Why "Mismatch" is Relevant in Fisher v. Texas

Pope Center for Higher Education Policy ^ | December 9, 2015 | Richard Sander

[reaganaut1]

Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court again this week, as it rehears arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas. (I've discussed the legal issues in Fisher here.)

But perhaps the most important question about racial preferences is one that's not directly raised by the case: do they even work? Do they help underrepresented minorities to achieve their goals, and foster interracial interaction and understanding on elite campuses? Or do large preferences often "mismatch" students in campuses where they will struggle and fail?

Scholars began empirically studying the mismatch issue in the 1990s, but in the past five years the field has matured. There are now dozens of careful, peer-reviewed studies that find strong evidence of mismatch. None of the authors of these studies claim that mismatch is a universal or inevitable consequence of affirmative action. But in my view, only demagogues (of which there is, unfortunately, no shortage) or people who haven't read the relevant literature can still claim that mismatch is not a genuine problem.

It is helpful to think about mismatch as three interrelated phenomena that could affect a student of any race-let's call her Sally-who receives a large admissions preference, so that she attends a college where her level of academic preparation is substantially below that of her peers.

First, "learning mismatch" occurs if Sally learns less than she would at a less competitive school, because the pace is too fast or her professors are pitching their material at a level that’s not ideal for her. Others and I have argued that learning mismatch occurs on a massive scale in American law schools, where African-Americans (and some other students) tend to receive very large preferences and then, very often, are never able to practice law because they cannot pass bar exams.

[reaganaut1]

Sander co-authored a book "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It" (2012).

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[hoosiermama]

Bet the farm that the last line applies to MO

[BubbaBasher]

The article was going along fine until this line near the end:

“For the same reason, university presidents and other educational leaders aggressively block the release of information vital to mismatch research—data which could, for example, help determine the border between small, safe preferences and large, harmful ones.”

So after their research shows that preferences are bad, they can’t help themselves and promote “small, safe ones” with nothing to back it up.

[EternalVigilance]

99% of lawyers, politicians, journalists, and academics give the rest of them a bad name.

[Nifster]

Bafflegab by the Ed wonks to try and explain why Johnny can’t learn