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

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
dspit
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:12 pm

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

Postby dspit » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:52 am

yes?

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:00 am

MrKappus wrote:
Horchata wrote:I would have to argue, based on the observation on posters in this forum and my own experiences, they do get a bigger boost. I think the premise is a lot stronger than you suggest. Just my .2$


Sorry, you might've misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear). I didn't mean to suggest the difference isn't there. I was just asking if there is data/patterns to suggest it is. To anyone who's more familiar w/ the data/evidence than I (i.e., probably most ppl), I def defer. Edit: I think I owe you $0.18. :)


Ahhhh...mmmm idk. Data, patterns, verifiable evidence about one of the most hush-hush controversial topics in American society: sorry, can't help ya there haha

I have no idea what you mean about the $0.18. I put in $0.2, I get back 0.18....I'm so confused and I hate not understanding!

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

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

Postby Lawquacious » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:01 am

I didn't notice anything quantifiably demonstrating that African Americans get a bigger URM boost in terms of LSAT (and GPA?) than Mexican Americans (in terms of actual cited evidence), but I may have missed it.

Assuming that is the case, however, it makes sense to me that the disparity in the boost would mirror any statistical necessity required to allow the boost to function in such a way that each URM group ultimately is represented equally according to a set standard of what is considered fairly compensated representation for URM groups (regardless of what exact number manipulations it takes via boosted acceptances to get to the point where each group is represented at what is considered appropriate levels).

The fact is that affirmative action does use distorted number criterion (by accepting lower numbers than usual) to bring about socially desirable consequences; what this number manipulation looks like for a given URM group may be different than what it looks like for another URM group in the interest of providing the same overall outcome for each group (a relatively similar level of representation across URM groups, and a level of representation that is more consistent with non-URM ethnic groups).

I definitely get the impression the original post is based on the premise that the system as it exists is unfair to Mexican Americans (when compared to how it deals with African Americans). I guess that could be the case, but the fact is many people feel affirmative action isn't really fair in the first place; I think the above ideas can help explain why there may be a disparity in the boost levels though (in order to achieve a normalized equivalency being sought).

This is all hypothetical for the record.
Last edited by Lawquacious on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:06 am, 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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:02 am

Someone please lock this useless/non-entertaining/dumb thread.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

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

Postby MrKappus » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:05 am

Horchata wrote:Ahhhh...mmmm idk. Data, patterns, verifiable evidence about one of the most hush-hush controversial topics in American society: sorry, can't help ya there haha

I have no idea what you mean about the $0.18. I put in $0.2, I get back 0.18....I'm so confused and I hate not understanding!


That's true, affirmative action's such a black box as it is, the data I'm talking about likely isn't available anyway.

I just went meant you gave me twenty cents ($0.2[0]) when you meant to give me $0.02. Haha mine wasn't a particularly clever/interesting comment...apologies.
Last edited by MrKappus on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:08 am, 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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:06 am

hellokitty wrote:Someone please lock this useless/non-entertaining/dumb thread.


You don't have to be here. In fact, just make like a tree...

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:27 am

Lawquacious wrote:I didn't notice anything quantifiably demonstrating that African Americans get a bigger URM boost in terms of LSAT (and GPA?) than Mexican Americans (in terms of actual cited evidence), but I may have missed it.

Assuming that is the case, however, it makes sense to me that the disparity in the boost would mirror any statistical necessity required to allow the boost to function in such a way that each URM group ultimately is represented equally according to a set standard of what is considered fairly compensated representation for URM groups (regardless of what exact number manipulations it takes via boosted acceptances to get to the point where each group is represented at what is considered appropriate levels).

The fact is that affirmative action does use distorted number criterion (by accepting lower numbers than usual) to bring about socially desirable consequences; what this number manipulation looks like for a given URM group may be different than what it looks like for another URM group in the interest of providing the same overall outcome for each group (a relatively similar level of representation across URM groups, and a level of representation that is more consistent with non-URM ethnic groups).

I definitely get the impression the original post is based on the premise that the system as it exists is unfair to Mexican Americans (when compared to how it deals with African Americans). I guess that could be the case, but the fact is many people feel affirmative action isn't really fair in the first place; I think the above ideas can help explain why there may be a disparity in the boost levels though (in order to achieve a normalized equivalency being sought).

This is all hypothetical for the record.


I don't necessarily feel it's unfair, I just read everyone saying one thing, but evidence and statistics point to other causes. It just so happens I'm in the URM group that is in 2nd place.

