Why Do Black Applicants Have Such A Huge Boost? Forum

[reasonabledoubt]

Has anyone asked the question: How do we know and quantify that being black DOES in fact offer a "huge boost" in admissions?

The way I see it is diversity is essential - lets say there's 100 spots in a Law School. 70 might be white and 30 might be under represented, relative to both their numbers within the overall population as well (and perhaps especially) as within higher education. The 70 white candidates will be the best (as deemed by the adcomms) candidates for those spots and the 30 URM's (as deemed by the adcomms) will be the best for the remaining spots.

Why should URM's be compared alongside non-URM's when it comes to fullfulling a diversity agenda? I argue they shouldn't. I don't think it's controversial or wrong at all for URM's to be considered relative to other URM applicants and non's to non's.

Schools need to attract a diverse student body - that's the goal - it's being satisfied (thankfully) well the way things are. Any non-URM who is pissed off because of this should just focus on being more competitive relative to the non-URM pool of applicants.

Again, diversity is the goal and this achieves it. What if schools decided the people who bench pressed the most will get into law schools because it makes sense to have physically strong lawyers. (looks good, presents an heir of strenth, etc)
There might be only a few women in a law school class of a few hundred. To fix this, we would alot a certain number of spaces for women and judge them relative to each other. It's likely that most of them will still bench press far less than the men, but it won't matter because they aren't being considered relative to the entire group, only theirs. I hope the metaphor makes this all seem reasonable because I think it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with URM policies/practices. We need diversity; don't forget Mr. Hittler's eugenics ideas and how those turned out. Continue on with diversity agendas!

+1

It really does seem like the URMs compete against each other for a set amount of spots. A school would take the best URMs in the applicant pool, and the best non-URMs in the pool. It just happens to be the case that the best URM applicant would not have as competitive numbers/credentials as the best non-URM applicant.

Right - and this can change. I'm personally not a URM, I am, however, a first generation european-American. English wasn't even my first language. In any case, I'm considered white, no getting around that. Anyways, I would love if URM figures someday surpass the average non-urm figures. That would be quite the triumph. Here's the question... when or if that ever happens, are non-urm's going to argue for consideration within their own group? That would be some poetic justice.

[bees]

I live in a $700,000 house. I'm from the second wealthiest city inside of the third wealthiest county in the U.S.

I'm rich. So are my neighbors.

How come the black kid up the street got into U of M for his undergrad with shit for grades? (this is before the No.2 vote in MI)

Because he's black.

3rd wealthiest county in the country and your house only cost $700k? Don't look now but I think your neighbors are snickering about the shack that you live in.

[TTTennis]

OP, apparently you missed out on the genius that is "ilovethelsat." So, to end this thread and answer your questions, I am posting what the answer to your question is--as stated so eloquently by ilovethelsat:

Law schools simply care more about recruiting black applicants. Look at the LSAC data if you don't believe me: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Hispanics are less well represented in law schools than blacks but receive much smaller URM boosts. The same applies to Native Americans. I've written to several law school admissions deans regarding this issue, but none has responded.

Ok OK, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sidetrack this threat and turn it into the other URM thread. But come on, it's funny.

Note: ilovethelsat, I'm just kidding around. It's all in fun. Besides, I'm a giant d-bag; just ask van winkle

[Joga Bonito]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

I don't think I will be having a TLS style AA debate in class or one day in a court room. I'm fine dicussing these issues with INFORMED people who actually care about the issue and the people invovled and aren't just soap boxing because some black guy took their spot at Michigan law school and now they've decided to be racist on an online forum because nobody can see them. TLS AA debates are quite different from formal AA debates by profs and I've been to some so I am familiar with them. Thanks for your concern though.

"Informed" people? The people on this website will end up being your classmates, bigots included. The fact that there are biggots on this law school perspective student website should cue you into the fact that there will be bigots wherever you go to law school.

I'm familiar with Bigots, but most don't become profs at top schools or any school for that matter. I've read enough of the good arguments against AA e.g. Richard Posner's Economics of Justice, Richard epstien etc. and have respect for them although I disagree and I am still considering how to respond to their arguments, however, these are from people who got into their school of choice despite AA(thus no appearant bitterness) and are intelligent and informed so i can respect their good arguments; with the exception of a small few most opponents of AA on TLS, most TLS AA opposers don't fall into those categories.

[reasonabledoubt]

I live in a $700,000 house. I'm from the second wealthiest city inside of the third wealthiest county in the U.S.

I'm rich. So are my neighbors.

How come the black kid up the street got into U of M for his undergrad with shit for grades? (this is before the No.2 vote in MI)

Because he's black.

3rd wealthiest county in the country and your house only cost $700k? Don't look now but I think your neighbors are snickering about the shack that you live in.

I know, right? What a douchebag... around these parts where I live (re: a big city) a 700k house isn't "rich" - in fact it's sort of "average." What a DB.... probably a redneck who thinks his county is the bzomb b/c it has a chick fil a. Umm, down the street every other single family home is 2-3 million. That's normal in a city. What the fuck is this guy talking about?

[scionb4]

For the majority of black teens, it is not culturally acceptable to do well in school.

I think this is extremely overexaggerated by the media and a distraction from much larger issues such as the deplorable condition of most inner city schools,single parent households (70%), and issues like poverty and drugs in the AA community that are a tremendous impediment to educational success.

