How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE? Forum

[005618502]

Don't need to, URM right here.

Ah, good work. Congratulations on your achievement.

See its shit like this that is dumb. If my GPA and LSAT are higher then yours then I should be at the better school then you. But its okay because you will likely get into a school that is undeserved, and place in the bottom of your class

This also does not play out at some top law schools. You would still get Elizabeth Wurtzel'ed regardless of your numbers. And that's how it should be.

Edit also: It's not about "rewarding" individuals for "what their ancestors went through." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of affirmative action. Please see rant above about removing individual unfairness/reward from AA discussions because it is simply not about individuals reward/unfairness.

Then why cant it be based on socioeconomic status rather then color of skin?

[blackwater88]

These are the threads where I become convinced that most people on TLS are idiots regardless of their LSAT scores or GPAs.

Race correlates strongly with wealth and educational background in the United States. This is the result of several hundred years of systematic oppression against people of non-white races.

The purpose of affirmative action based admissions is to make sure that America's lawyers are at least somewhat of a representation of the American people. Even at a school like Boalt, the number of African American men in my class can be counted on one hand.

No one alive is directly responsible for the origins of systematic inequality based on race in America. This is why, given our country's focus on the individual, it is so difficult for some of us to see affirmative action programs as being fair. However, race is still a real issue when you have a country with a higher percentage of its black population in jail than during the worst of Apartheid in South Africa. So, it might not seem "fair" to you that you don't get the benefits of affirmative action. It certainly doesn't seem fair to me that the US systematically enslaved and then continued to subjugate via the law a whole race of people. I wonder which unfairness is more important?

+1

I'd rather see AA based on socioeconomics because I think it's more fair and it would have the desired effect of diversifying the class, but this post is mostly on point.

This is exactly what i think, it would make much more sense then someone being rewarded for what their ancestors 3/4/5 generations ago went through.

dude we JUST talked about how it's not what their gparents went through 3/4/5 gens ago...it happens TODAY.

What did you expect? The guy could barely break the 90th percentile.

[005618502]

What did you expect? The guy could barely break the 90th percentile.

Hahaha this is funny. I love how numbers are not even in your profile. Then again they wouldnt correlate to which school you get accepted to so who cares

[bilbobaggins]

Then why cant it be based on socioeconomic status rather then color of skin?

No one's saying there shouldn't be socio-economic AA. I would completely agree with such a program and I think that there should be one. What I'm saying is this wouldn't be an adequate replacement for race based AA because of the continued structural inequalities that we have discussed.

Edit: It is also a mistake to let the correction of a structural issue that isn't your particular structural inequality get in the way of whether or not affirmative action is positive for our society.

[NZA]

I would disagree that many factors that get one into law school (LSAT, GPA, undergrad) are all based completely on individual work and choice. Some of us have an easy road to those things and others do not.

Def true. Nonetheless, I don't think you can dismiss the hard work that people put into their LS apps so blithely. It is an important consideration when thinking about this issue, at least for me. Yes, it is true that some folks just get lucky: rich parents pay for an Ivy League school, rich parents pay for a personal LSAT tutor, rich parents pay for their kid to apply to a billion schools.

Nonetheless, that is not the reality for most folks. I was talking to a friend of mine, and I figured I've spent upwards of $2,000 on applying to law schools alone. That's serious money, even for a middle-class/working-class family like mine, and I don't think spending that much is atypical.

Even in the context of a debate on AA, I think it's important to recognize that it can be difficult for non-URMs to apply to law school. Not as hard as for a URM, not harder, but just plain difficult.

That being said:

The point of AA isn't to reward individuals from underprivileged economic backgrounds, it is to try and correct for hundreds of years of institutionalized racism. So, while I understand that it can be seen as unfair on an individual basis for an African American person from an upper-middle class background to get a boost over a White individual from a lower class background, the purpose of affirmative action is still being served (and I'd say it's an extremely positive purpose, given what we've agreed on in terms of racial inequality, the number of African Americans in top law schools, the number of African American partners in Biglaw, etc.).

I absolutely understand that. You're right, AA is all about addressing societal perspectives on race. The question is, how does it do that?