Yeah, that's a nice way to sum it up. Although we can sit here all day and theorize the "how", but I think you said it very well: it really comes down to achieving "a normalized equivalency being sought" by each law school. The "how" probably just varies and people say what they can to justify the means. I do this myself. However, if law schools didn't have to do this, they wouldn't. This policy decision affects society and it's important. I think if this were clearer to the general public they would understand better. There are a lot of reasons why a boost is given, I just don't understand the exact formula schools use to determine this. People pretend to understand, but they don't.
Assuming that is the case, however, it makes sense to me that the disparity in the boost would mirror any statistical necessity required to allow the boost to function in such a way that each URM group ultimately is represented equally according to a set standard of what is considered fairly compensated representation for URM groups (regardless of what exact number manipulations it takes via boosted acceptances to get to the point where each group is represented at what is considered appropriate levels).


I think "what is considered appropriate levels" is one the most important points in this discussion. Even if law schools realize that Mexican Americans are more Under Represented, but feel that the level of representation they are at (or maybe higher if they want more MA) is "appropriate", that could account for a lesser boost. So, essentially, according to your argument, it only really matters what the law schools feels is good enough for whomever (<--not sure if this right) they are trying to please.

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:29 am

Nightrunner wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Nightrunner wrote:Image


This is an on-topic thread. Please keep your posts relevant to the OP or responses thereto.

Edit: To take my own advice, my input is: do we know they get a bigger boost? Is it empirically verifiable that they do? I'm not sure it's useful to debate discuss this in the first place, but it seems especially silly to debate discuss it if the overall premise for the discussion isn't a sure thing.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Well-played.

That was my "this thread is being watched" gif. I thought it might contribute, insofar as it might slow down some trolls and flames.


Ahhh, I get the intentional edits. Subtle, but good.

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:01 am

I think the person who talked about equalizing the field to boost applicants numbers to a certain level has some merit. In general it seems to me that the law schools understand that there are some fundamental problems with the lsat since minorities tend to be disparately affected by the test which is demonstrated by the lower median scores in general. I believe they compensate for these reasons. However, it seems to me that if the goal is to help under represented minorities hispanic would or should recieve a comparable boost because they are in fact under represented. If we really wanted to throw a wrench in to this debate; how do people feel this would translate in to the job market? As urms many of us know we are sought after for diversity purposes but do employers prefer AA out of all urms? If so it would seem to me that it is just a systematic process where people have associated AA with diversity and therefore the more they have the more diverse they seem.

User avatar
ArthurEdens
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:53 pm

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

Postby ArthurEdens » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:14 am

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

AA advocacy groups seem to be better organized and more vocal in their quest for a variety of socio-economic targets. Combine that with the history of this country (i.e. slavery and the civil rights movement, both of which were obviously AA-centric), and you have your answer.

The OP poses a good question, but the bottom line is that this has nothing to do with fairness (i.e. true diversity). It's largely political.

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:32 am

ArthurEdens wrote: It's largely political.

+1 Short and concise.

I think the person who talked about equalizing the field to boost applicants numbers to a certain level has some merit. In general it seems to me that the law schools understand that there are some fundamental problems with the lsat since minorities tend to be disparately affected by the test which is demonstrated by the lower median scores in general. I believe they compensate for these reasons. However, it seems to me that if the goal is to help under represented minorities hispanic would or should recieve a comparable boost because they are in fact under represented. If we really wanted to throw a wrench in to this debate; how do people feel this would translate in to the job market? As urms many of us know we are sought after for diversity purposes but do employers prefer AA out of all urms? If so it would seem to me that it is just a systematic process where people have associated AA with diversity and therefore the more they have the more diverse they seem.

I think it will change in the next 20 years or so when there will be a lot more discussion about Latinos in the U.S. and people will come to recognize that Hispanics (along with other groups) = diversity. They will see how great the Mexican American population is in the U.S. and come to wonder why so little are this profession; unless we get scapegoated for something to a new degree than already exists.



(Edited to add quotes)

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

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

Postby Lawquacious » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:45 am

Horchata wrote: So, essentially, according to your argument, it only really matters what the law schools feels is good enough for whomever (<--not sure if this right) they are trying to please.



Well, the argument is that there may be a necessary disparity in the boost of each particular URM group gets in order to achieve the same end result for each group.

For clarification, a bigger numerical boost for one URM group (x) when compared to another URM group (y) wouldn't necessarily mean a larger overall admissions boost for (x), because (x) may need a larger numbers boost to have the same increased level of admissions competitiveness as (y) on the group level. This applies only at a group level, rather than at the individual level, which is why I think it could be confusing. Individual applicants within (x) WOULD have an advantage over applicants in (y) group in this regard, but this individual advantage would be required to bring about the overall desired normalization sought for these two groups (so at the group level they would have the same amount of relative advantage or representation). This would occur in the same way that more generally URMs as individuals are given advantage over non-URMs in order to achieve a normalization effect (wherein individual URM applicants have an advantage over non-URM applicants in terms of LSAT and GPA, but this is what actually brings about the normalization at the group level).

