3 ms·
> "Moreover, in David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell draws upon research that shows it’s actually more advantageous for a student to attend a college where they
by doctorpangloss 11y ago
> "Moreover, in David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell draws upon research that shows it’s actually more advantageous for a student to attend a college where they can be in the top 10% rather than in the bottom half of the class. It’s the top students at every college who receive the kind of attention from faculty and access to special programs that pave the way to more opportunity after college."
I thought this theory—mismatch theory—was discredited?
To clarify for future responses, check out this amicus brief sent to the Supreme Court in the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas. [0] There is a particularly exhaustive section pp. 14-16.
I bring this up (and prepare myself for the inevitable downvotes) because I feel like this mismatch theory exists only in the particular social debate around affirmative action, not because it necessarily is or is not true (even though mismatch theory is probably not true). Malcolm Gladwell's two stories in David and Goliath and in Outliers—general musings about private schools and musing about football players [1]—plus the one study by a journalist and an economist [2] arguing for Fisher are the entirety of the basis of mismatch theory. There may be two more articles supporting it since the Fisher case went to trial years ago. The amicus I link above must reference a dozen studies refuting it, from a variety of researchers in a variety of contexts. You'd have to believe there was a huge multi-academic conspiracy to simply ignore that evidence—you know, the kind that people think exists with climate change research.
Mismatch theory may be the only argument that is persuasive to these parents, because on the face of it, mismatch theory is consistent with their values for improving their children's positivist success. But what if it's not true? Trying to ignore the reality that the rat race pays off is not going to reduce suicides.
[0] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LCCR-and-Mintz-Fisher-Amicus-Empirical-Scholars.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LCCR-an...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/books/david-and-goliath-by-malcolm-gladwell.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/books/david-and-goliath-by... "As usual, Mr. Gladwell’s science is convenient. He has charts to back up his premise about academic success, but how is success measured? In happiness? Salary? Getting jobs, or keeping them? Read the annotations if you must, but they won’t get you far. Mr. Gladwell needs a David-Goliath school story, so he creates one. His version happens to have common sense on its side, even if it is in no way definitive or complete."
[2] https://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/ACN%20Richard%20Sander%20and%20Stuart%20Taylor.pdf https://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/ACN%20Richard%20San...
- omonra 11y agoThat's not my understanding, for example: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-pain... One site I found to 'debunk' mismatch theory focuses solely on graduation rate as a measure (ie students graduate more at more selective colleges). But that could be due these students transferring out to easier majors or simply graduating with lower grades (as discussed in the Atlantic article above).
- jpatrick 11y agoOne of the co-authors of that Atlantic article is Richard Sander, who's the leading proponent of the mismatch hypothesis and routinely overstates the evidence for it. His original study is based on outcomes for law students who started law school in 1991 -- not necessarily applicable, I'd argue, to undergraduates starting college in 2015 -- and his methodology has been pretty much discredited anyway (see the amicus brief that doctorpangloss cites). This is off-topic from the original post, but I think the whole mismatch controversy has been kind of a scary illustration of how one determined academic can shape the narrative around an issue: because he's a professor, and because media outlets trust professors (and like controversy), he can easily find a platform to represent the debate in a way that's favorable to his side (e.g. [0]). I don't think it's a crazy hypothesis or anything, and it's definitely worth debating, but I'd be skeptical of claims coming from someone who's staked so much of his career on its validity. </rant> [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/10/an-emerging-scholarly-consensus-on-mismatch-and-affirmative-action-ideologues-not-welcome/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- omonra 11y agoI think the mismatch theory is catching on because 1) It simply makes intuitive sense 2) There is simply lack of hard data that would disprove it Ie when you place a group of students whose SAT scores are 250 points below the average, in a competitive environment, they will struggle because there is no AA once inside the university. So this is the default 'makes sense' theory. If it is actually not true - you have to bring data to bear.