How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE? Forum

[firemed]

Oh, and before I go, just wanted to say:

I don't know Jazz... I agreed with you last night, but now I am starting to wonder. I mean, until AA gets blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc. in the profession at equal rates to their representation in the population, I think the socioeconomic boost you are talking about (while more just in many ways) will fail to accomplish the same task. Because suddenly whites with socioeconomic disadvantages will be competing for the same spots as blacks with socioeconomic disadvantage... and the number of AA admits will proportionally go down, yes? Because while blacks are more likely to be poor, they are only 14% of the population. The gross number of poor whites, while a lower percentage within their racial category, is higher than the number of poor blacks by (if I remember correctly) a little. So suddenly the number of poor blacks at an advantage to correct historical injustices would go down.

ETA: and, on another note, is it possible you are an example of AA working? Not for yourself, but in the case of your parents?

[NZA]

I was thinking about the socioeconomic thing, and JazzOne is right that it is more just when it comes to the individual.

But I'm thinking that taking socioeconomics is kind of more appropriate for the financial aid process, not the admissions process.

[mrmangs]

Oh, and before I go, just wanted to say:

I don't know Jazz... I agreed with you last night, but now I am starting to wonder. I mean, until AA gets blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc. in the profession at equal rates to their representation in the population, I think the socioeconomic boost you are talking about (while more just in many ways) will fail to accomplish the same task. Because suddenly whites with socioeconomic disadvantages will be competing for the same spots as blacks with socioeconomic disadvantage... and the number of AA admits will proportionally go down, yes? Because while blacks are more likely to be poor, they are only 14% of the population. The gross number of poor whites, while a lower percentage within their racial category, is higher than the number of poor blacks by (if I remember correctly) a little. So suddenly the number of poor blacks at an advantage to correct historical injustices would go down.

ETA: and, on another note, is it possible you are an example of AA working? Not for yourself, but in the case of your parents?

This. I guess it really comes down to what you think is more fair: equal opportunity to individuals without thinking about race OR getting the races on the equal footing (with reference to the proportion to the population they make up) AND THEN fine-tuning for individual fairness. Because if you go straight to the first, you lose out on the first part of the second option.

[JazzOne]

Oh, and before I go, just wanted to say:

I don't know Jazz... I agreed with you last night, but now I am starting to wonder. I mean, until AA gets blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc. in the profession at equal rates to their representation in the population, I think the socioeconomic boost you are talking about (while more just in many ways) will fail to accomplish the same task. Because suddenly whites with socioeconomic disadvantages will be competing for the same spots as blacks with socioeconomic disadvantage... and the number of AA admits will proportionally go down, yes? Because while blacks are more likely to be poor, they are only 14% of the population. The gross number of poor whites, while a lower percentage within their racial category, is higher than the number of poor blacks by (if I remember correctly) a little. So suddenly the number of poor blacks at an advantage to correct historical injustices would go down.

ETA: and, on another note, is it possible you are an example of AA working? Not for yourself, but in the case of your parents?

You make some fair points, and I'll keep reflecting on the issue. However, my parents did not receive any benefits of AA. They grew up long before political correctness became a priority. My mom (as a Hispanic female) was actually pressured not to go to college so her brother could go.

This is also why I believe that the plight of the minorities is not 100% a result of racism. Some cultural traditions of the minorities are just as destructive as the cultural traditions of the majority.

All in all, this is a very difficult problem to solve. I just find it problematic to conclude that the only solution to historical and institutionalized racism is to trample on the liberties of white kids who are not morally culpable for the status quo. I can't help but think there must be a better way to equal the playing field, even if it is not through socioeconomic boost. Whenever a declared policy (URM boost) has the effect of violating certain liberties, I think the onus is on the proponents of that policy to show why the alternate policies are insufficient. And the issue should be continually reanalyzed until an alternate policy becomes acceptable. We should never be satisfied with policies that overtly discriminate on the basis of race, and we should strive to design acceptable alternatives.

