Asymmetrical Information

It's hardly surprising that affirmative action encourages a glass ceiling limiting career advancement.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of affirmative action. I think that perhaps at one time it was a necessary evil. Is that still true? Doubtful.

"affirmative action beneficiaries are providing a substantial class rank subsidy for the privileged white students at their schools"

Accepting all else as true, you would have to be talking about a very small subset of schools here. I think the number of traditional affirmative action students in law schools is pretty small. I haven't looked at Volokh, but I'd be shocked if the gradation based on class rank was fine enough that a few students mattered.

So, what we need is both affirmative action to get into school and affirmative action in grading. You know, if we need to "norm" the entrance exams, we may need to norm the final exams, too.

If that doesn't work, we'll have to come up with some way to use affirmative action after graduation. Maybe we could require a different, lower, burden of proof for the the clients of a minority attorney. That should ensure minority attorneys win their fair share of cases.

Or, we could just admit that affirmative action is a bad idea.

David:

From Jane's post, it looks like it's a bad idea for all but the top 10 schools. For them, it could still be a good idea.

Deep down, no one likes affirmative action. But claims that "we'll take other steps to ameliorate obvious problems" leave minority (I assume Hispanic and African-American) communities understandably suspicious.

Tim,

Just what "obvious problems" are addressed by affirmative action?

And how do you define affirmative action? When affirmative action first came about, it meant that if two applicants were equally qualified, the minority applicant would be hired/accepted. This did not produce the numbers advocates were looking for, so the definitions changed and standards lowered, so the minority would be hired/accepted over the non-minority as long as the minority met the lowered standards. This was challenged in the courts, whose definition was that affirmative action was okay as a form of reverse discrimination as long as the hiring/accepting entity could show a previous history of actual discrimination. This too did not produce the numbers desired, so the concepts of multi-culturism and diversity were introduced.

That being said, I am not surprised at the results of the study. I went to a top-10 law school, and while some of the minority students undoubtedly got in on merit (but I can't think of any off the top of my head), there were a substantial number of others who just had a really tough go at it. Although just finishing at a top-10 school gives you some cachet in the job market, it doesn't land you the really good jobs unless you finish at least in the upper half. I ran into age discrimination (being all of 35 when I was graduated from law school) even though my grades put me in the top third, so I can't speak to the real-world experience of minority graduates in top law firms.

But even for non-minority law graduates, finishing at a non top-10 law school on law review gave much better job opportunities than finishing in the top half of a top-10 law school, so for a minority student, I would imagine that doing well at a non top-10 law school would pay larger dividends than just going to a top-10 law school and finishing near the bottom. Let's face it folks, the competition is really fierce to get into the top schools, and the quality of the vast majority of top-10 law school students has to be experienced to be believed.

I have never liked AA. The idea that people that never benefitted from the mistakes of yesterday should pay the price for those mistakes today is ridiculous. Racism will always exist, but its a rapidly shrinking concept. Today the name of the school on your degree is a far bigger advantage then the color of your skin. I think AA came to exist as a compromise to the idea of direct reperations, and if someones to pay, it should be someone who benefitted from slavery, not third generation Americans who's family never benefitted from slavery.

Rex:

1. I think you have to break affirmative action programs into two parts - those at the most competitive institutions, and those below that. For the latter, it probably works well. There are a shocking number of people who are stupid or lazy who have rather nice jobs (and here I am not speaking of the President) - and yet the economy continues to thrive. This suggests to me that there can be some fairly large deficits in ability with no real loss in economic functionality. In such a case, a lesser abled minority person (and we are assuming that for the purpose of these discussions) isn't costing the company or school a thing, and his inclusion may even be helping society in some larger sense.

In the other case - the most elite institutions - either its the same thing as below, or people get found out. Again, little harm. And in such cases, the programs are really sops to minority communities that (we believe - I think rightly) we have mistreated sufficiently in the past that we feel the need to make restitution.

So I'm willing to believe the basic terms of the study Jane quotes.

2. Age discrimination - sucks. This, however, might be a demonstration of how little merit often has to do with personal success. When did you graduate? I ask because I know someone who got their degree from a top law school who was significantly closer to 40 than you were, and he is now a partner at a national law firm. It also means that there are probably big paydays ahead for you, so please remember how kind and funny that old SomeCallMeTim was).

Thomas Sowell has some great thoughts about AA in several of his books, and they pretty much come out the same as what is shown here. He tells of watching black kids not be able to cut it in school because they were not in the right place, all because they were accepted because of AA.

