GLBT is a URM

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby johnnyutah » Fri May 13, 2011 9:09 pm

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.

Yes there is. LGBT youth drop out of high school at a rate around three times the national average.

--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby DoubleChecks » Fri May 13, 2011 9:10 pm

MrPapagiorgio wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:GLBT shouldn't be a URM, because sexual orientation should not come up in school or hiring.

And race should?


i think RP is saying...race would...sexual orientation, while it may, has less of a chance of coming up

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby DoubleChecks » Fri May 13, 2011 9:10 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.

Yes there is. LGBT youth drop out of high school at a rate around three times the national average.

--LinkRemoved--


what's that have to do with whether LGBT is under-represented in law school or not?

ImpatientlyWaiting
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:58 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby ImpatientlyWaiting » Fri May 13, 2011 9:13 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.

Yes there is. LGBT youth drop out of high school at a rate around three times the national average.

--LinkRemoved--




That's not evidence that they have a harder time getting into law school, just that they have a harder time graduating high school on average. Huge difference. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they're underrepresented in college. Go find evidence to suggest that they're underrepresented in law school. If they aren't, there's no reasonable rationale for giving them a boost.

Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't waste my time arguing with trolls on these forums, and look at me now. Shame on me. I'm out.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby johnnyutah » Fri May 13, 2011 9:15 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:what's that have to do with whether LGBT is under-represented in law school or not?

I didn't post that to answer the question of whether or not LGBT students are under-represented in school school. I posted it for the narrow purpose of rebutting this statement:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:There is no reason to think that sexual minorities would have a harder time getting into law school than straight people

Given that three times as many LGBT folks drop out of high school as straight folks, one would expect LGBT individuals to have a harder time, on average, getting in to law school, since getting in to law school requires that one have a high school diploma.

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 9:15 pm

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:
johnnyutah wrote:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.

Yes there is. LGBT youth drop out of high school at a rate around three times the national average.

--LinkRemoved--




That's not evidence that they have a harder time getting into law school, just that they have a harder time graduating high school on average. Huge difference. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they're underrepresented in college. Go find evidence to suggest that they're underrepresented in law school. If they aren't, there's no reasonable rationale for giving them a boost.

Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't waste my time arguing with trolls on these forums, and look at me now. Shame on me. I'm out.

You're calling johnnyutah a troll? GTFO

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby kwais » Fri May 13, 2011 9:16 pm

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:
johnnyutah wrote:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.

Yes there is. LGBT youth drop out of high school at a rate around three times the national average.

--LinkRemoved--




That's not evidence that they have a harder time getting into law school, just that they have a harder time graduating high school on average. Huge difference. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they're underrepresented in college. Go find evidence to suggest that they're underrepresented in law school. If they aren't, there's no reasonable rationale for giving them a boost.

Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't waste my time arguing with trolls on these forums, and look at me now. Shame on me. I'm out.


"Anyone who disagrees with me = troll" :cry:

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 9:18 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:what's that have to do with whether LGBT is under-represented in law school or not?

I didn't post that to answer the question of whether or not LGBT students are under-represented in school school. I posted it for the narrow purpose of rebutting this statement:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:There is no reason to think that sexual minorities would have a harder time getting into law school than straight people

Given that three times as many LGBT folks drop out of high school as straight folks, one would expect LGBT individuals to have a harder time, on average, getting in to law school, since getting in to law school requires that one have a high school diploma.

I pretty much agree with this, but it is correlative, not causation. Yes, one would think that dropping out of high school = less chance of entering lawl school. But, they could always go back and get a GED.

I agree with your logic, but the situation is murkier than those stats can provide an explanation for.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby ResolutePear » Fri May 13, 2011 9:20 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
MrPapagiorgio wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:GLBT shouldn't be a URM, because sexual orientation should not come up in school or hiring.

And race should?


i think RP is saying...race would...sexual orientation, while it may, has less of a chance of coming up


Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences. That applies to LGBT and straights alike. You should never have people inquire your sexual orientation in a professional capacity during hiring.

On the other hand, there's no need to ask if somebody is black. It's something outwardly obvious through skin color.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby johnnyutah » Fri May 13, 2011 9:21 pm

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:
johnnyutah wrote:
ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.

Yes there is. LGBT youth drop out of high school at a rate around three times the national average.

--LinkRemoved--




That's not evidence that they have a harder time getting into law school, just that they have a harder time graduating high school on average. Huge difference. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they're underrepresented in college. Go find evidence to suggest that they're underrepresented in law school. If they aren't, there's no reasonable rationale for giving them a boost.

Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't waste my time arguing with trolls on these forums, and look at me now. Shame on me. I'm out.

(1) Since a high school diploma is functionally necessary to be admitted to law school, this is indeed evidence that LGBT people have a harder time getting in to law school.

(2) You are right that this isn't necessarily evidence that LGBT people are underrepresented in college, but out argument isn't about whether or not LGBT people are actually underrepresented at any level of education. Our argument - if you take the time to reread it, slowly - is about whether or not "there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time."

(3) I'm not going to go find evidence that LGBT people are underrepresented in law school because that isn't what our argument is about (see above).

(4) Shame on you indeed, but only because you're a fucking moron, not because you're arguing with a troll.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby johnnyutah » Fri May 13, 2011 9:24 pm

MrPapagiorgio wrote:I pretty much agree with this, but it is correlative, not causation. Yes, one would think that dropping out of high school = less chance of entering lawl school. But, they could always go back and get a GED.

I agree with your logic, but the situation is murkier than those stats can provide an explanation for.

That's fair. I mean, that stat isn't dispositive, but I do think it is evidence that it's harder for LGBT folks to get in to law school.

User avatar
whirledpeas86
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:07 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby whirledpeas86 » Fri May 13, 2011 9:30 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
MrPapagiorgio wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:GLBT shouldn't be a URM, because sexual orientation should not come up in school or hiring.

And race should?


i think RP is saying...race would...sexual orientation, while it may, has less of a chance of coming up


Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences. That applies to LGBT and straights alike. You should never have people inquire your sexual orientation in a professional capacity during hiring. Don't ask, don't tell.


What exactly constitutes shoving your sexual orientation in someone's face? I have a feeling there are different standards for LGBT folks and straight folks. Also, if you're trans, depending on where you are in your transition, that fact may be just as obvious as your race.

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Fri May 13, 2011 9:32 pm

whirledpeas86 wrote:What exactly constitutes shoving your sexual orientation in someone's face? I have a feeling there are different standards for LGBT folks and straight folks. Also, if you trans, depending on where you are in your transition, that fact may be just as obvious as your race.

Perhaps RP is talking about fulfilling gay stereotypes (e.g. a man talking with a lisp and having feminine mannerisms, think how comedians often mock homosexual men)?

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby Grizz » Fri May 13, 2011 9:37 pm

Image

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby johnnyutah » Fri May 13, 2011 9:38 pm

ResolutePear wrote:If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences.

What constitutes shoving your sexual orientation in someone's face? If someone else is able to figure out your sexual orientation by talking to you, are you throwing it int heir face?

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby johnnyutah » Fri May 13, 2011 9:40 pm

rad law wrote:Image


Speaking of shoving it in my face. I fucking love it, though.

HBK
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby HBK » Fri May 13, 2011 9:40 pm

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:

Again, there's no evidence to suggest that they actually do have a harder time.


That's what he said.

User avatar
whirledpeas86
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:07 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby whirledpeas86 » Fri May 13, 2011 9:46 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
rad law wrote:Image


Speaking of shoving it in my face. I fucking love it, though.


Quit shoving your sexual orientation in my face, Johnny!

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby ResolutePear » Fri May 13, 2011 9:51 pm

whirledpeas86 wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
MrPapagiorgio wrote:And race should?


i think RP is saying...race would...sexual orientation, while it may, has less of a chance of coming up


Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences. That applies to LGBT and straights alike. You should never have people inquire your sexual orientation in a professional capacity during hiring. Don't ask, don't tell.


What exactly constitutes shoving your sexual orientation in someone's face? I have a feeling there are different standards for LGBT folks and straight folks. Also, if you trans, depending on where you are in your transition, that fact may be just as obvious as your race.


If an unethical interviewer asks the question- if you put your orientation on the application. It just shouldn't matter in a professional capacity.

Don't ask, don't tell is taking it a bit too far. I'm not saying that companies are innately anti-LGBT, whereas the military is at this point. And as far as standards go, professional attire is strict. There's very little room to express your orientation through it sans transgender, I guess. A violation of the attire shows your commitment to the type of businessperson you are.

Now, if you want to go ahead and violate social norms by talking about plowing your SO in front of the interviewer, regardless of whether you're LGBT or straight.. well - that's your call.

