Mismatch How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help and Why Universities Won't Admit It

by Sander

The debate over affirmative action has raged for over four decades, with little give on either side. Most agree that it began as noble effort to jump-start racial integration; many believe it devolved into a patently unfair system of quotas and concealment. Now, with the Supreme Court set to rule on a case that could sharply curtail the use of racial preferences in American universities, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor offer a definitive account of what affirmative action has become, showing that while the objective is laudable, the effects have been anything but.Sander and Taylor have long admired affirmative action's original goals, but after many years of studying racial preferences, they have reached a controversial but undeniable that preferences hurt underrepresented minorities far more than they help them. At the heart of affirmative action's failure is a simple phenomenon called mismatch. Using dramatic new data and numerous interviews with affected former students and university officials of color, the authors show how racial preferences often put students in competition with far better-prepared classmates, dooming many to fall so far behind that they can never catch up. Mismatch largely explains why, even though black applicants are more likely to enter college than whites with similar backgrounds, they are far less likely to finish; why there are so few black and Hispanic professionals with science and engineering degrees and doctorates; why black law graduates fail bar exams at four times the rate of whites; and why universities accept relatively affluent minorities over working class and poor people of all races.Sander and Taylor believe it is possible to achieve the goal of racial equality in higher education, but they argue that alternative policies -- such as full public disclosure of all preferential admission policies, a focused commitment to improving socioeconomic diversity on campuses, outreach to minority communities, and a renewed focus on K-12 schooling -- will go farther in achieving that goal than preferences, while also allowing applicants to make informed decisions. Bold, controversial, and deeply researched, Mismatch calls for a renewed examination of this most divisive of social programs -- and for reforms that will help realize the ultimate goal of racial equality.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, Race, Science, Academia

347 pages, Paperback

First published July 31, 2012

Reviews

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really compelling, thorough explanation of Sander's article on how fewer black law school graduates are passing the bar and actually becoming lawyers under affirmative action. I definitely think Taylor's solution of a socio-economic affirmative action feels like a no-brainer, but, as I was sitting in a lecture about the Fisher case here at UT, I see how strongly people feel about the issue. And, admittedly, taking away racial preference does limit the number of students AT a university and that can be uncomfortable to witness.

Still, it is morally reprehensible to demand that black students wander around campus like some sort of campus lawn ornament, instead of thinking of them as actually human beings, who will want to graduate and get a job at some point. It does no good to bring in students to take away their time, their money and, perhaps worst of all, their confidence that they can succeed all so that when they drop out of school we can feel sanctimonious in admitting more students. It keeps the admission numbers high, doesn't it, when the minority students only stick around for 2 years?

There are good cultural cases for university-sponsored diversity, but perhaps that's where our focus needs to be rather than exclusively race. A rich 3rd-generatation Argentine-American does not equal a first-generation college student child of Mexican day laborers. Or, for that matter, the first-generation college student child of Polish day laborers. One of the most interesting policy items Sander's brings up in that maybe admissions should stop looking for interesting volunteer opportunities in personal statements because the people who need college don't have the resources to take volunteer-cation to Costa Rica when they need to work at MacDonald's all summer to support their family. Plenty to think about here.

[Tim O'Hearn · Rating 5 out of 5]

At the convergence of the college admissions bribery scandal, the announcement of socioeconomic status being added to SAT profiles, and Asian-Americans suing elite colleges for discrimination, people on all sides are left wondering why nobody seems to know what's going on behind closed doors at college admissions offices.

This is the book that nobody wants you to read. It blows the doors off the inner cloisters of our most revered sanctums of learning. Really--the facts contained within are heresy. Really--like Stuart Taylor's other book about the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal--it's frowned upon to talk about this subject matter at cocktail parties even though you will be struck with a burning desire to proselytize.

A couple of years back, Richard Sander wrote an article in which he presented the Mismatch Hypothesis. This hypothesis, simply, is that those who are meant to be aided by affirmative action are in actuality set up for failure. They are underqualified, especially for Law School and undergraduate STEM majors, and end up discouraged and confused.

Disappointed and confused; and with quantifiably worse life outcomes than their peers who went to less selective schools.

Even to someone who hasn't attended college, this probably sounds plausible. Sander's research showed that it's not that beneficiaries of affirmative action can't achieve great things. It's just that human beings, in general, learn better when they are more toward "the middle" of the class rather than the lowest deciles. However logical, this original essay was attacked from every angle imaginable.