I went to a top 5 law school and I can tell you that knowing that AA exists casts a doubt on any minority student in any non-liberal's eyes. What about the ones who were top in their class at Harvard, is it fair that others think they got a hand to get in to law school?

As for getting jobs, I am not completely sure I buy that. Law firms are really big on diversity, they even list the percentages of each race in their materials. Like it or not, they practice their own AA in a way. Plus, I know almost every minority candidate in my class got a real good job, regardless of rank.

The beneficiaries of university affirmative action are university administrators.

Way back in 1993 Sowell documented how UC Berkeley had just had an affirmative action class of 317 black students admitted with an average SAT score of 952, well above the national average of 900, and so good enough for them to do fine in most places -- but far below the UC Berkeley's average of nearly 1200. Fully 70 percent of them failed to graduate.

As another example, black students admitted to MIT had SAT scores that put them among the top 10% of all students nationwide, so they could *really* have done fine elsewhere -- but they were in the bottom 10% at MIT, and 25% of them failed to graduate.

Sowell pointed out there is a cascade effect here,
Top-tier schools like MIT and UC Berkeley use affirmative action to recruit minority students who would do fine at second-tier schools. Then second-tier schools recruit minority students who would do fine at third-tier schools...

And the result is that across-the-board blacks have higher dropout rates and lower levels of academic achievement than others in the same schools -- which continues to mystify many, and cause them to conclude that yet *more* forms of affirmative action and racial preferences are needed.

So this is all really *old* information that univerity adminstrators have known about all along. Who is the *real* beneficiary of these affirmative action programs? Not the kids who would have done fine elsewhere but flunked out of Berkeley and MIT.

It's the university administrators, especially at the prestigious top-tier universities. Without AA they would have very few black students on campus. And that would make them feel very *bad* in their liberal souls.

To avoid that, they have two options:

1) Look at those responsible for failing to sufficiently educate the black kids who can't get into their universities on the merits and say to...

a) the failing urban public schools "Isn't it time you straightened out and somebody held you accountable for results? "; and

b) urban communities and social leaders, e.g.: "Don't you realize that 90% of students in Ivy League schools come from intact, two-parent families -- so you communities with 70% divorced-or-single parent rates maybe should tighten up your family structures? The Vietnamese boat people are the poorest and most victimized immigrants in the US of the last century, a lot poorer than you, and look what *their* kids are doing"...

But, alas, a) & b) are both *highly* illiberal. And a) would involve further awkward practical problems in that these universities have Ed schools that are tied at the hip to the public school status quo, financially and institutionally.

So the administrators instead move on to the alternative...

2) Just admit the kids anyhow, and don't worry about them being able to hack it. After all, it is the virtuous thing to give them the *opportunity*.

I once saw a dean at a top law school say exactly that. In a discussion of this very subject he was asked, "Don't you feel bad about these AA kids who flunk out in highly disproportionate numbers?"

His answer was, "Not at all, we give them an opportunity they would not otherwise have, if they can't grasp the opportunity that's their responsibility and they can fail like anyone else." And he was really proud of himself, like this was a *good* thing.

That's who benefits from university AA -- university administrators who get to feel good about themselves in their liberal souls for getting these kids on campus while *avoiding* facing any awkward, illiberal questions about why these kids can get admitted on the merits. And who get more money and positional advancement from running affirmative action programs, of course.

Then in the failing inner city public schools the same principle is exercised through social promotion -- and there we are.

Jim writes:

>>>Then in the failing inner city public schools the same principle is exercised through social promotion -- and there we are.

Why do you automatically associate "inner city public schools with "black kids", and what societal issues do you think over the past 4 centuries on this continent would explain why America even HAS segregated neighborhoods in 2004?

SomeCallMeTim is absolutely right when he says the black and hispanic community are suspicious. For the most part, we are. And with good historical and current societal reason. Maybe that doesn't penetrate "red state" America, but it's true.

--Cobra

'Why do you automatically associate "inner city public schools with "black kids", and what societal issues do you think over the past 4 centuries on this continent would explain why America even HAS segregated neighborhoods in 2004?'

What difference does it make? The problem is real. Until liberals are willing to face up to it, there will be no solution.

I think J Glass makes alot of sense in his analysis. I also think Cobra asks the right question in why does self segregation still exist today. But I dont think this is a problem caused by liberals, I think if you want to blame liberals here they are to a degree culpable for the way AA works, but not responsible for the issues AA seeks to address.

