The WSJ article John highlights gives a clear look into the “diversity” mindset: No matter what the facts may be, it must continue!

A point that Professor Heriot doesn’t mention, apropos of the difference in bar passage rates, is that elite law schools don’t focus much on learning material that would be useful on a state bar exam. A startling fact is that

in recent years, Campbell’s law school has had a higher pass rate on the North Carolina bar exam than Duke’s. Is that because the Campbell professors are better? No. Is it because the students are smarter? No.

The explanation is that Campbell’s mission is to help students make it into legal practice in the state. Many of the courses are geared toward that end. At Duke, on the other hand, there are students from all over the country. There is no emphasis on instruction designed to help students pass any state’s bar exam. Many course offerings are more theoretical and philosophical. For a student with modest academic abilities, a degree from the non-prestigious Campbell Law School might be a lot more useful than a degree from the prestigious Duke Law School. It could mean the difference between getting into the legal profession and not getting into it, a very serious consequence after investing three years and a huge amount of money.

I think Sander is right in concluding that elite law schools are not really doing a favor to students admitted under “affirmative action” policies. This is another instance where good intentions have led to bad results.

If top private law schools want to continue offering places to less qualified students so they can feel good about having promoted “diversity,” I’m sure they will continue to do so. Sander’s research ought to prompt

students thus admitted to contemplate whether they wouldn’t be better off by declining the offer of a top-tier law school and enrolling in a less prestigious school where they’re a better fit academically.