Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=108748
Likely answer: unpredictable cycles lead to reaching for a larger number of schools to game the odds.nycparalegal wrote:The most interesting question raised by the video is the following: why are African Americans mis-applying to law school?
But if that were the case, then you're saying they would have some schools that they were accepted into (safety/target schools), and decided not to go.MC Southstar wrote:Likely answer: unpredictable cycles lead to reaching for a larger number of schools to game the odds.nycparalegal wrote:The most interesting question raised by the video is the following: why are African Americans mis-applying to law school?
I'm say that whereas a non-URM often applies to a normalized distribution of schools (a few, safeties, some targets or near reaches, a few desperate reaches) because there is adequate and predictive data, a URM could be inclined to choose a much higher proportion of reach schools due to the fact that there is less predictability in their admissions cycles, but they can essentially cheat the system by playing the field and strike gold somewhere beyond where their numbers would normally land them. Therefore, as an aggregate, their admissions cycle will reflect a significant URM boost, but they could easily get rejected at a larger percentage of schools due to extreme reaching. URM cycles don't seem to indicate that just because they have X/X numbers, they are guaranteed to get into a school they are at 25ths for. There is a lot of randomness in their admissions process, which necessitates playing the field.nycparalegal wrote:But if that were the case, then you're saying they would have some schools that they were accepted into (safety/target schools), and decided not to go.MC Southstar wrote:Likely answer: unpredictable cycles lead to reaching for a larger number of schools to game the odds.nycparalegal wrote:The most interesting question raised by the video is the following: why are African Americans mis-applying to law school?
Greater validity almost certainly means a higher r^2. I don't see why he wouldn't mention the bias if it exists. It would be a central point to this discussion. Not mentioning it would be like Johnny Cochran strolling into the OJ trial and not mentioning the glove. Is it conceivable? Yes. Is it likely? No. The premise is sound. We'll probably both be at UVA next year though, so we can ask the Professor about it when we get there.ogman05 wrote:What is "greater validity"? Just because someone has a 42 minute lecture they are not going to mention every single thing that has been researched for over half a century. that whole premise you have been using is complete fail. Second you cant complare across law schools which is why your "equivalency" argument doesnt work. If they did that then there would be no point in using the lsat for admissions criteria at all. Maybe, just maybe in peer schools but not all schools becuase of a thing called a curve and no std grading system that applies universally across all schools taking ALL law school students into consideration. Your third paragraph makes not sense to me and soundsd like you are just shooting out statistics terms.
I was floored by that, too.farewelltoarms wrote:Wow watched whole vid pretty interesting.
The very bit at the end, getting rid of the lsat? Omgz, that would be crazy. I can't even how law schools would choose between applicants.....
Michigan, Illinois and Alabama have already started programs where their own undergrads get accepted without taking the LSAT. Northwestern allows AJD and JD/MBA candidates to take the Gmat instead.scribelaw wrote:I was floored by that, too.farewelltoarms wrote:Wow watched whole vid pretty interesting.
The very bit at the end, getting rid of the lsat? Omgz, that would be crazy. I can't even how law schools would choose between applicants.....
I wonder if that's true?
That would be monumentally stupid. There would be no objective basis for comparing applicants.
Ah. The fine smell of my arguments being validated.Desert Fox wrote:http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic ... rFINAL.pdf Page 62. This has already been calculated. Black and Hispanic students do very nearly as well (in Tier 1 schools) as their LSAT and GPA say they will.
Right, but in the video it was stated the biggest problem for African American representation in the legal field is matriculation rather than application into law schools. So those who apply to a higher number of reach schools, decide not to go to law school if they get into their saftey or target schools?MC Southstar wrote:I'm say that whereas a non-URM often applies to a normalized distribution of schools (a few, safeties, some targets or near reaches, a few desperate reaches) because there is adequate and predictive data, a URM could be inclined to choose a much higher proportion of reach schools due to the fact that there is less predictability in their admissions cycles, but they can essentially cheat the system by playing the field and strike gold somewhere beyond where their numbers would normally land them. Therefore, as an aggregate, their admissions cycle will reflect a significant URM boost, but they could easily get rejected at a larger percentage of schools due to extreme reaching. URM cycles don't seem to indicate that just because they have X/X numbers, they are guaranteed to get into a school they are at 25ths for. There is a lot of randomness in their admissions process, which necessitates playing the field.nycparalegal wrote:But if that were the case, then you're saying they would have some schools that they were accepted into (safety/target schools), and decided not to go.MC Southstar wrote:Likely answer: unpredictable cycles lead to reaching for a larger number of schools to game the odds.nycparalegal wrote:The most interesting question raised by the video is the following: why are African Americans mis-applying to law school?