That's what my original post was about. It's not solely about helping an individual who belongs to a URM.

Like I said, I understand why this seems unfair to individuals, but given the structural issues and the fact that many white individuals from lower class and lower middle class get into top law schools, I think it is the least unfair way of looking at admissions today.

Perhaps, perhaps. I don't think we disagree here.

Fundamentally, I think we come from the same set of perspectives on the status of race in this country. I think our point of departure is what particular reason law school admissions departments would have for giving special consideration to URMs.

I have also not seen, in my personal life, a very strong correlation between LSAT score and real world intelligence.

LOL! True. Probably the truest thing that's been said today.

[blackwater88]

What did you expect? The guy could barely break the 90th percentile.

Hahaha this is funny. I love how numbers are not even in your profile. Then again they wouldnt correlate to which school you get accepted to so who cares

95th+

[Gotti]

Then why cant it be based on socioeconomic status rather then color of skin?

Ah, if the world only worked like that. You should really take a class on race relations in the US. I'm not trying to be rude by saying this at all, btw. It really puts things in perspective. You have nooo idea what you're talking about. Again, no offense at all. I'm not trying to insult anyone, I just really think people need to educate themselves on what AA really really is.

[Gotti]

What did you expect? The guy could barely break the 90th percentile.

hey relax....my score isn't phenomenal either.

[MartianManhunter]

“No white person would trade places with me and I’m rich – that’s how good it is to be white!” - Chris Rock.

No white person I know, including the ones that bemoan AA and URM boosts and dream of HYS every night, would trade places with me. That's how good it is to be white.

[NZA]

That having been said, the application process for the applicant is not about statistics or US history.

TBF, the bolded is question begging. This debate rests on whether or not that state of affairs should be the case. In any case, you can't treat "the history US race relations" as something static. The point is that the history then has resulted in systemic disadvantage even now (I don’t think you disagree with this).

I absolutely do not disagree with that, no.

That said, the rest of the paragraph that follows (actually, the rest of your post) is reasonable. In an ideal world, admissions would consider the total socioeconomic picture, not just one’s minority status. But, URM status is a convenient heuristic.

True, and I think I should've mentioned that in my original post. That was going to be my justification for using race as a main or key factor, but I just didn't post it.

Analogously, in an ideal world, admissions would go beyond the LSAT/GPA and judge applicants by their true potential.

Use the Sorting Hat?

But, once again, it’s really hard to get at that period, let alone through some cyclical process that needs to move relatively quickly and not be overly inefficient. GPA/LSAT is a convenient, if not completely reliable, tool for making decisions.

As far as “your diversity enriching the classroom” point goes, you’re mostly right I think. I would add, however, that socioeconomics once again rears its head. That is to say, there are (and this has been pointed out) black people who grew up rich in the burbs and who are not culturally that different from their white peers (although they might feel pressured to pretend to be, if they are male at least). They still get an admissions boost even though they might not enrich the classroom any more than some white dude. But as I pointed out earlier, eliminating boojee ass “URMs” from the boosting process is difficult and perhaps unfeasible.

Absolutely. And no process is going to be perfect. There will always be someone out there gaming the system.

I think, though, there's too much of an emphasis with AA on "helping" URMs. It's not really about that, the way I see it. I think that putting the debate in that context tends to create alienation and hostility, as demonstrated by this thread.

If we really break it down, AA is about helping to recognize the extraordinary circumstances of URMs in our country. AA is thus an attempt to help bring about truly equal opportunity for individuals of any race to succeed.

The question that I am asking, I guess (if I can just clarify my point a little here), is how does AA do this?

I believe it does so by exposing future practicing attorneys, judges, etc., to people from different perspectives. It's like the whole "wise Latina" issue that came up with Sotomayor. Her point, IIRC, was that there are occasions were having a Latina justice will cause other justices to see a case from a different perspective. That in and of itself is a worthy accomplishment.

Thus, part of AA, and for me the main part, is that it gives law students the opportunity to take what they learn from their peers of different races out of the classroom and into their practice. This, to me, is a far more significant contribution to the goal of AA than the mere fact that a handful of URMs get into prestigious schools.