[Blindc1rca]

Oh, and before I go, just wanted to say:

I don't know Jazz... I agreed with you last night, but now I am starting to wonder. I mean, until AA gets blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc. in the profession at equal rates to their representation in the population, I think the socioeconomic boost you are talking about (while more just in many ways) will fail to accomplish the same task. Because suddenly whites with socioeconomic disadvantages will be competing for the same spots as blacks with socioeconomic disadvantage... and the number of AA admits will proportionally go down, yes? Because while blacks are more likely to be poor, they are only 14% of the population. The gross number of poor whites, while a lower percentage within their racial category, is higher than the number of poor blacks by (if I remember correctly) a little. So suddenly the number of poor blacks at an advantage to correct historical injustices would go down.

ETA: and, on another note, is it possible you are an example of AA working? Not for yourself, but in the case of your parents?

You make some fair points, and I'll keep reflecting on the issue. However, my parents did not receive any benefits of AA. They grew up long before political correctness became a priority. My mom (as a Hispanic female) was actually pressured not to go to college so her brother could go.

This is also why I believe that the plight of the minorities is not 100% a result of racism. Some cultural traditions of the minorities are just as destructive as the cultural traditions of the majority.

All in all, this is a very difficult problem to solve. I just find it problematic to conclude that the only solution to historical and institutionalized racism is to trample on the liberties of white kids who are not morally culpable for the status quo. I can't help but think there must be a better way to equal the playing field, even if it is not through socioeconomic boost.

a combination?

e.g. the boost goes to URM's who can demonstrate low relative wealth.

[JazzOne]

Oh, and before I go, just wanted to say:

I don't know Jazz... I agreed with you last night, but now I am starting to wonder. I mean, until AA gets blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc. in the profession at equal rates to their representation in the population, I think the socioeconomic boost you are talking about (while more just in many ways) will fail to accomplish the same task. Because suddenly whites with socioeconomic disadvantages will be competing for the same spots as blacks with socioeconomic disadvantage... and the number of AA admits will proportionally go down, yes? Because while blacks are more likely to be poor, they are only 14% of the population. The gross number of poor whites, while a lower percentage within their racial category, is higher than the number of poor blacks by (if I remember correctly) a little. So suddenly the number of poor blacks at an advantage to correct historical injustices would go down.

ETA: and, on another note, is it possible you are an example of AA working? Not for yourself, but in the case of your parents?

You make some fair points, and I'll keep reflecting on the issue. However, my parents did not receive any benefits of AA. They grew up long before political correctness became a priority. My mom (as a Hispanic female) was actually pressured not to go to college so her brother could go.

This is also why I believe that the plight of the minorities is not 100% a result of racism. Some cultural traditions of the minorities are just as destructive as the cultural traditions of the majority.

All in all, this is a very difficult problem to solve. I just find it problematic to conclude that the only solution to historical and institutionalized racism is to trample on the liberties of white kids who are not morally culpable for the status quo. I can't help but think there must be a better way to equal the playing field, even if it is not through socioeconomic boost.

a combination?

e.g. the boost goes to URM's who can demonstrate low relative wealth.

+1

I don't know what the answer is, but as my edit above indicates, we should not stop looking for creative ideas.

[bilbobaggins]

Oh, and before I go, just wanted to say:

I don't know Jazz... I agreed with you last night, but now I am starting to wonder. I mean, until AA gets blacks, hispanics, native americans, etc. in the profession at equal rates to their representation in the population, I think the socioeconomic boost you are talking about (while more just in many ways) will fail to accomplish the same task. Because suddenly whites with socioeconomic disadvantages will be competing for the same spots as blacks with socioeconomic disadvantage... and the number of AA admits will proportionally go down, yes? Because while blacks are more likely to be poor, they are only 14% of the population. The gross number of poor whites, while a lower percentage within their racial category, is higher than the number of poor blacks by (if I remember correctly) a little. So suddenly the number of poor blacks at an advantage to correct historical injustices would go down.

ETA: and, on another note, is it possible you are an example of AA working? Not for yourself, but in the case of your parents?

You make some fair points, and I'll keep reflecting on the issue. However, my parents did not receive any benefits of AA. They grew up long before political correctness became a priority. My mom (as a Hispanic female) was actually pressured not to go to college so her brother could go.

This is also why I believe that the plight of the minorities is not 100% a result of racism. Some cultural traditions of the minorities are just as destructive as the cultural traditions of the majority.

All in all, this is a very difficult problem to solve. I just find it problematic to conclude that the only solution to historical and institutionalized racism is to trample on the liberties of white kids who are not morally culpable for the status quo. I can't help but think there must be a better way to equal the playing field, even if it is not through socioeconomic boost. Whenever a declared policy (URM boost) has the effect of violating certain liberties, I think the onus is on the proponents of that policy to show why the alternate policies are insufficient. And the issue should be continually reanalyzed until an alternate policy becomes acceptable. We should never be satisfied with policies that overtly discriminate on the basis of race, and we should strive to design acceptable alternatives.

Please don't conflate "political correctness" with affirmative action.

It's bizarre that you'd formulate not getting into law school has "trampling liberties." What are said liberties being violated?

[JazzOne]

Please don't conflate "political correctness" with affirmative action.

I think that political correctness makes it difficult to challenge affirmative action. That was my point. My parents did not grow up in an era when affirmative action was a given. I take your point though. There simply was no affirmative action to challenge.

It's bizarre that you'd formulate not getting into law school has "trampling liberties." What are said liberties being violated?

The liberty of nondiscrimination, with respect to race, by government institutions (state schools)

[yngblkgifted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Couldn't resist.

[JazzOne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Couldn't resist.

lol

[Stanford4Me]

Why is this thread even still alive?

[JazzOne]

Why is this thread even still alive?

Because we enjoy discussing this. Why do you care?

[bilbobaggins]

Why is this thread even still alive?

Because we enjoy discussing this. Why do you care?

Yeah. Fuck Stanfurd.

[bilbobaggins]

I would disagree with the proposition that people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against.

[Stanford4Me]

x

[mrmangs]

I would disagree with the proposition that people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against.

At the very least, one has to admit law school admissions are zero-sum. There is a limited number of spots, and if applicant A gets in, then applicant B has one less spot to compete for. Hell, even for admitted students, a similar competition exists: there is a limited amount of funds available for scholarships, and if admitted student A gets money, there is that much less available for admitted student B.

But, when we then move to AA and all the complications and subtleties that have been brought up ITT, well, whether one thinks people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against really turns on how one assesses the sense of the word "discriminated" in light of all that information.

[bilbobaggins]

I would disagree with the proposition that people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against.

At the very least, one has to admit law school admissions are zero-sum. There is a limited number of spots, and if applicant A gets in, then applicant B has one less spot to compete for. Hell, even for admitted students, a similar competition exists: there is a limited amount of funds available for scholarships, and if admitted student A gets money, there is that much less available for admitted student B.

But, when we then move to AA and all the complications and subtleties that have been brought up ITT, well, whether one thinks people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against really turns on how one assesses the sense of the word "discriminated" in light of all that information.

Sure, but it's impossible to show that any given person was excluded because he was white as opposed to a host of other factors (low LSAT, low gpa, etc). It's not quota based admissions, so admissions departments are using a host of factors to make their decisions. These decisions result in what seems like an LSAT bump for URMs, but this is not technically what's actually occurring. What's occurring is that admissions departments want a variety of individuals in their programs- including people from the lower class, people from different racial backgrounds, people from less populous states, people from different professions, a balanced number of men and women etc.

[NZA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Couldn't resist.

Lolissimus! Definitely on point.

[mrmangs]

I would disagree with the proposition that people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against.

At the very least, one has to admit law school admissions are zero-sum. There is a limited number of spots, and if applicant A gets in, then applicant B has one less spot to compete for. Hell, even for admitted students, a similar competition exists: there is a limited amount of funds available for scholarships, and if admitted student A gets money, there is that much less available for admitted student B.

But, when we then move to AA and all the complications and subtleties that have been brought up ITT, well, whether one thinks people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against really turns on how one assesses the sense of the word "discriminated" in light of all that information.

Sure, but it's impossible to show that any given person was excluded because he was white as opposed to a host of other factors (low LSAT, low gpa, etc). It's not quota based admissions, so admissions departments are using a host of factors to make their decisions. These decisions result in what seems like an LSAT bump for URMs, but this is not technically what's actually occurring. What's occurring is that admissions departments want a variety of individuals in their programs- including people from the lower class, people from different racial backgrounds, people from less populous states, people from different professions, a balanced number of men and women etc.

We're definitely on the same page, although I think the anti-AA people here disagree that "different racial backgrounds" should be part of the equation. As I understand it, this is what they mean by the term "URM boost." It's not that they are claiming that admissions officers follow some procedure of adding X number of points to some LSAT scores based on race, although that sort of mechanic may produce similar admissions results.

[d34d9823]

Sure, but it's impossible to show that any given person was excluded because he was white as opposed to a host of other factors (low LSAT, low gpa, etc). It's not quota based admissions, so admissions departments are using a host of factors to make their decisions. These decisions result in what seems like an LSAT bump for URMs, but this is not technically what's actually occurring. What's occurring is that admissions departments want a variety of individuals in their programs- including people from the lower class, people from different racial backgrounds, people from less populous states, people from different professions, a balanced number of men and women etc.

This is an intellectual shell game. It's a fact that the color of your skin has a significant effect on your admissions cycle. The fact that what would have happened without the URM boost is unknown doesn't change that.

[NZA]

Sure, but it's impossible to show that any given person was excluded because he was white as opposed to a host of other factors (low LSAT, low gpa, etc). It's not quota based admissions, so admissions departments are using a host of factors to make their decisions. These decisions result in what seems like an LSAT bump for URMs, but this is not technically what's actually occurring. What's occurring is that admissions departments want a variety of individuals in their programs- including people from the lower class, people from different racial backgrounds, people from less populous states, people from different professions, a balanced number of men and women etc.

This is an intellectual shell game. It's a fact that the color of your skin has a significant effect on your admissions cycle. The fact that what would have happened without the URM boost is unknown doesn't change that.

But, to be fair, it's not really just about the color of your skin: it's about what that color means to our society. That's really what AA is about, and I think that's what a lot of people are missing.

[northwood]

Why would you lie about this? Would you really want to risk your career and financial outlook over this? Sure it may help you get in, but once you are in, you have to prove that you belong ( working smart, being prepared, being responsible, etc) . As for the discussion about AA and all that, there is no point in whinning about it. Its there, suck it up, deal with it, and move on. The entire thing is optional. You dont have to answer it if you want. If you want to be vague, click other. Whatever box you want to put yourself into, go right ahead.

If you are seriously going to jeopardize your legal and financial future by lying about this, please re consider. All you are going to do is take someones spot who isnt idiotic enough to lie about this.

[JazzOne]

Why would you lie about this? Would you really want to risk your career and financial outlook over this? Sure it may help you get in, but once you are in, you have to prove that you belong ( working smart, being prepared, being responsible, etc) . As for the discussion about AA and all that, there is no point in whinning about it. Its there, suck it up, deal with it, and move on. The entire thing is optional. You dont have to answer it if you want. If you want to be vague, click other. Whatever box you want to put yourself into, go right ahead.

If you are seriously going to jeopardize your legal and financial future by lying about this, please re consider. All you are going to do is take someones spot who isnt idiotic enough to lie about this.

lol

[northwood]

this whole thread is full of lulz.......

[Deuce]

Just read the first page, amazed this one is locked yet