Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex? MOD:PLEASE LOCK

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex? MOD:PLEASE LOCK

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:00 pm

I know, I know, I know. Let's keep this CORDIAL. I've searched the forums (this is one of many interesting threads: (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=120462&hilit=why+larger+boost), but, to me, there still seems to be an elephant in the room that no one is talking about. A$$holes wishing to hijack this thread and make it into some kind of race debate ARE NOT WELCOME; And I do not wish to do that myself. I am a long-time lurker, first-time poster.

According the definition of the Under Represented Minority (URM) and the logic and explanations in this article (http://www.top-law-schools.com/urm-applicant-faq.html), I still do not understand why AA receive a higher boost than Mexican-Americans. (Full disclosure: I am a Mex. Am. Can't you tell by my name :) ).

From what I've read, a boost is supposed to address the inequity of minority lawyers in the legal profession and law school. The theory goes: because there are so few minority lawyers and law students, in comparison to their make-up of the U.S. population, they receive a boost in admissions to have a profession and law school class some-what close to the ethnic demographics of the country. In the TLS article, it states that Asians are not URMs because they do not make up a large portion of the U.S. population. Ok, so according to this logic, Asian Americans and a lot of other smaller ethnic minorities are excluded from receiving a URM boost. That makes sense. To be clear, this is what the TLS article says and is the general consensus in the URM forum:
"Why are these groups (rather than others) considered URM’s?

There seems to be several reasons this distinction exists (cue speculation):

* One of the primary reasons we believe applicants of the above races are considered URM’s is because they are the only groups for which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) regularly publishes data. When the minority enrollment for a particular group is unknown, law schools have little incentive to admit students from that specific group. (The following link contains the data published most recently). http://www.lsac.org/SpecialInterests/mi ... enroll.asp
* The two groups listed on the LSAC published data that aren’t (generally) considered minorities are Asian Americans and members of Hispanic groups not listed above. The reason for this is clear when we look again at the definition for an Underrepresented Minority. Both groups’ presence in the legal field and in law schools in general are close to or exceed their numbers in the general population. For example, Asians make up just 4.4% of the U.S. population, but according to LSAC’s estimates, they make up approximately 10% of legal students. By contrast, those groups who are considered URM’s have a much lower law school representation relative to their status in the U.S. population.
* Law schools (perhaps at the ABA’s prodding) have generally expressed that they would like their student body to be at least as diverse as the general population."


While Af.Am. make up 14% of the U.S. population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ted_States), they only make up 4% of lawyers (--LinkRemoved--) and 7.3% of law students (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html). The "boost" makes sense to me.

Now, this gets more interesting. Hispanics in the U.S. make up 15.4% of the U.S. pop. Mexican Americans make up roughly 67% of this demographic (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... _dUadCGG2g). So, Mexican Am. make up approximately 10% of the ethnic make up of the country. According to the NYT article and the Columbia study, Mexican Americans only make up 1.5% of law students. According to this article (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_t ... _in_the_US), which corroborates the info. on African Am. law numbers, 3.4% of lawyers are Hispanic. Note, "Hispanic" includes all types all types not just Mex. So, guessing here, the number of Mex. and PR lawyers is lower than that number, let's just call it 2%. If there are generally more Hispanics in law school than Mexican Americans, there will correspondingly be a lower number of practicing MA lawyers. To back this up, look at any enrollment statistics at individual law schools that detail the difference be Hispanic and Mex. students - always more Hispanics (and yes, I understand, Mex. are included in this category).

To compare:
African Americans
Population: 14%
Law school students: 7.3%
Lawyers in profession: 4%

Mexican Americans
Population: 10.3%
Law school students: 1.5%
Lawyers in profession: 2%

In addition, according to the Census and Wikipedia, Hispanic population in the U.S. is posed to double in the next 40 years. If Mex. Am. statistics stay constant as a percentage of the Hispanic population, in 40 years MA will make up 20% of the pop, while AA will generally stay the same. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ted_States)

