False Hopes Forum

[tooswolle]

Does anyone in this forum feel that schools that claim to care about diversity are really just doing it for the pr and nothing more? Alot of the articles I read talk about urms (specifically AA's and MA's) getting shut out of higher education. Yet the "gate keepers" don't seem to take action to correct the inequities in our system which is frankly it's up setting to say the least!

[spacepenguin]

Does anyone in this forum feel that schools that claim to care about diversity are really just doing it for the pr and nothing more? Alot of the articles I read talk about urms (specifically AA's and MA's) getting shut out of higher education. Yet the "gate keepers" don't seem to take action to correct the inequities in our system which is frankly it's up setting to say the least!

Are you specifically referring to law schools? If that's the case, I don't really get that impression--care to elaborate?

[calilaw]

I think it's very clear that some URMs do get a boost...

[tooswolle]

Although the numbers on lsn give an indication of a urm boost many of the candidates already have stellar numbers or at least reasonable numbers. My point was a retort on the current lack of diversity that is found in education most notably law schools which are controlled by rankings and numerical indexes which systematically exclude people. Personally my view isif you say things and pride yourself on them you better do it and frankly the number of minorities in law school shows that schools don't go out of their way to recruit students. Some may argue that it's not their role but in a society like ours it seems abhorrent to allow some groups the ability of upward mobility while others aren't.

[LAWLAW09]

Does anyone in this forum feel that schools that claim to care about diversity are really just doing it for the pr and nothing more? Alot of the articles I read talk about urms (specifically AA's and MA's) getting shut out of higher education. Yet the "gate keepers" don't seem to take action to correct the inequities in our system which is frankly it's up setting to say the least!

The schools claim to to care about diversity. They don't claim to be trying to correct the inequities in our system, the system, or a system. Even if they did, you know better than to believe them.

Good luck.

[spacepenguin]

Well, we're URMs for a reason. If we were represented relatively to what our demographic populations suggest--then we would cease to be URMs and thus no URM boost.

The boost in general is a flawed attempt at addressing the structural problems faced by URMs. It's a, 'sorry that you had less opportunity to succeed at a young age...here's a 5 point LSAT buffer...have fun succeeding at law school with below par numbers!"

[ResolutePear]

There is always a law school that'll be willing to take you. If you really want to do law, that is.

[tooswolle]

Although law schools don't state that their diversity goals are to create equity in our system. As Justice O'Connor stated in the opinion to Grutter that they serve as gate keepers as lawyers become politicians, write the laws which we are all subject to (not word for word but the idea of it and the reason why diversity is important). I mean I'm realistic I don't expect them to change the world I just wish they tried harder. For me the thing that made me think about this was working a new job in a freight forwarding company. As someone who is in upper management you have to train everywhere and right now I'm working in the wherehouse. I see and work with only urms many who do backbreaking labor for minimum wage who didn't receive an adequate education and it makes me feel bad that there are others who can benefit and many who don't and some of those had decent numbers and stories of over coming adversity yet schools don't give them a shot. At some point I wish schools in general specially law schools stopped caring about rankings and focus on doing the morally right thing; giving people who wouldn't be there a chance. In the end I understand that urms by the sake of being unrepresented get the boost but is it really a boost when many who get in would have already gotten in?

[seespotrun]

Although the numbers on lsn give an indication of a urm boost many of the candidates already have stellar numbers or at least reasonable numbers. My point was a retort on the current lack of diversity that is found in education most notably law schools which are controlled by rankings and numerical indexes which systematically exclude people. Personally my view isif you say things and pride yourself on them you better do it and frankly the number of minorities in law school shows that schools don't go out of their way to recruit students. Some may argue that it's not their role but in a society like ours it seems abhorrent to allow some groups the ability of upward mobility while others aren't.

[Insert commas]

[NZA]

Although law schools don't state that their diversity goals are to create equity in our system. As Justice O'Connor stated in the opinion to Grutter that they serve as gate keepers as lawyers become politicians, write the laws which we are all subject to (not word for word but the idea of it and the reason why diversity is important). I mean I'm realistic I don't expect them to change the world I just wish they tried harder. For me the thing that made me think about this was working a new job in a freight forwarding company. As someone who is in upper management you have to train everywhere and right now I'm working in the wherehouse. I see and work with only urms many who do backbreaking labor for minimum wage who didn't receive an adequate education and it makes me feel bad that there are others who can benefit and many who don't and some of those had decent numbers and stories of over coming adversity yet schools don't give them a shot. At some point I wish schools in general specially law schools stopped caring about rankings and focus on doing the morally right thing; giving people who wouldn't be there a chance. In the end I understand that urms by the sake of being unrepresented get the boost but is it really a boost when many who get in would have already gotten in?

I'm sympathetic to your general perspective, but I don't really understand your argument here.

[Doritos]

In the end I understand that urms by the sake of being unrepresented get the boost but is it really a boost when many who get in would have already gotten in?

I can see this thread going dark, dark places...

Fact: life is unfair and somebody is going to get screwed.

You can decide, (1)the non-URM who loses a seat to a URM or (2)the URM who had the misfortune of being born into an ethic group that has been systematically disadvantaged for quite some time. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is no quick, easy answer to fixing racial disparity and law schools have decided that the "boost" is the best way to achieve diversity, fix the achievement gap, etc.

From what I understand AA debates are frowned upon in these parts so this discussion is pointless and will be short lived.