Prominent critics made up facts and called him a racist. Others cited papers that were of dubious quality. Sander was so annoyingly correct that he was actually able to harness counter arguments made against him, match what was said with indisputable empirical data, and use them to further bolster his points. Journals rescinded their offers to publish his work. Powerful people tried to pull his funding or restrict his access to data sets. Oh, and the media refuses to talk about it.

Thankfully, Sander teamed up with Taylor and they proceeded to double down and clean up. Such a systematic and brutal rebuke penned by these two legal scholars is about as fun as watching a heavyweight boxing match ringside except the tickets only cost $20.

Another phenomenon presented is called the cascade effect, where the most capable beneficiaries of affirmative action end up disproportionately in the most elite schools meaning that the schools downstream have even worse candidate pools to draw from.

For example, one can't deny that there is a small group of targeted minority students that don't need affirmative action to get into Harvard. They will end up going to Harvard. But then, because of affirmative action, you have a lot of high schoolers who would otherwise be just below Cornell's standards breezing into Harvard. Then, Cornell has to drop standards to hit quotas. Having an even worse pool of prospective candidates, Colgate has to do the same. And so on and so forth for less prestigious schools. The result is that even once you get to upper-mid-tier schools like Colgate or my alma mater Lehigh, minority students have horrible outcomes.

Lehigh University accepts 20-something percent of students each year. It wasn't easy for me to get in. Despite my strongly-worded book review, I don't hold beneficiaries of race-based admissions quotas in contempt. I feel bad for them--and this book helped me form an understanding of what can be done to help. Lehigh has traditionally been known as an engineering school and the engineering classes are very difficult. If you saw how many students are chewed up by Calc 1 only to end up as Sociology majors, you wouldn't believe me. I was a teaching assistant and tutor for the entry-level Computer Science class. The first few weeks were a sad shitshow (and, before you ask, yes, I have participated in happy shitshows).

The effect of this, beyond what's recounted above and covered in the book (okay--I admit Richard Sander mentions it briefly), is that these students end up rather pissed off for the rest of their time at the school. Which leads to my wondering what role academic frustration has played in the rise of extreme campus activism over the last five years.

Things are going to get worse. These guys are never going to get the credit they deserve. If you think of yourself as a member of the "American people" who cares about "the issues," this should be your next book. It can be our secret.

[Noah W · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book addresses the problems of affirmative action and how many groups that have "benefitted" from affirmative action are reeling from the side affects such as significant numbers of college dropouts.

The author explains how affirmative action will harm any prospective college student.

College Options
Tier 1 - "Ivy League"
Tier 2 - Decent private or state college
Tier 3 - Community College

Student Pool
Type 1 - Well educated, high scores on SAT/ACT (A+)
Type 2 - Prepared for college, decent grades (B)
Type 3 - Would require remedial work to be prepared to enter college.

How affirmative action harms any group it targets:
Most Type 1 students will be admitted into Tier 1 schools. However, the college may employ a affirmative action program where they would also grab Type 2 students. Type 2 students are good students, but Tier 1 schools may be just outside their comfort zone in terms of required academic perseverance. Also, Type 1 students from non-targeted groups may be denied in order to make room for Type 2 students.

This scenario repeats itself for Tier 2 schools as they pull in Type 2 and Type 3 students.

If schools would make merit the sole determining factor for admissions they would be able to prevent dropouts due to academic intensity.

[Khari · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is absolutely fantastic.

I learned so much from reading it. It talks about what affirmative action is and breaks it down into its constituent pieces and talks about the effects of each piece.

It was mind opening. I've been against affirmative action for a while because it seems to me to just be discrimination against a majority group instead of a minority. People should be admitted to universities and jobs regardless of their sex, race or religion, all that should be considered is their ability to complete the program of study or the duties of the job.

This book shows the underbelly of affirmative action, which made me realize my original position was incorrect. Affirmative action is not just discrimination against the majority, it's harmful to the minority! It's setting up the recipients of affirmative action to fail. That is just so wrong.

A lot of what this book talks about is the long term effects of affirmative action. Affirmative action is quite a good program if all we desire as a society is having more minority students attending college. It's working great in that way. What it's failing at is encouraging minority students to graduate college. The success rate of those who received affirmative action is abominable and they are not getting the academic help that they need in order to succeed, so they just fall further and further behind.

Reading this book convinced me that I needed to do more reading about the subject and also convinced me more than ever that affirmative action is not the answer to our racial education gap in America. Instead of giving certain people preferences based on their race and ignoring their abilities we need to focus on raising their abilities. That means that we need to focus on primary and secondary schools and eliminate the racial gap there. We need to invest our time in kids, not our tax dollars but our time. Time to read to them and to encourage them and instill in them the value of education and of intellectual achievement. We also need to encourage transparency in all of our educational institutions so that long term outcomes and effects can be compared and examined so that we can fix the problems we have instead of pretending that they don't exist.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Affirmative action is one of those topics you can't touch without seeming like a hater. That might describe some of those who oppose racial preferences in college and graduate school, but not these two authors. This books is not about how racial preferences hurts whites who are discriminated against. This focuses solely on how these programs impact blacks and Hispanics. One of the authors is a former community organizer from Chicago and is committed to bridging the achievement gap between blacks and whites. This book - based on extensive empirical evidence - documents how racial preference programs are hurting their intended beneficiaries by putting them over their head in academic environments. As one black woman interviewed in the book said so eloquently while working on college applications with her son, "I don't care where my son can get in. I want to make sure he goes somewhere he can get out." It's often said of pro-lifers that they only care about children from conception to birth. Then, they don't care and oppose welfare, etc. It's a smear, but it sticks to some. Well, a fair case can be made that affirmative action supporters only care about helping minorities from application to college acceptance. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so frightened to talk about the unbelievably awful graduation rates and, for law students, bar passage rates.

[NCHS Library]

From Follet: The debate over affirmative action has raged for over four decades, with little give on either side. Most agree that it began as noble effort to jump-start racial integration; many believe it devolved into a patently unfair system of quotas and concealment. Now, with the Supreme Court set to rule on a case that could sharply curtail the use of racial preferences in American universities, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor offer a definitive account of what affirmative action has become, showing that while the objective is laudable, the effects have been anything but.

Sander and Taylor have long admired affirmative action's original goals, but after many years of studying racial preferences, they have reached a controversial but undeniable conclusion: that preferences hurt underrepresented minorities far more than they help them. At the heart of affirmative action's failure is a simple phenomenon called mismatch. Using dramatic new data and numerous interviews with affected former students and university officials of color, the authors show how racial preferences often put students in competition with far better-prepared classmates, dooming many to fall so far behind that they can never catch up. Mismatch largely explains why, even though black applicants are more likely to enter college than whites with similar backgrounds, they are far less likely to finish; why there are so few black and Hispanic professionals with science and engineering degrees and doctorates; why black law graduates fail bar exams at four times the rate of whites; and why universities accept relatively affluent minorities over working class and poor people of all races.

Sander and Taylor believe it is possible to achieve the goal of racial equality in higher education, but they argue that alternative policies -- such as full public disclosure of all preferential admission policies, a focused commitment to improving socioeconomic diversity on campuses, outreach to minority communities, and a renewed focus on K-12 schooling -- will go farther in achieving that goal than preferences, while also allowing applicants to make informed decisions. Bold, controversial, and deeply researched, Mismatch calls for a renewed examination of this most divisive of social programs -- and for reforms that will help realize the ultimate goal of racial equality.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a painstakingly researched and lucid take-down of racial preference policies in higher education admissions practice. The authors really did their homework, and take great pains to present their findings in a careful, neutral, thoughtful manner, considering the political volatility of the subject. My only real complaint about the book is that the writers are SO careful that several chapters bog down under highly technical writing and repetition, seemingly in an effort to avoid any possibility of being misunderstood.

Some of the most interesting material, to me, are the anecdotes regarding the sheer resistance to the data in the "higher education establishment." There is fierce pushback to any suggestion that racial preference policies simply don't work (at least towards the ends they are intended for) and the stories contained in these chapters both fascinated and disturbed me.

At the end of the day, the data is clear. These policies have massive, damaging unintended consequences. As the authors argue, for a more just society (yes, including racial justice, something the writers are clearly passionate about) we need better transparency regarding college admissions practices, we need more honest conversations about these policies, and we need to focus more on things like economic diversity and rigorous academic support for students AFTER they are admitted, rather than being content with simply getting them in the door. We can do better, and hopefully 'mismatch' helps move the needle on these conversations.

[Dick Hamilton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent information on the problems created when colleges use racial preferences to admit poorly qualified students, with resulting poor results in graduation and changes in college majors. The authors demonstrate how better outcomes for all parties would be achieved without this approach. The authors also make many suggestions on how to improve the outcomes. The most shocking thing in the book is the extent to which colleges try to hide these preferences and the lengths the colleges go to make accessing this information difficult. In addition, the author shows the colleges lie about their actions. A very sad commentary when you consider that this ultimately impacts the consumer, i.e. the students, with no apparent benefit that can be quantified.