That section basically says that URMs do bad in LS b/c of low LSAT, not because of disadvantaged educational experiences. They forgot that performace in standarized tests has a whole hell of a lot to do with ones quality of educational experiences ... O man!Desert Fox wrote:http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic ... rFINAL.pdf Page 62. This has already been calculated. Black and Hispanic students do very nearly as well (in Tier 1 schools) as their LSAT and GPA say they will.
Oh, I thought you were referring to higher rejection rates. I can't really make a good assumption about why matriculation would be a problem.. I want to assume it is an economic reason, but I won't be so presumptuous.nycparalegal wrote: Right, but in the video it was stated the biggest problem for African American representation in the legal field is matriculation rather than application into law schools. So those who apply to a higher number of reach schools, decide not to go to law school if they get into their saftey or target schools?
Yea that fact really made me stop and think. Although, it might have something to do with the the following advice that I got for law school: either get $$$ from TTT or get into a t-14.MC Southstar wrote:Oh, I thought you were referring to higher rejection rates. I can't really make a good assumption about why matriculation would be a problem.. I want to assume it is an economic reason, but I won't be so presumptuous.nycparalegal wrote: Right, but in the video it was stated the biggest problem for African American representation in the legal field is matriculation rather than application into law schools. So those who apply to a higher number of reach schools, decide not to go to law school if they get into their saftey or target schools?
Whatever is causing the under performance, it isn't unique to LSAT performance. This doesn't make the LSAT flawed, it means some factor is making them worse students on average.Mattalones wrote:That section basically says that URMs do bad in LS b/c of low LSAT, not because of disadvantaged educational experiences. They forgot that performace in standarized tests has a whole hell of a lot to do with ones quality of educational experiences ... O man!Desert Fox wrote:http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic ... rFINAL.pdf Page 62. This has already been calculated. Black and Hispanic students do very nearly as well (in Tier 1 schools) as their LSAT and GPA say they will.
Source 1) Read the first three bullet points under "fact 8."
Source 2) Low quality schools usually means low performance, even in other countries
Source 3) This article gets into teacher quality = school quality (not its primary focus though), and either type of quality links strongly to student performance.
There are way more sources on this ...
Shouldn't need these sources though ... Think about it:
A) 18 - 22 years of not being challenged in school
B) a couple months prepping for a 3 hour test
Which is going to have a bigger impact on how one does in MORE SCHOOL (i.e. LS)? The article quoted above says that (B) will
I agree with you to a degree. I attended a poverty stricken middle school in which minorities were the majority. I also attended an excellent top-notch private high school. The quality of education was definitely superior at the private school. That being said, during my schooling at the middle school there was already a clear racial stratification in student achievement. From my first hand experiences, the minority students were far more likely to come from poor, broken homes. They'd attack teachers, bring weapons to school, not do homework, etc. Minorities that spoke clearly and intelligently were taunted for "sounding white." Education was not valued. During my ride into school I'd see people being arrested in the same slums where my classmates were living. If we are ever going to see the racial divide shrink, I think that problems closer to home must be solved.Mattalones wrote: That section basically says that URMs do bad in LS b/c of low LSAT, not because of disadvantaged educational experiences. They forgot that performace in standarized tests has a whole hell of a lot to do with ones quality of educational experiences ... O man!
Source 1) Read the first three bullet points under "fact 8."
Source 2) Low quality schools usually means low performance, even in other countries
Source 3) This article gets into teacher quality = school quality (not its primary focus though), and either type of quality links strongly to student performance.
There are way more sources on this ...
Shouldn't need these sources though ... Think about it:
A) 18 - 22 years of not being challenged in school
B) a couple months prepping for a 3 hour test
Which is going to have a bigger impact on how one does in MORE SCHOOL (i.e. LS)? The article quoted above says that (B) will
How is the state going to force people to become better parents?ArthurEdens
I agree with you to a degree. I attended a poverty stricken middle school in which minorities were the majority. I also attended an excellent top-notch private high school. The quality of education was definitely superior at the private school. That being said, during my schooling at the middle school there was already a clear racial stratification in student achievement. From my first hand experiences, the minority students were far more likely to come from poor, broken homes. They'd attack teachers, bring weapons to school, not do homework, etc. Minorities that spoke clearly and intelligently were taunted for "sounding white." Education was not valued. During my ride into school I'd see people being arrested in the same slums where my classmates were living. If we are ever going to see the racial divide shrink, I think that problems closer to home must be solved.
