New Stanford Law Review Article about black law students

[frankfurt]

It is the case that making it into a big journal is NOT proof that the article is good nor that it uses solid methodology.  I agree with John Galt's critiques.  The author fails to make some important coorelations needed for the logic of his argument.  That doesn't mean he's stupid or something, just that it is really hard to do this type of study in a convincing manner.  He doesn't have the ability to get individual level bar passage data that can be linked to the academic individual level data, which would be necessary to do a better study. 

I'd just like to note that there are plenty of articles published in great journals that make spurious conclusions.  It happens regularly.  Also, law reviews are actually not known for having the greatest peer review standards, in particular for social science research.

Absurd. In the absence of any evidence for supporters of AA, what else should we go on? This is clearly superior to hearing peoples anecdotal stories or uninformed ideas.

[King80s]

It is the case that making it into a big journal is NOT proof that the article is good nor that it uses solid methodology.  I agree with John Galt's critiques.  The author fails to make some important coorelations needed for the logic of his argument.  That doesn't mean he's stupid or something, just that it is really hard to do this type of study in a convincing manner.  He doesn't have the ability to get individual level bar passage data that can be linked to the academic individual level data, which would be necessary to do a better study. 

I'd just like to note that there are plenty of articles published in great journals that make spurious conclusions.  It happens regularly.  Also, law reviews are actually not known for having the greatest peer review standards, in particular for social science research.

i disagree with the conclusion of the author, however I also believe JohnGalt's points are weak and almost preposterous.  If you're willing to go along with his argument that those in the bottom 10% of class ranking are likely passing the bar at the highest rate, then good luck

[frankfurt]

Jon Galt is THE leading pre-law affirmative action scholar in North America. According to his findings, black students are often far more qualified for law than their white (and TOTALLY un-diverse) counterparts. He is setting the record straight: don’t believe what crackpots like Stanford and the Supreme Court have to say, the truth is AA only adds a point to the LSAT at most. 

[frankfurt]

Daveman- Jon Galt has repeatedly suggested that AA has only a nominal effect on law school applications and that black law students bring more to the classroom. The Supreme Court decision proves the former wrong and this Stanford study proves the later incorrect. Instead of offering other comparable studies or information to support his claims, he basically imposes hypothetical gaps in the Stanford study that really do not detract from the study. This follows a disturbing trend; he offers nothing to support his opinion-based assertions instead choosing to take petty snipes at compelling and empirical information.

[thenextstep]

Absurd. In the absence of any evidence for supporters of AA, what else should we go on? This is clearly superior to hearing peoples anecdotal stories or uninformed ideas.

My point is that the author of this study is not doing solid statistical research.  It is very difficult to do really quality statistical research, and it is common for people to do statistical studies poorly without knowing that it was poorly done.  In my current degree I am being trained by some of the best social science statisticians in the world and their biggest complaint is how easy it is to get articles through peer review that are not doing quality methods because people do not really scrutinize that part of the article as they should. 

I have not read all of the study and alas I also do not have the data to do my own analysis to refute some of the points that I think are particularly not solid.  However the critiques raised by Galt were pretty valid from what I have seen of the study.  Also, if we refute one part of the argument that is crucial to the logic of the claims, that's all it takes.  When I have a chance I'll talk it over with my boss and see what he thinks of the study.  I'm just saying that claiming Stanford Law Review as a reason it's a good study is really not a good argument.

[frankfurt]

Agreed. But it is more scientific than Jon Galt espousing his opinions as if they were fact. The reason there is such little information of this kind is unwillingness by elite universities to grant access to such information. The top few schools will not even post their LSAC grid due to fear of public embarrassment. So, when Jon Galt insists that blacks do not benefit much from AA and they perform well as law student, what else do we have to look at?

[King80s]

Not really.. All of JohnGalt's points are addressed in the study.

Here's the breakdown:
1) JG is asserting the 'possibility' the bottom 10% are likely scoring well on the bar

there are plenty of tables refuting this

as for the 'author' not stating the correlation.. this is also in fact incorrect.. the author shows hte correlation between law school grades and bar passage rate.

2) JG's argument about not accounting for geographic differences in bar location is incorrect. see page 80.


Basically what the author is claiming is, with the exception of the top law schools, GPA is one of the strongest predictors for bar passage and career opportunities.  LS GPA is obviously related to class rank.  For that reason, for the non-top law schools, those getting heavy AA boosts are in pools whose numeric indexes are higher.  For that reason their class ranking and GPA drop which severely affects them adversely.. (bar, and law firm hiring)

The author (who claims to have a half-black child) then makes this as the basis that the AA boost actually hurts recipients, due to class ranking.  Taking it a step back, forget the boost and ask a white candidate: 
If you had to choose between :
A) school ranked 40 and graduating in the bottom 20%
and
B) school ranked 50 and graduating in the top 20%

which would you choose?  It's a very simple argument and applicable to anyone, regardless of race.. his point is that for some AA recipients where choice B is a strong possibility, the boost is resulting in choice A.

[SanchoPanzo]

Seems there are some responses to this article. Critiques, counters, etc.

So, if you are interested I'd suggest you search Google. Or try some of the links below to start.

Sander's UCLA Page (has his essay, responses, etc)
http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/

Yale Law Journal's Critique
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/archive_abstract.asp?id=492
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/archive_abstract.asp?id=494

Stanford Law Journal Critique. Stanford Law Journal planned to published (i have not see it) 4 critiques of this essay with response to the critiques by Sanders in MAY 2005 (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/lawreview/content/SanderFAQ.pdf)

Here's a draft of one. http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/critics/CCKL.pdf
Our May issue will contain four responses: one by Professors Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks; one by Professors David Chambers, Timothy Clydesdale, William Kidder, and Richard Lempert; one by Professor David Wilkins, and one by Professor Michele Dauber. We will also publish a reply by Professor Sander.

Keep in mind Stanford specifically states that:
The Stanford Law Review takes no position on the relative merits of the initial article or the responses. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/lawreview/content/SanderFAQ.pdf)

Sanders also has a blog somewhere. I found it and then lost it. If you're interested, search for it. Shouldn’t be too hard to find

[John Galt]

It is the case that making it into a big journal is NOT proof that the article is good nor that it uses solid methodology.  I agree with John Galt's critiques.  The author fails to make some important coorelations needed for the logic of his argument.  That doesn't mean he's stupid or something, just that it is really hard to do this type of study in a convincing manner.  He doesn't have the ability to get individual level bar passage data that can be linked to the academic individual level data, which would be necessary to do a better study. 

I'd just like to note that there are plenty of articles published in great journals that make spurious conclusions.  It happens regularly.  Also, law reviews are actually not known for having the greatest peer review standards, in particular for social science research.

i disagree with the conclusion of the author, however I also believe JohnGalt's points are weak and almost preposterous.  If you're willing to go along with his argument that those in the bottom 10% of class ranking are likely passing the bar at the highest rate, then good luck

How did I even present an argument. I just pointed out the unfounded assumptions in homeboy's analysis. That is all.

[Nemesis]

i disagree with the conclusion of the author, however I also believe JohnGalt's points are weak and almost preposterous.  If you're willing to go along with his argument that those in the bottom 10% of class ranking are likely passing the bar at the highest rate, then good luck

HA! Weak and almost preposterous? I would expect sharper critism than this inlight of all our LSAT training. Galt didn't make any conclusions; he simply pointed out the flaws of the argument.

Good job Galt! Here's to critical reading and analysis.