (and at times internally contradictory) assumptions."

"Our own conclusion is that if affirmative action in admissions were eliminated, there would probably be a 25 to 30 percent decline in the numbers of African Americans entering the bar, not the rosy 8.8 percent improvement that he forecasts."

And Thomas agrees.

"I definitely don't think that getting rid of affirmative action would produce more black lawyers," she said. "It's counterintuitive."

"I think the more important issue ... is why affirmative action was established in the first place," she said. "It doesn't necessarily give [minorities] an advantage. It only tries to level the playing field."

She was also concerned that the relatively small number of black law students at Penn may face renewed stigma with the public controversy surrounding the study.

"I'm sure our classmates may start to think their [black] classmates are not so qualified," she said.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.