[Douglas Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very Illuminating Book on The Need to Reform Affirmative Action

The author's present a persuasive argument that the current affirmative action framework does not help, but rather harms minorities. As the author's cogently argued, the path forward is transparency and a focus on the data, not opacity in admissions standards and numbers.

[Andy Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors have my respect, writing about a subject that much of the science and sociology community won't touch. They show that the higher education community is willingly ignorant of the data showing the negatives of racial preferences. Not much filler and the writing is simple and effective. One of the best books I read this year.

[Jared · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book shatters the notion that affirmative action is helpful even for the students that are the so called beneficiaries. The premise of the book is actually quite simple and nonracial. The premise of mismatch theory is that people who enter a school with an academic index (some composite of GPA and standardized test scores such as ACT, SAT, MCAT, LSAT) considerably lower than their peers will do worse in school than their peers; whereas people who enter a school with an academic index comparable to the average will do much better. A second principle of mismatch theory is that how well one does compared to their peers largely predicts how successful their future schooling will be; even graduation rates. These two theories say that if one has a significantly lower academic index than their peers, then they will be ill-served by attending a more prestigious/elite/challenging university where they will likely struggle academically.

The data the authors use shows that affirmative action hurts those it is intended to help. A couple important facts about modern affirmative action are laid out early on in the book. One important point is that modern affirmative action in higher education is primarily about racial preferences. This means that, in practice, affirmative action is largely just giving preference in admissions to one race over another and not ensuring that everyone receives a fair chance at admission. The second important fact about affirmative action is that the racial preferences are far more than mere “tie-breakers.” Most schools are very secretive about how much of a preference is given to blacks and hispanics, but it has shown to be substantial. At the University of Michigan, black applicants were getting a boost relative of a full GPA point (considering a GPA of 2.9 to as a 3.9). That means that a black student with a 3.0 GPA would be considered well ahead of a white or Asian student with a 3.8 if both had the same SAT score. This leads to huge disparities in the chance of acceptance for different races. For example, in 1999 if you were black or Hispanic and applied to the University of Michigan with an SAT score in the range of 700-749 you had an 89% chance of acceptance; if you were white or asian with the same score you only had a 7% chance of acceptance. The authors claim that the racial preferences used at the University of Michigan were in the standard range of preferences used by such universities.

The rest of the book is dedicated to explaining the data on how these racial preferences hurt the students that receive them. The University of California school system was forced to stop using racial preferences in 1998 after Proposition 209 was passed in 1996 which barred state schools from discriminating or giving preferences based on race. The data that developed comparing before and after prop 209 was very interesting: the total number of blacks receiving bachelor’s degrees rose after racial preferences were outlawed. Despite fewer blacks entering the school there was a 55% increase in black students who received degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math. The only problem was that the school administrators hated prop 209 and were determined to find ways around it, which they did using a ‘holistic’ application process and thus mismatch eventually reentered.

The authors of this book are liberals, true blue bleeding heart liberals. They even use the pronoun “her” generically instead of “his” sometimes because they are liberals and think that kind of stuff is important. The authors of this book were not trying to find data to support their worldview, they both previously supported affirmative action but have changed their worldview because of the data. This should give confidence to liberals who might otherwise be prejudiced against the argument if it was made by a conservative, although ‘mismatch’ was a term coined by black conservative Thomas Sowell, who makes the same argument.

The wording of the aforementioned proposition 209 bill was as follows, “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” If equality before the law and the state are not good enough reasons for opposing affirmative action, then hopefully the data in this book will help convince people that affirmative action really is harmful towards the very people it intends to help.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book, and in some ways a dangerous one. The upside is the gathering of data on the impact of affirmative action/racial preferences (depending on whether the speaker is liberal or conservative)on the students receiving it. The downside is a tendency towards petulance and the shrillness which tends to characterize either extreme in today's political dialogue.

The authors claim (and, I think, sincerely) that the book is about the welfare of students receiving a boost in admission processes, but unfortunately, this is undercut by too many whiny complaints about people who have disagreed with their work. Maybe it's true that the authors are right and all their detractors misguided. I'm not a statistician and cannot judge this, but I strongly suspect there is another side to much of what they allege.