When I become the human supreme I plan on implementing the plan in A Brave New World.nycparalegal wrote:[
affirmative action to give disadvantaged students a leg-up for a few generations. then after they get sucked-in/acclimated to upper/middle class culture, things will be fixed (theoretically).nycparalegal wrote:How is the state going to force people to become better parents?ArthurEdens
I agree with you to a degree. I attended a poverty stricken middle school in which minorities were the majority. I also attended an excellent top-notch private high school. The quality of education was definitely superior at the private school. That being said, during my schooling at the middle school there was already a clear racial stratification in student achievement. From my first hand experiences, the minority students were far more likely to come from poor, broken homes. They'd attack teachers, bring weapons to school, not do homework, etc. Minorities that spoke clearly and intelligently were taunted for "sounding white." Education was not valued. During my ride into school I'd see people being arrested in the same slums where my classmates were living. If we are ever going to see the racial divide shrink, I think that problems closer to home must be solved.
Seriously, what can we do?Desert Fox wrote:When I become the human supreme I plan on implementing the plan in A Brave New World.nycparalegal wrote:[
Affirmative action for all of the disadvantaged students?englawyer wrote:affirmative action to give disadvantaged students a leg-up for a few generations. then after they get sucked-in/acclimated to upper/middle class culture, things will be fixed (theoretically).nycparalegal wrote:How is the state going to force people to become better parents?ArthurEdens
I agree with you to a degree. I attended a poverty stricken middle school in which minorities were the majority. I also attended an excellent top-notch private high school. The quality of education was definitely superior at the private school. That being said, during my schooling at the middle school there was already a clear racial stratification in student achievement. From my first hand experiences, the minority students were far more likely to come from poor, broken homes. They'd attack teachers, bring weapons to school, not do homework, etc. Minorities that spoke clearly and intelligently were taunted for "sounding white." Education was not valued. During my ride into school I'd see people being arrested in the same slums where my classmates were living. If we are ever going to see the racial divide shrink, I think that problems closer to home must be solved.
Mattalones wrote:That section basically says that URMs do bad in LS b/c of low LSAT, not because of disadvantaged educational experiences. They forgot that performace in standarized tests has a whole hell of a lot to do with ones quality of educational experiences ... O man!Desert Fox wrote:http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic ... rFINAL.pdf Page 62. This has already been calculated. Black and Hispanic students do very nearly as well (in Tier 1 schools) as their LSAT and GPA say they will.
Source 1) Read the first three bullet points under "fact 8."
Source 2) Low quality schools usually means low performance, even in other countries
Source 3) This article gets into teacher quality = school quality (not its primary focus though), and either type of quality links strongly to student performance.
There are way more sources on this ...
Shouldn't need these sources though ... Think about it:
A) 18 - 22 years of not being challenged in school
B) a couple months prepping for a 3 hour test
Which is going to have a bigger impact on how one does in MORE SCHOOL (i.e. LS)? The article quoted above says that (B) will
The government is already moving federally assisted low income living into the suburbs. They are closing down the projects in Chicago and are moving them into affluent areas in small numbers.nycparalegal wrote:Seriously, what can we do?Desert Fox wrote:When I become the human supreme I plan on implementing the plan in A Brave New World.nycparalegal wrote:[
I've had conversations very similar to this with my friends who teach in low-income neighborhoods, and it's always the same.
They have good kids, but they have a lot of bad kids who don't even try, cut school, physically threaten teachers. The bad kids don't study, and don't even care to be at the school.
All the state ends up doing is baby-sitting them.
e: By the way, all of the attention during class that is used on baby-sitting the bad kids takes away from the learning environment for the good kids in class.
Oh man. Are you talking about the section 8 voucher program?Desert Fox wrote:
The government is already moving federally assisted low income living into the suburbs. They are closing down the projects in Chicago and are moving them into affluent areas in small numbers.
Basically forced relocation for the most poor. They put a couple low income apartments into a luxury apartment building so their children grow up in school with middle class children.
There could be an attempt to do this with people not living in government housing, but it would ridiculously politically incorrect. It would also destroy subcultures in minority populations. It would be a huge infringement of liberty and imo would probably fail.
well if you believe that everyone born should have an equal chance at success based on their natural talents and skills rather than upbringing, yes. the odds are stacked against people from lower-economic strata of all races: worse schools, less-connected parents, worse school culture, different value systems (for example sports >> academics). someone's academic ability and achievement should be considered relative to how they were raised and whatnot.nycparalegal wrote: Affirmative action for all of the disadvantaged students?