[blackwater88]

“No white person would trade places with me and I’m rich – that’s how good it is to be white!” - Chris Rock.

No white person I know, including the ones that bemoan AA and URM boosts and dream of HYS every night, would trade places with me. That's how good it is to be white.

Besides, if you think being HYS secure is gonna set you for life, you're probably not smart enough to get in anyway.

[NZA]

Also, just to clarify...there is no true AA in law school, correct?

I mean, that was struck down in that Michigan case.

[Thirteen]

Black male from the suburbs

[mrmangs]

That having been said, the application process for the applicant is not about statistics or US history.

TBF, the bolded is question begging. This debate rests on whether or not that state of affairs should be the case. In any case, you can't treat "the history US race relations" as something static. The point is that the history then has resulted in systemic disadvantage even now (I don’t think you disagree with this).

I absolutely do not disagree with that, no.

That said, the rest of the paragraph that follows (actually, the rest of your post) is reasonable. In an ideal world, admissions would consider the total socioeconomic picture, not just one’s minority status. But, URM status is a convenient heuristic.

True, and I think I should've mentioned that in my original post. That was going to be my justification for using race as a main or key factor, but I just didn't post it.

Analogously, in an ideal world, admissions would go beyond the LSAT/GPA and judge applicants by their true potential.

Use the Sorting Hat?

But, once again, it’s really hard to get at that period, let alone through some cyclical process that needs to move relatively quickly and not be overly inefficient. GPA/LSAT is a convenient, if not completely reliable, tool for making decisions.

As far as “your diversity enriching the classroom” point goes, you’re mostly right I think. I would add, however, that socioeconomics once again rears its head. That is to say, there are (and this has been pointed out) black people who grew up rich in the burbs and who are not culturally that different from their white peers (although they might feel pressured to pretend to be, if they are male at least). They still get an admissions boost even though they might not enrich the classroom any more than some white dude. But as I pointed out earlier, eliminating boojee ass “URMs” from the boosting process is difficult and perhaps unfeasible.

Absolutely. And no process is going to be perfect. There will always be someone out there gaming the system.

I think, though, there's too much of an emphasis with AA on "helping" URMs. It's not really about that, the way I see it. I think that putting the debate in that context tends to create alienation and hostility, as demonstrated by this thread.

If we really break it down, AA is about helping to recognize the extraordinary circumstances of URMs in our country. AA is thus an attempt to help bring about truly equal opportunity for individuals of any race to succeed.

The question that I am asking, I guess (if I can just clarify my point a little here), is how does AA do this?

I believe it does so by exposing future practicing attorneys, judges, etc., to people from different perspectives. It's like the whole "wise Latina" issue that came up with Sotomayor. Her point, IIRC, was that there are occasions were having a Latina justice will cause other justices to see a case from a different perspective. That in and of itself is a worthy accomplishment.

Thus, part of AA, and for me the main part, is that it gives law students the opportunity to take what they learn from their peers of different races out of the classroom and into their practice. This, to me, is a far more significant contribution to the goal of AA than the mere fact that a handful of URMs get into prestigious schools.

Oh, if I was unclear, I am 100% behind AA. Not saying it can’t be modified, but the ideas and fundamental principles behind it are solid.

You're spot on. Law is a service industry. Lawyers exist because clients exist. Thus, as a lawyer, you better be able to get along with and relate to all sorts of personalities if you want to be contributing to your firm’s business. Enhancing diversity at LS is important in this regard because it acclimates individuals to dealing with all sorts of people. Similar arguments can be made as far as judges and other "law-involved" people are concerned.

In response, the argument can be made, “well, on the whole, most successful and rich people in American aren’t black, so why should I go to LS with them? Black people, more likely than not, will not be among my clients” (insofar as BigLaw is concerned, anyway). But anyone who makes that argument has obviously missed the fundamental point of AA: reversing the systemic disadvantages some minorities in the US face. I know someone said it's not 1960 anymore, but I hope everyone realizes that 1960 was not nearly that long ago, espeically relative to how long racial oppression has gone on in this country (and still does, if much less than before and more implicitly and structurally and less consciously than it did back in the day).