Mexican Americans have a wider disparity between practicing attorneys and law students in comparison to their make-up as part of the U.S. demographic. Also, in the next 40 years, the disparity will continue to increase as the MA population increases, and probably (guessing here) MA enrollment in law schools will continue to be roughly stagnant (as the Columbia study shows, no real gains have been made in 20 years. Thus, there is no reason to expect enrollment will increase.) So, according to the logic of the TLS article, Mexicans Americans are, and over the next 40 years will be, the most Under Represented Minority in the U.S. in regards to law school enrollment and make-up of the legal profession in comparison to the ethnic demographics of the U.S. Why do African Americans receive a higher boost, IF, going by this logic, they are not and probably will never be as Under Represented as Mexican Americans? If we are going by some other standard/logic/explanation, shouldn't we be freely and openly discussing that? If there are other reasons for this boost difference, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, shouldn't we talk about them to properly inform people on the admissions process?
Last edited by Horchata on Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LLB2JD
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby LLB2JD » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:08 pm

...and let it begin

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Knock » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:11 pm

Interesting, that was a good read. Perhaps it is because the median LSAT for AA is lower than for hispanics, besides puerto ricans I believe. So they get a little more of a boost because the LSAT is a little bit more unfair to them.

It could also have something to do with the % of qualified candidates. Even though there are less Mex-Amer law students relative to their population. There may be fewer AA that are qualified, even with a larger boost, for the top law schools, than Mex-Americans. Just a guess though.

User avatar
12AngryMen
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:25 am

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby 12AngryMen » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:21 pm

We get more of a boost cause we are more oppressed. I think it's a good thing to me when I see fellow AA's getting into prestigious schools with low numbers on LSN. On what I see on LSN, I don't think this URM booste gos for MexAmericans cause slavery never happened to the Mexicans. My ancestors broke their backs in cotton feilds and the US is taking a step to show appreciation to us and help me through affirmitive action better my race in its society.

deadhipsters
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:29 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby deadhipsters » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:23 pm

I would argue that African Americans and Native Americans receive the largest bump in law school admission because the current socio-economic problems that afflict both groups are results of American policy and systemic racism from the last several hundred years. The fact that Mexican American’s are not well represented in the legal profession is unfortunate, but there are probably other groups that similarly unrepresented and equally disadvantaged that do not receive significant URM bumps.

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:26 pm

Knockglock wrote:Interesting, that was a good read. Perhaps it is because the median LSAT for AA is lower than for hispanics, besides puerto ricans I believe. So they get a little more of a boost because the LSAT is a little bit more unfair to them.

It could also have something to do with the % of qualified candidates. Even though there are less Mex-Amer law students relative to their population. There may be fewer AA that are qualified, even with a larger boost, for the top law schools, than Mex-Americans. Just a guess though.


To the first point: I think your right about the medial LSAT being lower for AA. But, Hispanic LSAT median and Mexican American median is probably different. That would be interesting to see.

2nd point: If AA are less qualified, why are there so many more of them in law school compared to Mexican Americans? And also, we're (I think) just talking about law school enrollment overall, not specifically "top law schools".

Knockglock, by the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative - just trying to get to the crux of the issue here. Thanks for thinking it was interesting, too! It's been on my mind as I've been cruzing around this forum.

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby theavrock » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:27 pm

IBT image of Micheal Jackson eating popcorn from the Thriller video

User avatar
hiromoto45
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby hiromoto45 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:29 pm

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:40 pm

deadhipsters wrote: The fact that Mexican American’s are not well represented in the legal profession is unfortunate, but there are probably other groups that similarly unrepresented and equally disadvantaged that do not receive significant URM bumps.


Nope, Mexican Americans have the largest disparity when I comes to percentage of the population to law school enrollment and practicing lawyers.

We get more of a boost cause we are more oppressed. I think it's a good thing to me when I see fellow AA's getting into prestigious schools with low numbers on LSN. On what I see on LSN, I don't think this URM booste gos for MexAmericans cause slavery never happened to the Mexicans. My ancestors broke their backs in cotton feilds and the US is taking a step to show appreciation to us and help me through affirmitive action better my race in its society.


This post is exactly why I really didn't want to take the time to write this.

I would argue that African Americans and Native Americans receive the largest bump in law school admission because the current socio-economic problems that afflict both groups are results of American policy and systemic racism from the last several hundred years.


By the way, this forum is (edit: not) the right place to discuss why your happy AA get a a large boost. Thanks, we all like URMs getting boosts.