I have an assumption that the aimed for normalization rates of the various URM groups is similar for each URM group (in terms of sought after ratio equivalency of overall population of that group vs. law school population of that group), and that this target is somehow integrated across law schools. If it was entirely a matter of law school preference I suspect that some of the schools could ignore the legal mandates of affirmative action. So I think there must be a certain degree of mandated statistical verification of compliance that transcends individual law school (adcomm) whims.

Whether the system actually works this way or not is in question to me, though hypothetically I think it could explain your initial question (assuming the basic facts you conveyed about the numerical disparity are accurate). Also, whether the system as it exists currently is fair (in terms of either accomplishing accurate normalization and/or in terms of being a desirable overall approach) remains in question to me. I do think that social initiatives to improve equality are generally valuable though.
Last edited by Lawquacious on Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:08 am, 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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:07 am

Lawquacious wrote:
Horchata wrote: So, essentially, according to your argument, it only really matters what the law schools feels is good enough for whomever (<--not sure if this right) they are trying to please.



Well, the argument is that there may be a necessary disparity in the boost of each particular URM group gets in order to achieve the same end result for each group.

For clarification, a bigger numerical boost for one URM group (x) when compared to another URM group (y) wouldn't necessarily mean a larger overall admissions boost for (x), because (x) may need a larger numbers boost to have the same increased level of admissions competitiveness as (y) on the group level. This applies only at a group level, rather than at the individual level, which is why I think it could be confusing. Individual applicants within (x) WOULD have an advantage over applicants in (y) group in this regard, but this individual advantage would be required to bring about the overall desired normalization sought for these two groups (so at the group level they would have the same amount of relative advantage or representation). This would occur in the same way that URMs as a total group are given advantage over non-URM applicants in order to achieve a normalization effect at a group level.

I have an assumption that the aimed for normalization rates of the various URM groups is similar for each URM group, and that this target is somehow integrated across law schools. If it was entirely a matter of law school preference I suspect that some of the schools could ignore the legal mandates of affirmative action. So I think there must be a certain degree of mandated statistical verification of compliance that transcends individual law school (adcomm) whims.

Whether the system actually works this way or not is in question to me, though hypothetically I think it could explain your initial question (assuming the basic facts you conveyed about the numerical disparity are accurate). Also, whether the system as it exists currently is fair (in terms of either accomplishing accurate normalization and/or in terms of being a desirable overall approach) remains in question to me. I do think that social initiatives to improve equality are generally valuable though.


In regards to Par. 1: I think that is the case in the most general sense. However, I guess, my question is what is the criteria for achieving the "normalization sought"? What are the factors that contribute to this? What is the desired level?... this makes it more difficult to answer. I think these questions lead to the answers why AA receive a higher boost than MA.

Par. 2: There probably is a some kind of basic measure for all schools. I think that it is ratio of lawyers/law students to percent of pop. The variance apart from this is probably the discrepancy seen in the boost, for whatever the reasons they may be (a lot of good ones have been given in previous posts).


Thanks for the thoughtful post Lawquacious

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

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

Postby Lawquacious » Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:16 am

Horchata wrote:In regards to Par. 1: I think that is the case in the most general sense. However, I guess, my question is what is the criteria for achieving the "normalization sought"? What are the factors that contribute to this? What is the desired level?... this makes it more difficult to answer. I think these questions lead to the answers why AA receive a higher boost than MA.



It sounds like you are still assuming that the normalization level sought for African Americans is more favorable than that sought for Mexican Americans. My point is that I think the level sought is the same across URM groups which would actually help explain why at an individual level African Americans may get a bigger numbers boost than Mexican Americans (in the same way that on an individual level URMs in general get a boost when compared with non-URMs- this evens the overall field even though it could be considered unfair at an individual level). I may be misunderstanding you though.

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

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

Postby 20121109 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:41 am

Always Credited wrote:--ImageRemoved--


QFAwesomeness

User avatar
lawrencecis
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:42 am

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

Postby lawrencecis » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:30 am

h

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:32 am

Lawquacious wrote:
Horchata wrote:In regards to Par. 1: I think that is the case in the most general sense. However, I guess, my question is what is the criteria for achieving the "normalization sought"? What are the factors that contribute to this? What is the desired level?... this makes it more difficult to answer. I think these questions lead to the answers why AA receive a higher boost than MA.



It sounds like you are still assuming that the normalization level sought for African Americans is more favorable than that sought for Mexican Americans. My point is that I think the level sought is the same across URM groups which would actually help explain why at an individual level African Americans may get a bigger numbers boost than Mexican Americans (in the same way that on an individual level URMs in general get a boost when compared with non-URMs- this evens the overall field even though it could be considered unfair at an individual level). I may be misunderstanding you though.