[NZA]

Oh, if I was unclear, I am 100% behind AA. Not saying it can’t be modified, but the ideas and fundamental principles behind it are solid.

You spot on. Law is a service industry. Lawyers exist because clients exist. Thus, as a lawyer, you better be able to get along with and relate to all sorts of personalities if you want to be contributing to your firm’s business. Enhancing diversity at LS is important in this regard because it acclimates individuals to dealing with all sorts of people. Similar arguments can be made as far as judges and other "law-involved" people are concerned.

In response, the argument can be made, “well, on the whole, most successful and rich people in American aren’t black, so why should I go to LS with them? Black people, more likely than not, will not be among my clients” (insofar as BigLaw is concerned, anyway). But anyone who makes that argument has obviously missed the fundamental point of AA: reversing the systemic disadvantages some minorities in the US face. I know someone said it's not 1960 anymore, but I hope everyone realizes that 1960 was not nearly that long ago, espeically relative to how long racial oppression has gone on in this country (and still does, if much less than before and more implicitly and structurally and less consciously than it did back in the day).

THIS! Exactly. That's why I think taking the "classroom enrichment/compassion-inducing" argument makes so much more sense for a generation that is seemingly post-racial. Having people of different races in your class definitely awakens you to realities that you never considered before. It's one thing to read about this stuff in a textbook, but it's another to hear about it from someone who actually has experienced it in their life.

[Gotti]

i'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked.

[LAWLAW09]

Funny how widespread levels of racism repeat themselves and folks still want to blame some "other group" of Americans that lived "hundreds of years ago."

If statistics alone would change the actions of ORM, there wouldn't be a need for AA. Unfortunately, that's never been and will never be the case, so I'm only copying and pasting the limited info below b/c it required the least amount of energy.



21st Century:



Housing:


"Even when income and credit risk are equal, African Americans are up to 34 percent more likely to receive higher‐rate and subprime loans with a prepayment penalty than are their similarly situated white counterparts."

"These practices have placed at least one million African Americans and other people of color at great risk of loss of wealth—an estimated loss of at least $164 billion."


--LinkRemoved--





Employment:



"Black job applicants without criminal records are equally likely to be hired as their white counterparts who have served time in prison, according to a recent Princeton University study."

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news/ec ... ring_bias/


http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/events/p ... stern1.pdf


"Professors reported children with "black-sounding" names such as Lakisha and Jamal are 50 percent less likely to receive a call back for a job interview compared to "white-sounding" names such as Emily or Greg."



http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/26/na ... tml?hpt=C2

--LinkRemoved--



Criminal Sentencing (same results are found in conviction rates):



"Black and Hispanic men are more likely to receive longer prison sentences than their white counterparts since the Supreme Court loosened federal sentencing rules"


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/12/9 ... ncing.html

--LinkRemoved--

[sophia.olive]

What did you expect? The guy could barely break the 90th percentile.

Hahaha this is funny. I love how numbers are not even in your profile. Then again they wouldnt correlate to which school you get accepted to so who cares

you should really consider taking your numbers out of your profile or putting up fake ones just in case an adcomm realises how narrow minded you are. thats what i did im 99.9% and i thik u b stupd

[arism87]

i'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked.

+1

[blackwater88]

i'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked.

Seems like Harvard's favorite mod might be taking a break.

[d34d9823]

Seeing as it hasn't been locked...

Discuss:

Affirmative action fosters racism because it causes resentment in previously non-racist ORMs who are disadvantaged by it.

[bilbobaggins]

The discussion has gotten a lot better, I think.

Oh, until the last post, that is.

[d34d9823]

The discussion has gotten a lot better, I think.

Oh, until the last post, that is.

So is that a yes or a no?

[Gotti]

The discussion has gotten a lot better, I think.

Oh, until the last post, that is.

It's because the people with ignorant comments stopped posting.....well for the most part lol

[20121109]

I wonder which unfairness is more important?

To me, the one where I don't get HYS because I'm white.

Come on, honey. I know you're better than this.