Additionally, current socio-economic problems of Hispanics/Mex. Americans:
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=117
--LinkRemoved--
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=122
http://www.solvingpoverty.com/PovertyFacts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States

Well, just from some quick Google searches, AA and Mexican Americans have roughly the same socio-economic hurdles. So, is the boost because of Slavery? If this is the case, could someone please update the TLS article to include this.
Last edited by Horchata on Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:41 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:--ImageRemoved--


LOL

deadhipsters
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:29 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby deadhipsters » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:49 pm

"Well, just from some quick Google searches, AA and Mexican Americans have roughly the same socio-economic hurdles. So, is the boost because of Slavery? "


How do you figure Mexican Americans have the same socio-economic hurdles as AA's? I would say that all impoverished groups face similar obstacles, regardless of race, including poor whites (to some extent).
I think AA's face the most hurdles because of their race specifically and because slavery/ government policy prevented upward mobility for the entire race for the last 300 years.

User avatar
tooswolle
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:48 am

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby tooswolle » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:50 pm

Looks like I'm going to bite and join this thread. Like the op I too have been wondering this for a very long time.One answer would be that AA are affected more by the LSAT than MA therefore requiring the larger boost. It could also be a better representation in higher office that AA can put pressure on law schools to admit more AA; finally as another poster stated it could be based on past grievances like slavery. The more and mote I look at it, I believe the general understanding may be wrong; maybe the URM boost isn't based on general representation in law school/ legal profession and based more on something else. Not sure what that would be though....

User avatar
hiromoto45
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby hiromoto45 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:54 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:
3 Stripes wrote:In this thread, people still do not understand the meaning of URM and Affirmative Action. Highly disappointing for a pool of future lawyers who are supposed to be fundamentally sound with logical, comprehension and reasoning skills.

First of all, racism DOES exist and anybody who refuses to acknowledge this is a buffoon. While it's not in-your-face, it's still there as it has become more institutional and systematic.

URM=Under-represented Minorities
-not who's most disadvantaged
-not who's "more black"
-not who suffers the most at the hands of "whitey"

So, considering this, a "rich" black person is no different from a "poor" black person in the eyes of Adcomm members because both are still under-represented minorities. Those who try to say that a bourgie (or well-off) black person doesn't deserve to be considered for admission with respect to AA (like many posters in this thread) are mistaken and don't understand the concept of URMs/AA.

The main reason URMs (blacks, Latinos, Native Americans) are sought out by Admission Committees is because of what they are: under represented minorities. Schools, for varying reasons, seek to have as many URMs as possible to at least appear to have a diverse student body. In order to do this, schools go out of their ways to find URMs. This is where AA comes into play. Affirmative Action, in school, seeks to level the playing field in the sense of having plausible, attainable racial/ethnic representation in college and graduate schools. AA achieves when as many QUALIFIED URMs as possible are given opportunities to succeed academically. While there will most likely never be as many blacks/Latinos/Native Americans as whites in institutions of higher learning, given the racial composition of the American population, AA seeks to provide access to premier academic institutions by enabling Adcomms with the ability and desire to give extra consideration to URM applicants. Also, AA doesn't take seats away from "more qualified" (code for: white applicants) and, if anything, increases the level of competition for admission amongst URMs. And while schools may not openly admit to this, there is a quota for URMs that matches the American population, more or less. So, AA doesn't take seats away from whites.

When it comes to the preferences of Adcomms, we can be sure that URMs who have demonstrated achievement in the face of adversity (ie-a latino kid from the barrio who succeeded academically in high school and college in the face of drug dealers, murder, etc.) are generally favored. However, as many people seemingly fail to grasp, when it comes to URMs especially, it's quality over quantity in the eyes of adcomms, even though they would like to have as many URMs as possible. Schools, for the most part, would rather have 20 URMs who seem to be competent of succeeding academically as opposed to having 200+ URMS, some of whom would undeniably struggle. That is why some "rich" black kid who may have attended the best schools and grow up in a relatively affluent neighborhood could be considered more favorably by certain Adcomms than a "poor" black kid who performed at a high level academically in the public education system. It would be less of a risk in terms of seeing their students fail, much less URMs. At the end of the day, education is still a business and schools are still going to want the best and brightest, even in the face of conscious efforts to attain as many URMs as possible.

There it is.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Knock » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:55 pm

Perhaps too it is because Blacks are the furthest away you can get from whites. Unfortunately in our society, the darker your skins, the more disadvantages and discrimination you have to overcome. On average, AA are darker than MA. I know many MA, myself included, that are fairly light skinned, and therefore don't have to overcome as much disadvantage, on average, as AA's. Again, just a guess. This is an interesting topic though, and worthy of a good discussion.