It doesn't help to refer to school problems as a liberal/conservative problem. It's more of a soft-headed/tough love split. I remember when the dumbing down began and it happened in 2 ways. The agressive parents wanted their top-tier children to make all A's so they could attend the top schols. The black parents wanted their kids to graduate and have a chance to go to college. The teachers responded by throwing in the towel. Grade-inflation became rampant. Once the disparity between SAT and grades became apparent, then AA kicked into overdrive. And the SAT has been dumbed down once and grade-inflated once.

What's the bar passage rate for black law graduates? As far as I know, the bar exams aren't subject to affirmative racism.

I agree that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are the upper class, white professors and administrators who ride their advocacy of affirmative action to six-figure jobs as presidents of Ivy League colleges.

One more thing about AA, what about the fact that many of the minorities being helped by it are not actually poor inner city kids but rather well to do minorities.

AA does not make a financial distinction, so a minority that comes from a wealthy background can be helped as much as a poor kid. Even more so, he can be helped ahead of a poor white kid from some crappy area. So why is this fair?

A referendum in California passed a few years ago banned racism in admitting college students.

Banning racism in the state resulted in the graduation rate for blacks going up. Black students went to schools that matched their skills and they succeeded.

Putting black students in a school where they have a small chance at success is racism at its worst.

The "No Child Left Behind" Act, (more aptly, No Child's Behind Left) is a policy that ENCOURAGES social promotion. If funding will be removed from schools that have under-performing students, the motivation for teachers fixing grades and altering tests is built in. We already know most poor school districts are strapped for resources already. Why wouldn't people resort to their instinctive base nature of self-preservation? I would think that the vast majority of people in America would try to hold onto their jobs during this Bush Economy.

It's very interesting that WHENEVER white conservatives bring up the topic of Affirmative Action, they never bring up white women, Latinos, Asian-Americans, or Native Americans. It's always reduced to some connotation or implication that "some stupid black took a spot a white man was entitled to." Personally, I find it hilarious, given the fact that this nation is still inarguably RACIST. If you don't believe me, here is another gem from "Red State America."

>>>On Election Day, Alabama voters rejected an amendment striking segregationist language from the state constitution by a margin that is probably thin enough to trigger an automatic ballot recount, state officials said. The proposed amendment, which would have removed language in the original 1901 document and in subsequent constitutional amendments, was defeated after opponents said it could open the door to court-imposed taxes...
...The amendment proposed striking language that said "separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race." It also would have deleted provisions about poll taxes, which often were used to stymie black and poor voters. "
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2897001
This is the same Bush-voting Red State that had 41% of the population vote to continue the ban on interracial marriage.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/
Even Bush-voting Red State South Carolina did better. Only 38% voted for the ban there in '98.
Given America's catastrophic racial history and dubious current status (segregation,housing discrimination, racist justice system, redlining, profiling, gentrification, voter disenfranchisement, etc.)and gender wage gaps:
>>>- White, black and Latina women, respectively, earn 75, 65 and 56 percent
of white male wages (The International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, 1996).
I have absolutely NO problem with Affirmative Action, especially considering the economic, political and societal self-perpetuating monopoly that white men, representing only 36% of the population, carved for themselves since the first European explorers "colonized" natives here.

--Cobra
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/COSBYSHOW2004NATIONAL.gif

"What's the bar passage rate for black law graduates? As far as I know, the bar exams aren't subject to affirmative racism."

Actually, bar passage rates are one of the big data pools on which Sander (the guy whose article prompted Jane's post) relies. The article is long, but very interesting:

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/Draft%2011-01-04.pdf

Btw, I beleive that Sander actually supports/supported affirmative action and wrote this article to give people hard data about AA, rather than the conventional wisdom everyone relies on as fact.

Actually cobra you should delete asian americans from your list of AA beneficiaries as they are hurt far more than any other group in America, even your bogeyman of white men. Also the wage gap you cite mostly, or in some cases entirely vanishes, when you control for experience and educational qualifications. Now that might seem a quibble for you when you reply with some empty "equal pay for equal work" slogan that sounds really nice but we'll see what happens when you work in a job and find someone with 10 years less experience and no post grad degree is demanding the same salary as you. Maybe then you'll suddenly find that the Labor Dept. stats need some new parameters...

sorry just realized you didnt cite the Labor dept like most do when they use that whole wage gap fallacy...still the pt applies just as much to your cited study...

Comments are Closed.