[tooswolle]

It's not necessarily an argument. It's more of a question of whether people feel that law schools say one thing but do another when it comes to diversity My previous post was the reasoning behind my feelings. So back to the issue, doesn't anyone feel the same way?

Edit this isn't a debate about the issue of urm status this is a question of the views of fellow urms on the process which is perfectly valid.

[rundoxierun]

Although law schools don't state that their diversity goals are to create equity in our system. As Justice O'Connor stated in the opinion to Grutter that they serve as gate keepers as lawyers become politicians, write the laws which we are all subject to (not word for word but the idea of it and the reason why diversity is important). I mean I'm realistic I don't expect them to change the world I just wish they tried harder. For me the thing that made me think about this was working a new job in a freight forwarding company. As someone who is in upper management you have to train everywhere and right now I'm working in the wherehouse. I see and work with only urms many who do backbreaking labor for minimum wage who didn't receive an adequate education and it makes me feel bad that there are others who can benefit and many who don't and some of those had decent numbers and stories of over coming adversity yet schools don't give them a shot. At some point I wish schools in general specially law schools stopped caring about rankings and focus on doing the morally right thing; giving people who wouldn't be there a chance. In the end I understand that urms by the sake of being unrepresented get the boost but is it really a boost when many who get in would have already gotten in?

Are you saying let unqualified ppl in just b/c they are URMs?? Because if thats what you are saying... thats not a good idea. I already know some URM kids getting into schools where they have no chance of being especially successful(im talking 149 LSAT). Doesnt do them any good b/c they just end up at the bottom of the class or dropping out.

[rundoxierun]

It's not necessarily an argument. It's more of a question of whether people feel that law schools say one thing but do another when it comes to diversity My previous post was the reasoning behind my feelings. So back to the issue, doesn't anyone feel the same way?

Edit this isn't a debate about the issue of urm status this is a question of the views of fellow urms on the process which is perfectly valid.

Well in that case... No.

[NZA]

It's not necessarily an argument. It's more of a question of whether people feel that law schools say one thing but do another when it comes to diversity My previous post was the reasoning behind my feelings. So back to the issue, doesn't anyone feel the same way?

Edit this isn't a debate about the issue of urm status this is a question of the views of fellow urms on the process which is perfectly valid.

Frankly...no, I don't feel the same way. Sorry.

[Pneumatic]

It's not necessarily an argument. It's more of a question of whether people feel that law schools say one thing but do another when it comes to diversity My previous post was the reasoning behind my feelings. So back to the issue, doesn't anyone feel the same way?

Edit this isn't a debate about the issue of urm status this is a question of the views of fellow urms on the process which is perfectly valid.

I think law schools definitely give URM's a boost. I think I have read the articles you mentioned or similar ones. The facts are that statistically some URM's, especially blacks, get into law school at a lower rate despite AA. Huh? That's what I thought too. If 10 whites and 10 blacks apply, something like 6 or 7 of the whites will get in and only 3 or 4 blacks. However, just because the rates are lower doesn't mean blacks aren't getting a major bust; they definitely are.

The logical explanation is that the qualifications of blacks are still well below whites, even with the boost. While I am for affirmative action to some extent (probably because I'm a URM), really, unless an URM is disadvantaged because of his race, the boost really isn't justified from a qualification standpoint, at which point complaining about not getting a boost is just whining. So, yes URM's are getting substantial boosts and no they shouldn't unless they can demonstrate how there race disadvantaged them. I guess the main argument that could be made is that a person is automatically disadvantaged if their a minority (pay etc.) and this is a good reason for AA, but still this distorts the fact that an "advantaged" URM should have an advantage over a white or even a "disadvantaged" white for that matter. Really, I think the government should be putting more money into disadvantaged communities, with enough work this AA crap could go away.

[Doritos]

oh god, this is turning into an AA v. no AA debate.

[ResolutePear]

Let's not discuss the reasons whether AA/URM is deserved or not.

TLS Modisprudence has stated that this is a bannable offense.

[tooswolle]

I agree with this not going in to a debate about the merits of AA. My question dealt with the perceptions of minority students on schools and whether they live up to their "comitment to diversity" anecdotally I've seen schools list from 16-24% minority enrollment which are comprised of groups which are not traditionally considered urms (like Asians etc.) so in those respect this is to get a general feel. Frankly my view is that they don't do enough when they say they do. If this question doesn't follow the forum rules it should be closed, but from what I've seen it doesn't so let's just keep things to the original question.

[Renzo]

oh god, this is turning into an AA v. no AA debate.

I'd like to steer it towards a punctuation/sentence structure v. no punctuation/sentence structure debate. I am for it; it appears the OP is against it.

[tooswolle]

Why don't you go bother someone else if you have nothing to say or contribute? Punctuation matters, but that's not the purpose of this conversation.

[AreJay711]

I think they do take meaningful measures to ensure diversity. A large part of it might be for PR but you you also have to take into consideration that 1/2 of law school applicants don't go to law school. Some of those choose not to go but others are just shut out.

[Kohinoor]

Although law schools don't state that their diversity goals are to create equity in our system.

link?

[NZA]

Although law schools don't state that their diversity goals are to create equity in our system.

link?

Why would you ask someone for a link to something that they claim doesn't exist?

[Kohinoor]

Although law schools don't state that their diversity goals are to create equity in our system.

link?

Why would you ask someone for a link to something that they claim doesn't exist?

He didn't say it doesn't exist. He said they don't state it.