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:58 pm

deadhipsters wrote:"Well, just from some quick Google searches, AA and Mexican Americans have roughly the same socio-economic hurdles. So, is the boost because of Slavery? "


How do you figure Mexican Americans have the same socio-economic hurdles as AA's? I would say that all impoverished groups face similar obstacles, regardless of race, including poor whites (to some extent).


Ok, all impoverished groups have similar obstacles...therefore...........Mexican Americans and AA have "ROUGHLY" the same socioeconomic hurdles.


[quote) I think AA's face the most hurdles because of their race specifically and because slavery/ government policy prevented upward mobility for the entire race for the last 300 years. [quote]

I'm not going to get into the discrimination of Mexican Americans on the west coast. Notwithstanding, I would agree they Hispanics would be seconded or third in rank to Asian Americans and African Americans in the U.S. So, if we are going to rank how bad some races groups have had it to determine relative AA boost, shouldn't that be included in the TLS article? Also, if that is the rubric, should't Japanese and Chinese Americans also get a boost? Yeah, they had it pretty shitty. Or, are we trying to say, because of the discrepancy in AA enrollment in law schools and in the legal profession, in addition to their history of slavery is the reason why they get a boost above Mex. Am. who have a higher discrepancy in the legal profession (as it has been noted)?
Last edited by Horchata on Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:01 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:
hiromoto45 wrote:
3 Stripes wrote:In this thread, people still do not understand the meaning of URM and Affirmative Action. Highly disappointing for a pool of future lawyers who are supposed to be fundamentally sound with logical, comprehension and reasoning skills.

First of all, racism DOES exist and anybody who refuses to acknowledge this is a buffoon. While it's not in-your-face, it's still there as it has become more institutional and systematic.

URM=Under-represented Minorities
-not who's most disadvantaged
-not who's "more black"
-not who suffers the most at the hands of "whitey"

So, considering this, a "rich" black person is no different from a "poor" black person in the eyes of Adcomm members because both are still under-represented minorities. Those who try to say that a bourgie (or well-off) black person doesn't deserve to be considered for admission with respect to AA (like many posters in this thread) are mistaken and don't understand the concept of URMs/AA.

The main reason URMs (blacks, Latinos, Native Americans) are sought out by Admission Committees is because of what they are: under represented minorities. Schools, for varying reasons, seek to have as many URMs as possible to at least appear to have a diverse student body. In order to do this, schools go out of their ways to find URMs. This is where AA comes into play. Affirmative Action, in school, seeks to level the playing field in the sense of having plausible, attainable racial/ethnic representation in college and graduate schools. AA achieves when as many QUALIFIED URMs as possible are given opportunities to succeed academically. While there will most likely never be as many blacks/Latinos/Native Americans as whites in institutions of higher learning, given the racial composition of the American population, AA seeks to provide access to premier academic institutions by enabling Adcomms with the ability and desire to give extra consideration to URM applicants. Also, AA doesn't take seats away from "more qualified" (code for: white applicants) and, if anything, increases the level of competition for admission amongst URMs. And while schools may not openly admit to this, there is a quota for URMs that matches the American population, more or less. So, AA doesn't take seats away from whites.

When it comes to the preferences of Adcomms, we can be sure that URMs who have demonstrated achievement in the face of adversity (ie-a latino kid from the barrio who succeeded academically in high school and college in the face of drug dealers, murder, etc.) are generally favored. However, as many people seemingly fail to grasp, when it comes to URMs especially, it's quality over quantity in the eyes of adcomms, even though they would like to have as many URMs as possible. Schools, for the most part, would rather have 20 URMs who seem to be competent of succeeding academically as opposed to having 200+ URMS, some of whom would undeniably struggle. That is why some "rich" black kid who may have attended the best schools and grow up in a relatively affluent neighborhood could be considered more favorably by certain Adcomms than a "poor" black kid who performed at a high level academically in the public education system. It would be less of a risk in terms of seeing their students fail, much less URMs. At the end of the day, education is still a business and schools are still going to want the best and brightest, even in the face of conscious efforts to attain as many URMs as possible.

There it is.


Yeah, all of that was basically included in the original post (i.e. attached TLS article). You are not addressing my argument.

