Bookmark and Share

         Mismatch Supplements

Portraits of exceptional schools in New York City and East Palo Alto, referenced on p. 272


p. 42, second paragraph, second line: "Henderson" should be "Hunter."

p. 43: The third paragraph incorrectly identifies Figure 3.2, "Preferences Can Hide Black Achievement," which appears on p. 44, as Figure 3.1.

p. 90, first line: "blacks entering law school did in 2005" should be "blacks in law school dropped sharply in 2005."

p. 125, last paragraph, 7th and 14th lines: Dan Lungren's name is misspelled.

pp. 127-128: David Duke was  elected in 1989 to the Louisiana (not the U.S.) House of Representatives, and his runs for the U.S. Senate and governor of Louisiana were in 1990 and 1991, not 1991 and 1992.

p. 184, eighth line: The statement in the first full paragraph that Clegg, Hansen, and two members of the hotel staff "quickly retreated out a side exit" is erroneous; it should have said that they "left the now-ended press conference." In fact, Clegg continued talking for a time after the protesters entered the room and then left through the same door through which the protesters had entered, having to push through some of them.

p. 208, third full paragraph: Judge Danny Boggs is on the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, not the Fifth Circuit.
p. 253: The last paragraph incorrectly identifies Figure 16.3, "Untapped Potential," which appears on p. 254, as Figure 16.1.


p. xviii: Readers may understandably think that we err in stating that an 1800 on the SAT I test would be two-thirds of the perfect score of 2400. We should have noted that the minimum score on each of the SAT I's three components is not zero but 200, and thus that in computing the index, we subtract 600 points both from the student's nominal score of 1800 (to make 1200) and from the perfect nominal score of 2400 (to make 1800).  And 1200 is two-thirds of 1800.

p. 238: The second full paragraph confusingly shifts from third-person narrative  of Sander's activities to the first-person "I," "we," and "me."

Larry Kramer, who was Dean of Stanford Law School during the relevant events, complained after Mismatch was published that the first paragraph on p. 72 is inaccurate in two respects, and rightly faults our failure to seek his response. First, Kramer recalled, the law school's administration — which Kramer plausibly took to mean him, although we and our sources did not name Kramer specifically — did not "request" (as the book states) but rather "suggested" that the Stanford Law Review's student editors publish multiple responses to Systemic Analysis. Second, Kramer stressed that contrary to the book's implication, "I never pressured them to do anything, and I would never have pressured them to choose only one side."

It is quite possible for both our sources and Kramer to be correct. Both the “editors” of the law review and the “administration” include many people, and we believe that many faculty and administrators at Stanford expressed strong views to a variety of editors at the law review about the controversy. We nonetheless regret not seeking Larry Kramer’s comments on these events before publication of the book, and we will provide a clearer account of these events in the book’s next edition.

Copyright © 2012 by Basic Books