PreprintCited by 28Critical Race Theory in EducationSchool Choice and PerformanceHigher Education Research Studies

Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions: What Do Racial Preferences Do?

Open access
Rothstein, Jesse, Yoon, Albert·2007·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that race-based preferences in public university admissions are constitutional. But debates over the wisdom of affirmative action continue. Opponents of these policies argue that preferences are detrimental to minority students - that by placing these students in environments that are too competitive, affirmative action hurts their academic and career outcomes. This article examines the so-called "mismatch" hypothesis in the context of law school admissions. We discuss the existing scholarship on mismatch, identifying methodological limitations of earlier attempts to measure the effects of affirmative action. Using a simpler, more robust analytical strategy, we find that the data are inconsistent with large mismatch effects, particularly with respect to employment outcomes. While moderate mismatch effects are possible, they are concentrated among the students with the weakest entering academic credentials. To put our estimates in context, we simulate admissions under race-blind rules. Eliminating affirmative action would dramatically reduce the number of black law students, particularly at the most selective schools. Many potentially successful black law students would be excluded, far more than the number who would be induced to pass the bar exam by the elimination of mismatch effects. Accordingly, we find that eliminating affirmative action would dramatically reduce the production of black lawyers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.983027

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rothstein, J., & Yoon, A.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Rothstein, Jesse
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1601326273
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
affirmative action, law school admissions, racial preferences, mismatch hypothesis, minority students, Black law students, employment effects, bar exam pass rates, academic qualifications, legal education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review