I get to four stars because a the book makes it clear that schools on too many occasions have admitted students of color for institutional reasons rather than for the benefit of the students themselves. The authors claim that the negative impact of admissions preferences is greatest as admissions selectivity decreases. However, having worked at institutions admitting students at almost every rate from 18% to 85%, I found it to be the opposite. The overmatched students were far more common at the more competitive schools and the unhappiness greater.

I get to four stars because the book is a useful compendium of existing research, and the case that is made that many students would be better served in reaching their educational and life goals by enrolling at a school a tier down from the more prestigious one they chose. But I have seen a great deal of mismatch for students other than those of color, and would prefer to see the concept dealt with more broadly. This would have been a better book had it been limited to this issue, and not gotten into counterattacks on people who have displeased the author, and forays into questions like educational reform.

The case the authors make is exaggerated. While they claim that inappropriate racial preferences exist at all schools with SATs averaging 1100 or higher, I am skeptical. There are only about 200 institutions among several thousand in the US with admissions rates below 50%. Most are at 70% or higher, and at these levels, there is no room to elevate any application cohort with a preference. The book deals with surprisingly few (and redundant) institutional examples -- the state systems in California and Texas, plus law schools in general. Their criticisms seem compelling to me, but overdrawn.

In addition, the authors create their own academic index in which admissions testing (the SAT or ACT) count 60% and high school grades, 40%. This is contrary to all the research I have seen, which generally suggests that about 80% of the ability to predict college grades comes from the high school g.p.a., and testing only adds about 10%.

Finally, the authors are out of their depth at the end of the book when they see charter schools as the answer. I find Diane Ravitch a lot more convincing on this subject (and she disagrees vehemently) and her work at least deserves discussion if they are going to approach the topic of educational reform at all. Their solutions were slick and only one side of a national debate of consequence, and belong in another book.

This book needs to be read in the larger context of the cynicism of the admission processes at colleges and universities with the ability to be selective in their intake. The authors show little concern, for instance, with athletics, though among admitted athletes were generally the least qualified students I encountered working in admission. Colleges and universities chase a grail of increased selectivity when they can, but to no purpose. Does a school really get better when it reduces its admission rate from 12% to 5%? Admission of students in any category these days are too much about sales and numbers and too little about education and their welfare.

[Gerald Kinro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sander, a UCLA law professor and Taylor a legal reporter for the New York Times present data that indicates that affirmative action harms students it was intended to help. Since the 1960s, top-level universities have attempted to increase their minority (Black and Hispanic) enrollments. Many used methods to pad the qualifications of these minorities to help them gain admission. Problem solved. Not according to the authors. They show that many of these who were admitted were inadequately prepared for the work and competition at these top tiered schools. As a result, a significant number dropped out of school. Many that began studying the math and science fields switched majors. Furthermore, many minority law school students failed to graduate, and if they did, failed the bar examination. Those that went to less competitive schools fared better. In addition to national data, the authors used the state of California as a laboratory with its Proposition 309 that required race neutrality in college admissions programs. California has a multi-tiered university system so much data was collected. The results validated their thesis. The authors go on to say that universities will not admit this for fear of being branded racist. Instead, they go to great lengths to circumvent any law that advocates race neutrality. The press will aid these circumventions with half and/or inaccurate reporting. Both Sanders and Taylor were and still are advocates of the goals affirmative action programs are supposed to bring out. Instead they see the reverse. They advocate pre-college outreach and education and affirmative action that is based on socio-economic factors instead of race alone.

I enjoyed the book. I found it informative and easy to read. I would have liked to have a better job done on the graphs with improved labels and captioning and even charts of a different type to make certain comparisons easier. Do I agree? To a great extent the work validates much of my beliefs of affirmative action. As presented, the arguments by the authors are plausible. I did not, however, read the bibliography materials to scrutinize and analyze the data in great detail. Still, I enjoyed the read. I suggest this book to anyone who has questions about affirmative action.

[Mckinley · Rating 4 out of 5]

More weighted to data analysis, with narrative examples, and less for policy recommendations. Some discussion of why reform has been difficult.

Affirmative action (for academics) is primarily about racial preference. Overall, there is a cascading effect (picking minorities better suited to a lower-tier school) which effects the entire higher ed. arena. The concern is that it's not easy to make up the lost ground and it's more common to far further behind. Thus the real problem is being unprepared and academic preparation prior to entry. (Pointing to a spectrum of racial inequities.) Further, much research suggests that learning and grades matter greatly for long-term career success.

Students should be encouraged to go where they will do well academically rather than to the most prestigious school they can get into (Increasing Faculty Diversity, 2003).