One of my best friends is a student teacher at an elementary school school that is approximately 80% African American, and very low-income. What he has noticed is that its not that the parents tell their kids that doing well in school is unacceptable, its that the parents encourage their children to be strongly question authority, to show pride in themselves and project confidence to the point of being arrogant. He has an abysmal kid that he teaches who acts like he's hot shit all the time, and won't show teachers any modicum of respect at all. When at parent teacher conferences his mother asked why her son wasn't doing well and my friend told her about his arrogant and stand-offish behavior, she promptly responded, "I teach him to be like that."

[Joga Bonito]

For the majority of black teens, it is not culturally acceptable to do well in school.

I think this is extremely overexaggerated by the media and a distraction from much larger issues such as the deplorable condition of most inner city schools,single parent households (70%), and issues like poverty and drugs in the AA community that are a tremendous impediment to educational success.

Wonder how stuff got like that, "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." -someone famous go look it up

[20121109]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

I don't think I will be having a TLS style AA debate in class or one day in a court room. I'm fine dicussing these issues with INFORMED people who actually care about the issue and the people invovled and aren't just soap boxing because some black guy took their spot at Michigan law school and now they've decided to be racist on an online forum because nobody can see them. TLS AA debates are quite different from formal AA debates by profs and I've been to some so I am familiar with them. Thanks for your concern though.

"Informed" people? The people on this website will end up being your classmates, bigots included. The fact that there are biggots on this law school perspective student website should cue you into the fact that there will be bigots wherever you go to law school.

Yet again, I agree...but the real issue here is that discussing a racially sensitive issue such as affirmative action on a website, facilitates the kind of anonymity that could ultimately hinder intellectual discourse. Bigots will be bigots, you can't escape that. But people are less likely to display their prejudice in person, as it is considered socially unacceptable.

[Grizz]

Take it outside. No AA discussions in the URM forum.

[scionb4]

Yet again, I agree...but the real issue here is that discussing a racially sensitive issue such as affirmative action on a website, facilitates the kind of anonymity that could ultimately hinder intellectual discourse. Bigots will be bigots, you can't escape that. But people are less likely to display their prejudice in person, as it is considered socially unacceptable.[/quote]






It's an interesting conundrum. I definitely see where you are coming from. I'm just really, really anti-pc I guess. I have always felt if an issue is worth talking about, let's talk about it anywhere, any time. But I certainly see your point.

[Dr. Review]

For the majority of black teens, it is not culturally acceptable to do well in school.

I think this is extremely overexaggerated by the media and a distraction from much larger issues such as the deplorable condition of most inner city schools,single parent households (70%), and issues like poverty and drugs in the AA community that are a tremendous impediment to educational success.

As a teacher myself, I have seen this to be true in schools in varying economic levels. I have experienced this to be true in some of the poorest and richest schools in my state.

[BigFatPanda]

I'll give u two big reasons:

1. Leveling the playing field: i think the LSAT average for AA is around 142ish. Thus, when considering AA applicants, Law School don't ask if the AA applicant is at 98 percentile of the general applicant pool. Rather, they ask if the AA applicant is at the 98 percentile of the AA applicant pool. (Or whatever percentile the LS use to admit). After all, a law school can not be consider equal opportunity unless some AAs are admitted. Which brings to the 2nd point.

2. It makes Business sense. Do we know cause of global warming is man made a fact? No. But it makes a lot of sense to do green marketing because people are buying it. Do we know without AA a law school would be less diverse? No. But it makes a lot of business sense to make a law school look diverse because this is what people expect in the 21st century.

Do we know AA are less competent than any other applicants just because they score less on the LSAT? Fuck NO! LSAT merely measures people's ability to take standardize test such as the bar and undergrad GPA merely measures one's ability to perform academically. LSAT/GPA do not measure people's ability to be competent, to be kind, to be noble, to be compassionate, and to be....well human.

Most of the times, Law school admission is all about LSAT/GPA if you're white, Chinese (rice eaters like me) or Asian, and all other highly privileged upper middle class musical instrument playing, high GPA/LSAT achieving, cookie-cutting extra-curricular hour gathering y'all look alike clones. So much so the Law school admission can't see the difference between the first applicant and the last applicant in that group.

Sometimes, Law school admission is all about quality of being a human, such as someone who was a gangster but who is now a motivational speaker or someone who spend their entire life in the ghetto steering one kid's life at a time.

I would like to believe of the thousands of seats open by law schools, at least 1/10 of that is reserve for people Law school admission can actually tell the difference between one another and can proudly say: whoa, this individual actually did something that make a dent in his/her community.

Affirmative action today, affirmative action tomorrow, affirmative action forever!

Have a nice night punks!

[vanwinkle]

Take it outside. No AA discussions in the URM forum.

[Doritos]

Wait, we get a boost?!

[ilovethelsat]

Schools need to attract a diverse student body - that's the goal - it's being satisfied (thankfully) well the way things are. Any non-URM who is pissed off because of this should just focus on being more competitive relative to the non-URM pool of applicants.

Easier said than done.

Scientists have known for a while now that intelligence is largely genetic, and our genes are obviously beyond our control. So telling a non-URM to become more competitive in the non-URM pool (i.e. getting better grades and a higher LSAT) is like telling someone to grow taller or change his eye color. It's just not possible.