New Article on Mismatch Theory by WUSTL Prof

[GoDumb]

Meiji, I appreciate your words of encouragement.  I admit that I have a lame sense of humor, and I like bay area music a lil too much. 

As for Trollik, he really overstates things, and fails to support his overreaching claims.  He has yet to support his claim that “non-URMs will have better qualifications for success than URMs at any individual school given identical measured numbers,” except by stating it is a given due to AA.  Next, he gives weight to what he calls “unmeasured credentials.”  So, we don’t know how to measure these credentials but we do know that nonURMs have more of them by virtue of AA.  For that matter, if these credentials are incalculable how do we know if they lead to success? 

I will concede that URMs generally have lower LSATs and/or GPAs to their nonURM counterparts by virtue of AA, but it stops there.  There has been no evidence that has lead me to believe that nonURMs possess a monopoly on “unmeasured credentials.” Thus, Trollik’s assumption that when nonURMs are admitted to a school with lower numbers that it means that they have credentials so impressive that their “qualifications for success” are greater than URMs with similar numbers… is really just that, an assumption, not a irrefutable fact.  However, Trollik treats his claim as if it were fact.   

[Miss P]

i don't see what's so controversial about trollik's definition of affirmative action.  nor do i see why it should be terribly problematic.

As per normal, I'm with you, halfie.

[Miss P]

so why's J busy calling him a racist?

Pattern and practice, most likely.  Or because of his assumptions about the superior "unmeasured qualifications" of the non-URM students in the bottom quarter of the class?  (Limiting his control group to legacies.)

[==caI==]

so why's J busy calling him a racist?

Pattern and practice, most likely.  Or because of his assumptions about the superior "unmeasured qualifications" of the non-URM students in the bottom quarter of the class?  (Limiting his control group to legacies.)

You forget the more obvious explanation: J's doing it because he finds it fun.

Now which one's J again?

[Astro]

Trollik demonstrated my point for me.  Nice.

Also, it IS fun.  As usual, though, Miss P's basically right.

[Miss P]

Worth a skim:

http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/courses.LAPSYoon.pdf

[Miss P]

I think you're half right, if that.  For one, these are exactly the same data, using the clusters in the BPS, that Sander used to develop his mismatch argument. The question is really whether a "structured" or reduced-form approach is the best one with which to tackle these data, no?

But eh, I'm just putting it out there.

ETA:  I don't think these are the questions Rothstein and Yoon are asking (indeed they accept the notion of the "boost" on the second page or so), but if you're interested:

so is the question being answered here whether there is a boost to relatively smart kids given a leg up? or is the question whether or not AA ends up increasing or decreasing the number of minorities who become lawyers?

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/AyresBrooksResponse.pdf

[Miss P]

they say what I agreed with a while ago:

Sanders doesn't know statistics, so his methodology and analysis is wrong.

But, from the looks of it there simply isn't enough data to actually come up with anything approaching an answer one can be confident in.  Whether the conclusion is incorrect has not been proven.

I think you're wrong about this first bit.  Rothstein and Yoon show positive outcomes for all but the bottom quintile of applicants based on entry credentials.  It doesn't just critique Sander's methodology; it explains his results (away).  (Interestingly, Sander on law firm hiring seems to accept their results in part for graduates from the top two clusters of law schools.)

I do agree that the data are otherwise fairly limited (based both on the UGPA metric and the clustering).