What needs to happen is a closing of the test score gap at the primary level. Two factors that show up around this are 1. enthusiastic, well-trained and intelligent teachers (attract candidates, evaluate and hire poor) and 2. schools with orderly environments to encourage learning, goo academic values and elimination of obstacles to learning (school rules, curriculum to values, engaging parents in their child's performance).

[Reid Mccormick · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am all for the use of data to construct solid arguments. However, just because one has a lot of data does not mean you have a solid argument.

Though written a few years ago, Mismatch is a very relevant book. Just a couple of months ago the Supreme Court listened to more arguments concerning racial preferences at the University of Texas. Remarks from Justice Scalia has amplified the debate throughout the country.

So let me get to it. As a book, Mismatch is a bit long, quite repetitive, and at times it contained useless information. As an argument, I can see how one could make an argument against affirmative action and racial preferences. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of valid arguments in favor of affirmative action and racial preferences that make perfect sense. The authors of Mismatch sort of dismiss any critic of their study has having a secret agenda.

I am confused by the moniker of “elite” colleges and universities. Why are colleges more “elite” than others? Having “elite” colleges and “non-elite” colleges seems like a problem that needs to be addressed then.

All in all, I did not walk away from this book feeling more educated about the subject. I walked away feeling confused.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

No matter where you fall on the question of affirmative action this is a book you need to read. No one questions the overall idea that it would be great to make access to higher education available to all students regardless of gender, race, religion, and economic status. This book systematically looks the current practices to see if they actually benefit disadvantaged groups. Surprisingly, and very convincingly, the results presented in the novel suggest that preferences given in admissions actually lead to worse academic outcomes. It is a stimulating book that goes beyond emotional arguments and tries to actually look at the facts. I am a pretty statistically oriented individual and liked the walk through of the analyses they did. This is the one weakness of the book. At times it can be more akin to a stats text book. This didn't bother me though. Again I can't stress how this is the type of academic research that individuals on all sides of the political spectrum should be aware of.

[Natalie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book advances an interesting and compelling hypothesis about how elite schools may hurt the long-term outcomes of under-prepared minority students who receive large racial preferences. These questions - increasingly important as courts make decisions regarding the constitutionality of preferences - deserve careful further research. However, the evidence is not as indisputable as the authors make it out to be (it's difficult to find a statistical strategy that compares the outcomes of students who receive preferences to their counterfactual outcomes in a world without preferences), and the authors are often dismissive in their characterization of their critics work. For example, in The Racial Achievement Gap, Kane, using similar statistical methods to the authors of Mismatch, finds evidence of large preferences in terms of SAT scores, but also finds that attending an elite school appears to raise long term income and chances of graduation.

[Mark Kagan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing is dry and academic at times. The authors are constantly referring to past and future chapters making it a bit difficult to follow along. However, the story Sander and Taylor tell of the counterintuitive results of racial preferences in admissions is a truly important one. The authors demonstrate over and over again through rigorous data analysis that racial preferences hurt the very people they are supposed to help. Minorities suffer from mismatch (ending up at schools where they are way below the median student), which impedes their learning and deals a blow to their confidence in the process. This book is a must read for anyone concerned with the future of higher education. Nevertheless because of the quality of the writing and giving it 3 stars

[Robert Giambo · Rating 3 out of 5]

The basic message of the book is that affirmative action, as implemented in universities, results in some students who are unprepared for the colleges that admit them - in turn leading to frustration and low graduation rats. Authors provide statistical evidence of this premise. The authors don't seemed to have pre-judged the issue - that is, they did not start out saying affirmative action is bad and therefore we need to find evidence to support this position. The still support some type of affirmative action where results would be better and believe more emphasis should be placed on affirmative action based on income level rather than race, independent of income.

[B]

In case one had any doubts about the degree of bad faith, doublethink, hypocrisy, repression, etc., that pervades liberal academia, this book can settle the case. To read this book is to be reminded that the US intellectual elite deserve zero trust or deference on any issue of consequence, and just how profoundly their views and interests diverge from those of the public at large. An utterly disillusioning book, if one had any remaining illusions to begin with.

[Suzana · Rating 3 out of 5]

The idea behind the book is fascinating and very interesting. The writing style a bit repetitive, as the authors make the same point over and over again and I was ready to say, OK, I got it! But, I totally recommend it, very good arguments based on data!

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid and carefully-argued piece, but "mismatch theory" can be explained and understood in 5-10 pages. Yet I read the entire thing, as is my wont, and more's the pity.

[Michelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting but gets redundant