Just my opinion from the workplace.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby ResolutePear » Fri May 13, 2011 9:53 pm

MrPapagiorgio wrote:
whirledpeas86 wrote:What exactly constitutes shoving your sexual orientation in someone's face? I have a feeling there are different standards for LGBT folks and straight folks. Also, if you trans, depending on where you are in your transition, that fact may be just as obvious as your race.

Perhaps RP is talking about fulfilling gay stereotypes (e.g. a man talking with a lisp and having feminine mannerisms, think how comedians often mock homosexual men)?


Negatory. Stereotypes have little to do with it. Perhaps shoving wasn't the best word to use. It's more like.. outting yourself.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby DoubleChecks » Fri May 13, 2011 10:22 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
(3) I'm not going to go find evidence that LGBT people are underrepresented in law school because that isn't what our argument is about (see above).


hm...iunno i can see why impatientlywaiting might think you're a troll. i mean, this is what it looks like from my 3rd person point of view lol:

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:The whole point of giving boosts to URMs is that they're underrepresented and disadvantaged as a group. There is no reason to think that sexual minorities would have a harder time getting into law school than straight people, and they aren't underrepresented. There is no need for a boost.


yet you didn't equate that statement with "no evidence GLBT are under-represented in law schools"...even after impatientlywaiting comes back and says:

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:That's not evidence that they have a harder time getting into law school, just that they have a harder time graduating high school on average. Huge difference.


lol so you sort of just took someone's comment that prob meant something else, focused it in another light to refute it, then when he brings up his actual point again, you say that it isnt what you two are arguing about? ninja troll! :P

keep in mind too that this is a thread on a law school forum titled GLBT is a URM. for the actual purposes of whether GLBT should be labeled a URM by law schools during the admissions process, you would only need to really look at whether they are actually under-represented or not in law schools (ignoring diversity issues)...i mean, it could be that there is a 99% acceptance rate on all GLBT applicants to law schools, in which case them dropping out at 3x the average from HS is sort of moot

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby Cupidity » Fri May 13, 2011 10:39 pm

ResolutePear wrote:Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences.


How inconsiderate of me to shove it in their face? I figured that discussing spousal/partnership benefits and the applicability of paternity leave for adoptive children with a firm's HR department was reasonable, but apparently I'm just flouting my flamingness. GTFO.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby DoubleChecks » Fri May 13, 2011 10:43 pm

Cupidity wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences.


How inconsiderate of me to shove it in their face? I figured that discussing spousal/partnership benefits and the applicability of paternity leave for adoptive children with a firm's HR department was reasonable, but apparently I'm just flouting my flamingness. GTFO.


lol while i agree with you, technically RP was talking about "during hiring" in whether bias/prejudice would negatively impact that; those sorts of questions^ sound more appropriate after you've already gotten an offer (from what ive been told)? or am i wrong?

and before someone says, "but i bring my partner to social events before receiving a final offer!" and "why should i dance around reality to not get slammed by someone else's prejudice?!" ... i agree, that will happen and that's not fair. but overall it'd prob happen noticeably less than a race URM situation where it is your skin color. i think that's what RP is trying to get at for the most part.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby Cupidity » Fri May 13, 2011 10:48 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Cupidity wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences.


How inconsiderate of me to shove it in their face? I figured that discussing spousal/partnership benefits and the applicability of paternity leave for adoptive children with a firm's HR department was reasonable, but apparently I'm just flouting my flamingness. GTFO.


lol while i agree with you, technically RP was talking about "during hiring" in whether bias/prejudice would negatively impact that; those sorts of questions^ sound more appropriate after you've already gotten an offer (from what ive been told)? or am i wrong?

and before someone says, "but i bring my partner to social events before receiving a final offer!" and "why should i dance around reality to not get slammed by someone else's prejudice?!" ... i agree, that will happen and that's not fair. but overall it'd prob happen noticeably less than a race URM situation where it is your skin color. i think that's what RP is trying to get at for the most part.


How is it not an appropriate thing to bring up during hiring? If you were black would you want to start your career at a racist firm? The same goes for gays, we need to evaluate firms to determine whether they are LGBT friendly, and if it turns out they aren't and that costs me a job offer, I suppose that is me being unreasonable and bringing it upon myself for trying to find a tolerable work environment?

The first follow up question I plan on asking during OCI is how the LGBT environment is at the firm.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: GLBT is a URM

Postby beachbum » Fri May 13, 2011 10:50 pm

Somewhere OP is eating cheetos and laughing at us.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest