IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v69y2022ics0144818821000569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ayres, Ian
  • Brooks, Richard
  • Shelley, Zachary

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayres, Ian & Brooks, Richard & Shelley, Zachary, 2022. "Affirmative action still hasn’t been shown to reduce the number of black lawyers: A response to Sander," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:69:y:2022:i:c:s0144818821000569
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2021.106032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818821000569
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2021.106032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:69:y:2022:i:c:s0144818821000569. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.