In other words, the data show that if blacks were admitted to law school through race-neutral selection, they would perform as well as whites. As I have noted, there is nonetheless a very large black-white credentials gap among those applying to law school, and this gap does not disappear when one uses simple controls for such glib explanations as family income or primary-school funding. Researchers have made great strides over the past generation in accounting for the black-white gap in measured cognitive skills. The dominant consensus is that: (a) the gap is real, and shows up under many types of measurement; (b) the gap is not genetic, i.e., black infants raised in white households tend to have the same or higher cognitive skills as whites raised in the same conditions; and (c) there are a variety of cultural and parenting differences between American blacks and whites (e.g., time children spend reading with parents or watching television) that substantially contribute to measured skill gaps. On these points, see the excellent essays in THE BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP, supra note 143, particularly chapters one through five. Jim Lindgren has pointed out that in the National Survey data analyzed in Table 5.2, the “race” coefficients become at least weakly significant (and negative) if one does not include those not reporting race with white students. So far as I can determine (from other data provided by some participating schools), students not reporting race were predominantly white or Asian, which supports the approach taken in this table. In any case, the race effects are still extremely weak. Under any formulation, academic outcomes for all racial groups are dominated by academic credentials, not race.