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby esq » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:02 pm

I do think that it is worthwhile to point out that there is more time between the negative historical circumstances that have defined US interaction with AAs and NAs than there is with the circumstances that define race interaction with MAs. Not that this diminishes what has occurred between the US and other races, but when I drive by the strawberry fields near my residence, it is definitely the Mexican race that is breaking its collective back in the fields. The issues that affect MAs , because of this, are much more personal because it is still a very open wound - US society is still, for the most part, OK with the issues that are severely oppressive to what might be a MAs family member, or even them at one point and time. So I'm not sure that slavery, for this reason, and working in the fields is the reason for the AA URM bump. It's probably something else - I'd say more along the lines of the test scoring factor that was pointed out.
Last edited by esq on Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hellokitty
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby hellokitty » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:03 pm

This won't go anywhere good.

User avatar
freelancer
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby freelancer » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:06 pm

deadhipsters wrote:I would argue that African Americans and Native Americans receive the largest bump in law school admission because the current socio-economic problems that afflict both groups are results of American policy and systemic racism from the last several hundred years. The fact that Mexican American’s are not well represented in the legal profession is unfortunate, but there are probably other groups that similarly unrepresented and equally disadvantaged that do not receive significant URM bumps.


and to quote more specifically:

"there are probably other groups that similarly unrepresented and equally disadvantaged that do not receive significant URM bumps."

i'd add people with disabilities (PWDs) to this "unrepresented and equally disadvantaged" group......except they're not even considered URMs - can't quite figure that one out and i'd definitely argue PWDs are unrepresented and more disadvantaged than many other minorities. but, i guess the "M" in URM is not truly about minority status but race.

not trying to start a fire here - just calling it as i see it as a PWD

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:07 pm

tooswolle wrote:Looks like I'm going to bite and join this thread. Like the op I too have been wondering this for a very long time.One answer would be that AA are affected more by the LSAT than MA therefore requiring the larger boost. It could also be a better representation in higher office that AA can put pressure on law schools to admit more AA; finally as another poster stated it could be based on past grievances like slavery. The more and mote I look at it, I believe the general understanding may be wrong; maybe the URM boost isn't based on general representation in law school/ legal profession and based more on something else. Not sure what that would be though....


Thanks for addressing the argument on point. Yeah, it's kind of mind twister. I think Hispanic groups have a pretty strong presence in government, but I would guess AA have a stronger one (for it being more established). I still don't understand the past grievances argument because if you go down that road I think it really opens up a Pandora's Box. I still think it is the disparity in the legal profession and law schools in comparison to their ethnic make up IN ADDITION to the past grievances argument...combined in a weird sort of way.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby kazu » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:07 pm

hellokitty wrote:This won't go anywhere good.

User avatar
hiromoto45
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby hiromoto45 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:07 pm

hellokitty wrote:This won't go anywhere good.



Just another sneaky AA debate thread...

deadhipsters
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:29 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby deadhipsters » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:08 pm

Also, as someone had mentioned, it appears that African Americans are actually better represented by lobbyists, government agencies, NAACP, and other groups, which do put pressure on the establishment to provide AA’s more opportunities for employment and education.

I think the bullshit immigration laws that are widely supported in Arizona exemplify how poorly the Mexican American community is actually represented in the legal world and by the government in general.

Flanker1067
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Flanker1067 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:08 pm

...
Last edited by Flanker1067 on Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Horchata
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Why do AAs receive higher boosts than Mex.Am.?

Postby Horchata » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:08 pm

freelancer wrote:
deadhipsters wrote:I would argue that African Americans and Native Americans receive the largest bump in law school admission because the current socio-economic problems that afflict both groups are results of American policy and systemic racism from the last several hundred years. The fact that Mexican American’s are not well represented in the legal profession is unfortunate, but there are probably other groups that similarly unrepresented and equally disadvantaged that do not receive significant URM bumps.


and to quote more specifically:

"there are probably other groups that similarly unrepresented and equally disadvantaged that do not receive significant URM bumps."

i'd add people with disabilities (PWDs) to this "unrepresented and equally disadvantaged" group......except they're not even considered URMs - can't quite figure that one out and i'd definitely argue PWDs are unrepresented and more disadvantaged than many other minorities. but, i guess the "M" in URM is not truly about minority status but race.

not trying to start a fire here - just calling it as i see it as a PWD


Exactly, that argument has a real slippery slope.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests