How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
mapes
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:37 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby mapes » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:18 pm

bilbobaggins wrote: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?


Thank you for this. It shocks me how many people are oblivious to the reasoning behind affirmative action.

User avatar
blackwater88
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby blackwater88 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:19 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:I wonder which unfairness is more important?

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

To society, whatever the other thing you said was.


retake

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby d34d9823 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:22 pm

blackwater88 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:I wonder which unfairness is more important?

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

To society, whatever the other thing you said was.


retake

I'll pass, thanks.

User avatar
blackwater88
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby blackwater88 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:23 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:I wonder which unfairness is more important?

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

To society, whatever the other thing you said was.


retake

I'll pass, thanks.


Then stop bitching.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby d34d9823 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:23 pm

blackwater88 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:I'll pass, thanks.


Then stop bitching.

Beat my score and I will.

User avatar
blackwater88
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby blackwater88 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:24 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:I'll pass, thanks.


Then stop bitching.

Beat my score and I will.


Don't need to, URM right here.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby d34d9823 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:26 pm

blackwater88 wrote:Don't need to, URM right here.

Ah, good work. Congratulations on your achievement.

User avatar
Gotti
Posts: 3436
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby Gotti » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:27 pm

NZA wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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?


Good points! Not trying to be a troll, here, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with your argument.

The question that I think a person who is against affirmative action/providing a soft for a person of a specific racial background might raise is the point that someone mentioned earlier: that simply belonging to a race or ethnic group does not necessarily demonstrate any history of overcoming racial obstacles in that individual's life.

We can all obviously agree that, from an institutional/statistical standpoint, the average African-American male faces far more challenges to success than the average White male. This is beyond a doubt a truth, and institutions like law schools do have a certain responsibility to our nation to help bring about a just state of race relations.

That having been said, the application process for the applicant is not about statistics or US history. It's about the years of hard work in college, graduate school, or at a place of employment. It's about studying night and day for the LSAT in order to achieve a score that he or she can be satisfied with. And after all that hard work, I can definitely understand why it would appear "unfair" that a person who did not do quite as well in these areas can gain admission to prestigious law schools based on a factor that has nothing to do with their willful choosing.

When a previous poster raised the point that there are some African-Americans, for instance, that have had significantly greater advantages than some White people, that does not invalidate the admissions process of taking a person's race into account. It does, however, point out that our nation definitely embraces the idea of a meritocracy.

Nonetheless, I think the best argument for factoring in race is the fact that it does not "disadvantage" anyone in the admissions process. In fact, it benefits everyone, regardless of race. By having people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds in the classroom, the class is enriched. People of differing perspectives bring something unique to the table, allowing everyone's horizons to expand. THIS, I think, is the reason why factoring in race to admissions is a good thing.

In other words, arguing that law schools are somehow correcting an historical/institutional injustice misses the mark. Or rather, the injustice corrected is different from what most suppose. While it seems like you, bilbo, are focusing on the history of race in this country (a sad, twisted history if there ever were one), I think it is better to focus on the present moment. Again, increasing the amount of minorities/LGBTQ(or whatever acronym you're supposed to use)/economically disadvantaged/international students is correcting the injustice of depriving all students of having the opportunity to learn from others.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.



Although you make decent points, the fact remains that only 20-30 black males every YEAR get 170+ on the LSAT. It’s due to a lot of factors, but stereotype threat plays a part. Not only do minorities (not just black males in general) have access to fewer resources in general, but our society has, over the years, labeled them as being “beneath” white people. There have been countless studies that show that minorities do much worse on standardized tests…not due to their lack of qualifications, but due to the fact that they are EXPECTED to do poorly. It’s a big picture thing, and this goes for women and math-related fields as well—women tend to do worse on these kinds of tests because we have been told that guys are better at math. Likewise, society has reinforced this stupid notion that minorities are worse at certain things (school, for example), so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Am I saying that every minority sits in the LSAT and worries thinks “omg society thinks I’m going to do worse” so he/she does worse? No, but society reinforcing this fact affects the way the individuals are born and raised, and if you’ve been told your entire life (however subtly) that you’re beneath someone else because you’re of a different race/ethnicity, it will manifest itself in certain things you do.

Edit: I agree it makes for a more diverse class to have representation of minorities/LGBT/different kinds of people in your class, btw. I'm just pointing out that there is good reason that URMs get boosts in law school admissions, but not 100% for the reasons you specified (for diversity of the class)
Last edited by Gotti on Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
blackwater88
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby blackwater88 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:28 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote:Don't need to, URM right here.

Ah, good work. Congratulations on your achievement.


Thanks, I do what I can.

User avatar
blackwater88
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby blackwater88 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:31 pm

Gotti wrote:

Although you make decent points, the fact remains that only 20-30 black males every YEAR get 170+ on the LSAT. It’s due to a lot of factors, but stereotype threat plays a part. Not only do minorities (not just black males in general) have access to fewer resources in general, but our society has, over the years, labeled them as being “beneath” white people. There have been countless studies that show that minorities do much worse on standardized tests…not due to their lack of qualifications, but due to the fact that they are EXPECTED to do poorly. It’s a big picture thing, and this goes for women and math-related fields as well—women tend to do worse on these kinds of tests because we have been told that guys are better at math. Likewise, society has reinforced this stupid notion that minorities are worse at certain things (school, for example), so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Am I saying that every minority sits in the LSAT and worries thinks “omg society thinks I’m going to do worse” so he/she does worse? No, but society reinforcing this fact affects the way the individuals are born and raised, and if you’ve been told your entire life (however subtly) that you’re beneath someone else because you’re of a different race/ethnicity, it will manifest itself in certain things you do.


Not true, it's around 125-150.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c
Minute 34:00

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:32 pm

BrownBears09 wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:
Did your BF do anything about it? or just let it happen?


He turned around and asked them wtf they just said

They were like NOTHING MAN JUST KEEP WALKIN JUST KEEP WALKIN.

There were like 3 of them…he wasn’t about to start a fight. What else can you do when you experience this kinda thing so often? There are ignorant people in this world, dude. Racism is everywhere and you may not notice it because you don’t experience it, and that’s the point. Just because you went to a predominantly black school doesn’t mean that you know everything there is to know about being a black person in this country. It sucks, but it’s true. But like RJ127 said, just be careful what you say. Obviously he knows there are affluent black people and there are very poor white people. Historically and currently, though, you can’t say that minorities are not at a disadvantage. That’s all.


Yea, you are right. But one of my best friends is black and we do hang out about everyday. If anyone ever said anything like that they would have been put in the hospital, wether it be 1 guy or 5, its the principle. I guess that has never happened to us though, maybe because we are bigger guys, i dont know. Im sorry you have had those experiences, thats terrible. But one good thing is black people have an advantage in that gym! Edit: <-----the gym thing was a joke, maybe not appropriate but just wanted to clarify i was joking lol


World views and life experiences. You lack them.

lol

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:35 pm

bilbobaggins wrote: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.

User avatar
Gotti
Posts: 3436
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby Gotti » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:37 pm

blackwater88 wrote:
Gotti wrote:

Although you make decent points, the fact remains that only 20-30 black males every YEAR get 170+ on the LSAT. It’s due to a lot of factors, but stereotype threat plays a part. Not only do minorities (not just black males in general) have access to fewer resources in general, but our society has, over the years, labeled them as being “beneath” white people. There have been countless studies that show that minorities do much worse on standardized tests…not due to their lack of qualifications, but due to the fact that they are EXPECTED to do poorly. It’s a big picture thing, and this goes for women and math-related fields as well—women tend to do worse on these kinds of tests because we have been told that guys are better at math. Likewise, society has reinforced this stupid notion that minorities are worse at certain things (school, for example), so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Am I saying that every minority sits in the LSAT and worries thinks “omg society thinks I’m going to do worse” so he/she does worse? No, but society reinforcing this fact affects the way the individuals are born and raised, and if you’ve been told your entire life (however subtly) that you’re beneath someone else because you’re of a different race/ethnicity, it will manifest itself in certain things you do.


Not true, it's around 125-150.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c
Minute 34:00



In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT.


even if it is 125-150 now, think about how many black people took the LSAT and what percent got over 170 vs how many white people took the LSAT and got over 170

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:38 pm

NZA wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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?


Good points! Not trying to be a troll, here, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with your argument.

The question that I think a person who is against affirmative action/providing a soft for a person of a specific racial background might raise is the point that someone mentioned earlier: that simply belonging to a race or ethnic group does not necessarily demonstrate any history of overcoming racial obstacles in that individual's life.

We can all obviously agree that, from an institutional/statistical standpoint, the average African-American male faces far more challenges to success than the average White male. This is beyond a doubt a truth, and institutions like law schools do have a certain responsibility to our nation to help bring about a just state of race relations.

That having been said, the application process for the applicant is not about statistics or US history. It's about the years of hard work in college, graduate school, or at a place of employment. It's about studying night and day for the LSAT in order to achieve a score that he or she can be satisfied with. And after all that hard work, I can definitely understand why it would appear "unfair" that a person who did not do quite as well in these areas can gain admission to prestigious law schools based on a factor that has nothing to do with their willful choosing.

When a previous poster raised the point that there are some African-Americans, for instance, that have had significantly greater advantages than some White people, that does not invalidate the admissions process of taking a person's race into account. It does, however, point out that our nation definitely embraces the idea of a meritocracy.

Nonetheless, I think the best argument for factoring in race is the fact that it does not "disadvantage" anyone in the admissions process. In fact, it benefits everyone, regardless of race. By having people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds in the classroom, the class is enriched. People of differing perspectives bring something unique to the table, allowing everyone's horizons to expand. THIS, I think, is the reason why factoring in race to admissions is a good thing.

In other words, arguing that law schools are somehow correcting an historical/institutional injustice misses the mark. Or rather, the injustice corrected is different from what most suppose. While it seems like you, bilbo, are focusing on the history of race in this country (a sad, twisted history if there ever were one), I think it is better to focus on the present moment. Again, increasing the amount of minorities/LGBTQ(or whatever acronym you're supposed to use)/economically disadvantaged/international students is correcting the injustice of depriving all students of having the opportunity to learn from others.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.


Thanks for the response. As has been pointed out by others, not everyone who wants to discuss AA is racist, but those who simply say "life would be easier for me if I had been born black" are seriously misguided.

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. 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.). 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.

I think your arguments for diversity are spot on and I think they dovetail into the more traditional arguments for affirmative action. I have also not seen, in my personal life, a very strong correlation between LSAT score and real world intelligence.

User avatar
NZA
Posts: 1285
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:01 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby NZA » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:38 pm

Gotti wrote:Although you make decent points, the fact remains that only 20-30 black males every YEAR get 170+ on the LSAT. It’s due to a lot of factors, but stereotype threat plays a part. Not only do minorities (not just black males in general) have access to fewer resources in general, but our society has, over the years, labeled them as being “beneath” white people. There have been countless studies that show that minorities do much worse on standardized tests…not due to their lack of qualifications, but due to the fact that they are EXPECTED to do poorly. It’s a big picture thing, and this goes for women and math-related fields as well—women tend to do worse on these kinds of tests because we have been told that guys are better at math. Likewise, society has reinforced this stupid notion that minorities are worse at certain things (school, for example), so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Am I saying that every minority sits in the LSAT and worries thinks “omg society thinks I’m going to do worse” so he/she does worse? No, but society reinforcing this fact affects the way the individuals are born and raised, and if you’ve been told your entire life (however subtly) that you’re beneath someone else because you’re of a different race/ethnicity, it will manifest itself in certain things you do.


No disagreements with you about the fact that many members of our society have been, and continue to be (to varying degrees), prejudiced against different races. Obviously, the effect that these views can have on individuals could indeed be great.

But I think where you and I part ways in our opinion is that I think the facts that you mention above warrant special admissions consideration not because the person may be disadvantaged, but in fact, possess the advantage of having deep, personal insights into our society's problems.

That's why I think the "URM advantage" also applies generally to people from other perspectives: members of the queer community, international students, kids from economically disadvantaged families, etc.

But, yes, I think you and I are almost 100% in agreement. :) I do sympathize, to a certain degree, with the arguments presented by some of the folks here, and I think a more cogent, reasonable, and appealing argument for giving URMs special consideration lies in an argument towards possibility, not towards history.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 005618502 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:38 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote: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

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 005618502 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:40 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:
NZA wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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?


Good points! Not trying to be a troll, here, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with your argument.

The question that I think a person who is against affirmative action/providing a soft for a person of a specific racial background might raise is the point that someone mentioned earlier: that simply belonging to a race or ethnic group does not necessarily demonstrate any history of overcoming racial obstacles in that individual's life.

We can all obviously agree that, from an institutional/statistical standpoint, the average African-American male faces far more challenges to success than the average White male. This is beyond a doubt a truth, and institutions like law schools do have a certain responsibility to our nation to help bring about a just state of race relations.

That having been said, the application process for the applicant is not about statistics or US history. It's about the years of hard work in college, graduate school, or at a place of employment. It's about studying night and day for the LSAT in order to achieve a score that he or she can be satisfied with. And after all that hard work, I can definitely understand why it would appear "unfair" that a person who did not do quite as well in these areas can gain admission to prestigious law schools based on a factor that has nothing to do with their willful choosing.

When a previous poster raised the point that there are some African-Americans, for instance, that have had significantly greater advantages than some White people, that does not invalidate the admissions process of taking a person's race into account. It does, however, point out that our nation definitely embraces the idea of a meritocracy.

Nonetheless, I think the best argument for factoring in race is the fact that it does not "disadvantage" anyone in the admissions process. In fact, it benefits everyone, regardless of race. By having people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds in the classroom, the class is enriched. People of differing perspectives bring something unique to the table, allowing everyone's horizons to expand. THIS, I think, is the reason why factoring in race to admissions is a good thing.

In other words, arguing that law schools are somehow correcting an historical/institutional injustice misses the mark. Or rather, the injustice corrected is different from what most suppose. While it seems like you, bilbo, are focusing on the history of race in this country (a sad, twisted history if there ever were one), I think it is better to focus on the present moment. Again, increasing the amount of minorities/LGBTQ(or whatever acronym you're supposed to use)/economically disadvantaged/international students is correcting the injustice of depriving all students of having the opportunity to learn from others.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.


Thanks for the response. As has been pointed out by others, not everyone who wants to discuss AA is racist, but those who simply say "life would be easier for me if I had been born black" are seriously misguided.

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. 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.). 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.

I think your arguments for diversity are spot on and I think they dovetail into the more traditional arguments for affirmative action. I have also not seen, in my personal life, a very strong correlation between LSAT score and real world intelligence.


This is true. And some think its a problem and others do not. The problem is that intelligence correlates more with income and parents education then with color of your skin. Something needs to be changed.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby BruceWayne » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:40 pm

These type of threads really highlight the demographics of TLS.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 005618502 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:41 pm

JazzOne wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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.

User avatar
blackwater88
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby blackwater88 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:41 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote: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


Image

User avatar
Gotti
Posts: 3436
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby Gotti » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:43 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote: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



Please stop making stupid, inflammatory comments. Read my post above.

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:43 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
blackwater88 wrote: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.
Last edited by bilbobaggins on Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gotti
Posts: 3436
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby Gotti » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:44 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 005618502 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:45 pm

Gotti wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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.


More in the URM's eyes then anything else though. People over play it. and yell "i didnt get the job because im black! what, oh i didnt know he was more qualified, but still!"

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby mrmangs » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:45 pm

NZA wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote: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?


Good points! Not trying to be a troll, here, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with your argument.

The question that I think a person who is against affirmative action/providing a soft for a person of a specific racial background might raise is the point that someone mentioned earlier: that simply belonging to a race or ethnic group does not necessarily demonstrate any history of overcoming racial obstacles in that individual's life.

We can all obviously agree that, from an institutional/statistical standpoint, the average African-American male faces far more challenges to success than the average White male. This is beyond a doubt a truth, and institutions like law schools do have a certain responsibility to our nation to help bring about a just state of race relations.

That having been said, the application process for the applicant is not about statistics or US history. It's about the years of hard work in college, graduate school, or at a place of employment. It's about studying night and day for the LSAT in order to achieve a score that he or she can be satisfied with. And after all that hard work, I can definitely understand why it would appear "unfair" that a person who did not do quite as well in these areas can gain admission to prestigious law schools based on a factor that has nothing to do with their willful choosing.

When a previous poster raised the point that there are some African-Americans, for instance, that have had significantly greater advantages than some White people, that does not invalidate the admissions process of taking a person's race into account. It does, however, point out that our nation definitely embraces the idea of a meritocracy.

Nonetheless, I think the best argument for factoring in race is the fact that it does not "disadvantage" anyone in the admissions process. In fact, it benefits everyone, regardless of race. By having people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds in the classroom, the class is enriched. People of differing perspectives bring something unique to the table, allowing everyone's horizons to expand. THIS, I think, is the reason why factoring in race to admissions is a good thing.

In other words, arguing that law schools are somehow correcting an historical/institutional injustice misses the mark. Or rather, the injustice corrected is different from what most suppose. While it seems like you, bilbo, are focusing on the history of race in this country (a sad, twisted history if there ever were one), I think it is better to focus on the present moment. Again, increasing the amount of minorities/LGBTQ(or whatever acronym you're supposed to use)/economically disadvantaged/international students is correcting the injustice of depriving all students of having the opportunity to learn from others.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.


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).

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. Analogously, in an ideal world, admissions would go beyond the LSAT/GPA and judge applicants by their true potential. But, once again, it’s really hard to get at that period, let alone through some cyclical process that needs to move relatively quicky 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.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lula43 and 2 guests