Ok, I understand you better now, I think. And yes, I was assuming the normalization is higher for AA. I still think my previous questions come into play. I understand, according to your theory, that one group has a different normalization route so to speak than another to achieve the desired status of a uniform level for URM representation at schools. My point is that if there is some sort of uniform normalization taking place among URMs, resulting in different boosts for different URMs to achieve this target level, there must be a base point for each URM group and some standard to determine how far their route is to normalization to achieve the desired outcome of law schools and of a generally uniform target level. If this is the case, then:

I still think the main question has not been answered: why do AA receive the greatest amount of help (boost) to achieve their normalization compared to MA? I think you mentioned it before, and I'm not quite sure, but the standard to differentiate the two is the ratio of law students/lawyers to population make-up. If this is the case, again, MA would/should receive higher boosts to reach normalization rather than AA because they have a more pronounced ratio. Or, is it that there is a different base point resulting in a different avenue because they started at different levels to achieve an ideal level of representation. What could that level be? - historical redress? That could make sense.

I think I thought of a way to flesh out your theory. Ok, so think of it this way: there is a base line normalization - 0 points. There are two ways you can move away from this line in the negative direction: 1. inequity in legal profession in comparison to ethnic make-up of U.S. population 2. past problems of institutional racism. You could say for instance in regards to ethnic make up that MA -20 (most under-represented), AA -10, and Asians -0 (they are overrepresented). In regards to historical redress, MA -10 (they had and still have a lot of probs.), AA -40 (had it by far the worst), and Asian A. -5. So totals are MA -30, AA -50, and Asians -5. This generally reflects the boost differentials between MA, AA, and Asian A. So, tying this back to your theory, each group would have a different bump back to normalization depending on their individual circumstance. There probably could be some other factors that contribute to this, but this is clear enough to encompass the major issues regarding AA, MA, and Asian A. boosts. 8) (Edit: Also, I could easily see MA passing AA for boosts as the inequity in the profession rises as well as present day racism against Hispanics)


The target normalization for AA and MA, or the manner in moving away from the baseline in my example, could be so unique to their own circumstances and/or they should be judged individually and not against another group? Or, are we on different wavelengths? If so, I'll check back when I'm not dozing off.

User avatar
starlight007
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:16 pm

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

Postby starlight007 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:00 pm

I don't know, maybe its just me, but as an AA female I don't sit there crunching data figuring out the ways a boost can help me and why. I utilize my materials and I focus on crushing the LSAT.

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:58 pm

I just think it would be interesting to know. I have a week with not much to do. What does being a AA female have to do with any of it anyways? Why does it seem like AA come into this thread and detract from what is going on....

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:09 pm

Horchata wrote:I just think it would be interesting to know. I have a week with not much to do. What does being a AA female have to do with any of it anyways? Why does it seem like AA come into this thread and detract from what is going on....



Cause there is nothing interesting or informative about this thread. Pure speculation. Why do non-urms get less of boost than URMs? It's the same question phrased differently.

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 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:23 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:
Horchata wrote:I just think it would be interesting to know. I have a week with not much to do. What does being a AA female have to do with any of it anyways? Why does it seem like AA come into this thread and detract from what is going on....



Cause there is nothing interesting or informative about this thread. Pure speculation. Why do non-urms get less of boost than URMs? It's the same question phrased differently.


It is speculation. I just doesn't make sense that people on TLS and law schools hold the idea that URMs get boost because law schools are trying to reflect the ethnic make-up of the country. I've shown that that isn't the case at least in regards to the boost given to MA and AA applicants - there are some other factors. This topic gains considerable attention to all URM applicants and people especially in this forum. If you don't want to know why, that's your business. If you don't see how that is interesting, well then you don't have to contribute or read anything.

Gold Dust Woman
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:09 pm

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

Postby Gold Dust Woman » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:26 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:
Horchata wrote:I just think it would be interesting to know. I have a week with not much to do. What does being a AA female have to do with any of it anyways? Why does it seem like AA come into this thread and detract from what is going on....



Cause there is nothing interesting or informative about this thread. Pure speculation. Why do non-urms get less of boost than URMs? It's the same question phrased differently.


Exactly. So far, this seems to be the most logical answer to the ~question~ you posed:
acrossthelake wrote:I'm going to guess it has more to do with the # applying in the first place.

The largest percentage of test takers have been Caucasian. African American test takers and Asian American
test takers, respectively, have been the next largest groups in terms of percentages.


In 07-08:
African Americans 12,152
Hispanic 6,299
Mexican American 1,765

--LinkRemoved--


Edited for html failures :(
Last edited by Gold Dust Woman on Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

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

Postby 12262010 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:27 pm

.
Last edited by 12262010 on Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
capitalacq
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:42 am

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

Postby capitalacq » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:28 pm

booyakasha wrote:I love jesus

huh?
Last edited by capitalacq on Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

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

Postby 12262010 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:29 pm

please unquote so I don't go from naughty list to banned.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests