Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It [Hardcover]

Richard Sander (Author), Stuart Taylor Jr. (Author)

Book Description

Release date: October 9, 2012

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.

Editorial Reviews

Review

“This lucid, data-rich book is simply the best researched and most convincing analysis ever done of affirmative action in higher education, a work at once impeccably scholarly and entirely accessible to anyone interested in the social and legal ramifications of well-intentioned policies that, as the authors show, have a boomerang effect on the intended beneficiaries.”—Judge Richard A. Posner

“As a high-profile defender of affirmative action, I used to think the so-called ‘mismatch’ problem was a bit overblown. Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor have caused me to think again. How many bright and promising minority students, we must ask, have failed because they were steered—with the best intentions, of course—into elite schools for which they were less prepared academically than most of their classmates? What better ways can we devise to boost academic achievement and expand the pool of qualified students of all races? We don't do future generations of students any favors by trying to ignore this issue or pretend it doesn't exist. If common-sense moderates don't step up and engage this debate, we only allow extremists to take control of it.”—Clarence Page, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Chicago Tribune

“This book probably will make constitutional history. Written at the intersection of social science and law, its data conclusively demonstrate the damage that has been done to intended beneficiaries by courts’ decisions that have made racial preferences in college admissions an exception to the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”—George F. Will

“As a longtime defender of affirmative action, I used to think the so-called mismatch problem was an overhyped myth. But Sander and Taylor make a convincing case and, more important, good recommendations to keep affirmative action alive – without preferences.”
—Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune

“[Sander and Taylor] are intelligent critics who support the modest use of race in admissions but think very large preferences have harmful effects…. [T]his book is at its best when it skewers college and university officials – who feel morally superior for defending affirmative action – for in fact pursuing what Yale Law professor Stephen Carter has called ‘racial justice on the cheap.’”
—Richard Kahlenberg, The New Republic

“[A] powerful new book that explains the nefarious consequences of [undergraduate and graduate admissions programs] for the supposed beneficiaries of racial preferences. The dirty secret – not a dirty little secret, but a dirty huge secret – is how massive in size their racial preferences are.”
—Ed Whelan, National Review Online, Bench Memos

“The authors offer extensive data in support of their conclusions that the present system is not serving those students well…. This information will be argued over all the same, but the authors’ evenhanded suggestion that what might be a better strategy is to raise educational attainment by investing more in elementary and secondary education for lower-income students – ‘targeting economic need before racial identity,’ as they put it – seems unobjectionable on the face. The subject may be hard to talk about, but it must be, and this is a valuable contribution to opening that needed discussion.”
—Kirkus Reviews

“Mismatch is a story of good intentions gone terribly awry. Sander and Taylor document beyond disagreement how university admissions offices’ racial quotas and preferences systematically put black and Hispanic students in schools where they are far less well-prepared than others.”
—Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

“An influential book.”
—Michael Kinsley, Bloomberg View

“[A] wealth of information…. Dr. Sander and Mr. Taylor present an excellent explanation of what is currently meant by affirmative action and demonstrate how it has been abused.”
—New York Journal of Books

“[A] remarkable new book. [Sander and Taylor] have shifted the focus of the entire debate. Bypassing the standard arguments about core principles, their extensive research focuses on the actual effects of racial preferences on the students they were intended to benefit. Drawing upon data never before available to independent-minded scholars, they find, to their dismay, that such policies actually do more harm than good to black and Hispanic students. From now on, it will be impossible to have a serious debate on this subject without extensive reference to the evidence provided in this volume.”
—National Review

“[W]hat Mr. Sander and Mr. Taylor have accomplished here is incredibly impressive. The authors have done an excellent job of pulling together the available research, and Mr. Sander in particular has been dogged in his pursuit of fresh numbers…. Mr. Sander and Mr. Taylor, of course, have their share of critics, and Mismatch will not be the last word on this subject. But they have put the nation’s universities in a put-up-or-shut-up situation: They can either admit that preferences do harm, or they can release the data that prove otherwise.”
—Washington Times

“Sander and Taylor have marshaled a formidable amount of evidence to substantiate the mismatch theory, and…the payoff is persuasiveness…. Mismatch is very much in the tradition of the muckraking that Lincoln Steffens did a century ago when he took on the corruption in American cities; indeed, the book could be titled ‘The Shame of the Colleges.’”
—Wall Street Journal

“[A] sober, reasoned, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger critique of affirmative action…. One of the virtues of this book is that it is based on a rigorous, dispassionate examination of the facts. It is packed with easy-to-follow graphics and statistical analysis, as well as extensive case evidence based on interviews.”
—The American Spectator

“The highly anticipated Sander-Taylor book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It, was published Tuesday, on the eve of the oral argument in Fisher v. Texas. It is, in a word, magisterial. No matter what the Supremes decide, this work will be regarded as a major – perhaps the major – discussion of the use and abuse of race in American higher education, easily displacing Bowen and Bok’s unduly influential The Shape of the River, which it respectfully but effectively eviscerates…. As someone who has attempted to follow racial issues closely, I can assure you that you will learn, as I did, a great deal that you didn’t know and be impressed by the wealth of social science evidence ably and judiciously presented to support and extend the mismatch theory…. Mismatch, in short, is a major contribution to the debate over affirmative action, a model of vigorous but fair and balanced argument and analysis.”
—John S. Rosenberg, Minding the Campus

“The devastating new book Mismatch…has so much overwhelming evidence on the harm done to students who are black, Hispanic, or from other ‘under-represented’ minorities, that it will be hard for anyone with pretensions of honesty to be able to deny that painful fact…. Sander and Taylor have written an outstanding book that deserves to be read and pondered in many places for many years. They have performed a major service for all those who have an open mind on affirmative action.”
—Thomas Sowell, Claremont Review of Books

“[An] eye-opening new book…. The argument Sander and Taylor make is unpopular among academic administrators, and, they illustrate, it has been systematically suppressed. But the evidence that they present makes obvious that the solution to educational inequity is not to be found in continuing to mask it with racial admissions preferences that harm students.”
—Science Careers

“Anyone who wants an honest look at the hard facts about racial preferences in admissions to colleges and universities will find it – perhaps for the first time – in a book titled Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr…. The careful analysis of documented facts makes Mismatch a rare and valuable book for people who want to think.”
—Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate

“Drawing from rich and robust empirical research, interviews by students, faculty and administrators, and historical and legal analyses, Sander and Taylor offer a compelling argument that encourages the nation to be more mindful in how institutions serve all students in a manner that is both equitable and effective.... Sander and Taylor leave no stone unturned. This text is meticulously researched and well-written, and it should be welcomed in all circles debating the merits of affirmative action.”
—Teachers College Record

“[An] eye-opening critique of affirmative action…. Sander and Taylor present a lucid, accessible analysis of affirmative action in higher education and the groupthink enshrouding it, one that grapples with its failures while eschewing genetic determinism. Their well-argued challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy on racial preferences is sure to provoke controversy – and rethinking just as the Supreme Court hears an affirmative action case involving the University of Texas-Austin.”
—Publishers Weekly

“Mismatch provides a convincing and useful survey of the problems surrounding affirmative action.”
—Commentary

From the Inside Flap

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.

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 368 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (October 9, 2012)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465029965
• ISBN-13: 978-0465029969
• Product Dimensions: 6.4 x 1.3 x 9.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (20 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #114,679 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #5 in Books > Law > Constitutional Law > Discrimination
  • #32 in Books > Law > Specialties > Educational Law & Legislation

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

38 of 39 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Scholarly Work, Timely and Thought Provoking October 15, 2012

By David M. Sherman

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

"They were doing badly, it turns out, because the law schools were killing them with kindness by extending admissions preferences (and often scholarships to boot) that systematically catapulted blacks into schools where they were very likely not only to get bad grades but also actually have trouble learning." In a nutshell, this is the major thesis of Mismatch by Sander and Taylor. This incredibly timely book is a scholarly presentation of the relevant studies on affirmative action and racial preferences; both of which are defined clearly in the book. With the Fisher case decision looming at the end of the current Supreme Court term, I cannot think of a more important and timely book for both educators and the general public. It should be noted that the authors do NOT blame race for the cause of the poor black performance. They make it abundantly clear that their thesis is not racist or demeaning to minorities. Their claim is simpler. Racial preferences at the college and post-graduate level do more harm than good because minority students come unprepared in terms of skill level to compete with their fellow classmates.
The book is not easy reading. If you are looking for a book with only anecdotal evidence and interesting personal stories, this is not the tome for you. You will have to wade through a good deal of technical data, charts, studies, and some mathematic understanding of concepts such as percentiles and academic indexes. However, this is a cogently argued book that presents a difficult subject with grace and compassion. I highly recommend this book to all interested in a fair, factual approach to a "hot" topic. Written in a scholarly manner, the book, however, is accessible to all those willing to keep an open mind on the issue of racial preferences. I hope that the book gets the attention and praise it deserves. I highly recommend this brilliantly researched, excellently written book. With an open mind, I have learned much I did not know before. Bravo to the authors for their splendid work. If only more academics and journalists had the guts to tackle these difficult and emotionally charged subjects, then, we would have a fair and open debate on subjects that affect the lives of many; both black and white.

25 of 26 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Facing Reality October 24, 2012

By Loyd E. Eskildson HALL OF FAME

Format:Hardcover

Most selective colleges, universities, and professional schools use large racial preferences in admissions. The rationale for doing so has been dominated by fairness considerations. This book by Sander and Taylor shifts the focus from 'is it fair?' to 'does it work?' They argue that the evidence is overwhelming that mismatches often harm those they are trying to help because race-based admissions preferences for minority students create a 'mismatch' between students and universities. Students get admitted to more selective colleges and universities than they otherwise would be and then fall behind and are less likely to graduate. Thus, we have fewer minority college professors, lawyers, engineers, etc.

Abigail Fisher's current Supreme Court case against the University of Texas' minority preferences that denied her admission is supported by 2009 data that show the average SAT score of black freshmen admitted out side Texas' 'top 10%' law was 390 points (out of 2400) below the average white score and 467 points below the average Asian score. Similarly, the average Hispanic score was 120 points below the average white score. The authors contend such large mismatches create serious problems for those admitted under racial preferences.

Sander and Taylor contend that if the top schools practiced 'strict racial neutrality,' lower tiered schools would incur less pressure to achieve racial diversity, possibly affording a relatively simple resolution.

A key 'Mismatch' point - that students who attend higher-level law schools than they otherwise would have been admitted to have lower bar-exam passage rates than those at lower-level schools who did not receive any preferences and thus had an easier time learning. This conclusion is supported by data comparing grades, graduation, and bar passage for minority students attending second- and third-choice schools - the results were dramatically better at those lesser ranked schools with less/no preferential assistance required.

Another rationale offered for racial preferences is that these foster diverse classroom viewpoints and cross-racial friendships. Sander and Taylor, however, report that Duke University researchers found in a 2011 study that students were much more likely to become friends with classmates seen as academically similar to themselves, while students with large preferences were more likely to self-segregate and socially isolate themselves.

The authors recommend that schools pursuing equality of opportunity for all students (an admirable goal, but not legally required) instead direct resources towards recruiting more economically disadvantaged students better academically prepared and therefore a closer 'match.' Unfortunately, the authors also note that their colleagues have been rather apathetic about socioeconomic diversity.

Another Sander and Taylor suggestion - that schools using preferences be forced to disclose the size of those preferences and report the outcomes of past enrollees with comparable entering credentials.

My own suspicion - reform will come from the Supreme Court's decision on the Abigail Fisher case.

16 of 17 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars The take-aways from this book can be extrapolated to a larger population October 31, 2012

By A Reader

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

Mismatch was an eye-opening read. Although the book is based on affirmative action, I saw the take-aways as being much broader:

1. Success in college (and beyond) is directly related to the quality of education and parental support in childhood.

2. Students thrown into academic environments above the level they are prepared for (the academic index mentioned in the book) ends with many of those students to not only dropping out of the university but also dropping out of the higher education system in debt and feeling defeated.

3. When any "group" of students do poorly, the higher performing students and faculty tend to view the whole group as inferior.

4. Students who are better matched (via academic index) to the university they attend are more likely to succeed and go on to productive careers, as well as being seen as equals by their peers and faculty.

The UT lawsuit has been mentioned; Texas is a great example of mismatch at work without the affirmative action component. Texas has the Top 10% rule (where the top 10% of all high school graduates are automatically admitted to state universities). Students who attend small, average performing high schools are admitted to Texas universities automatically over students who attend high schools with very high test scores and low numbers of free/reduced lunches like Highland Park HS in Dallas; Westwood in Austin; Friendswood HS or Clear Lake HS in the NASA area; etc. The students from the more average HS are admitted with lower GPAs, less rigorous coursework, and fewer learning opportunities outside of the classroom.

The competition for student rank is fierce in the higher performing schools, to be in the top 10% requires a 3.8 GPA or higher. Yet in many ways, the top 1/2 of the high-performing HS are more university-ready than the top 10% at some of the average-performing HS. How does this affect both the mismatched students and the Texas Universities required to admit those students?

Anecdotally, I know quite a few high-performing HS students who weren't in the top 10% who left the state for college. I also know students from average performing HS who have gone to top Texas universities as Top 10% and dropped/failed out within the first year, never to return to higher education.

I believe this book illustrates the answer more completely than my anecdotal evidence. No matter the race, if a person hasn't had a challenging academic background and strong parental support, throwing them into Emory, UGA, or GA Tech is going to do more harm than good.