Ok, let's beat that dead horse a little more shall we. Yes, goals are incredibly important and due to the admissions bump afforded to URM by affirmative action, her score is good enough for an African American female with her goals. No one ever tried to separate the reality of someone's URM status from their current plans, nor should they.
On this I must respectfully disagree. Consider this statement:
I don't look at it as good enough for an African American female, I look at it is as good enough for my goals.
This is just my interpretation and I am but a single individual, but this statement appears to me to quite clearly imply a separation of URM status from current goals. With this statement, the user is claiming that her racial status is not a factor in her considering her current numbers "good enough". Rather, it is the fact that her numbers are good enough for her goals that allows her to be somewhat content.
The reality, however, is that her race is a big reason why her numbers are good enough for her goals in the first place.
She may not look at her numbers with the opinion that they are merely "good enough for an African American female", but in practice her contentment with them is based on the reality that they are good enough for an African American female with her goals
. Thus, race is a factor, and her bid to separate her URM status from her contentment with her current plans is implausible.
What should be separated from URM status is whether or not someone has done their best. When you first came into the thread your bottom line wasn't that (or at least appeared not to be that) you'd done your absolute best, but that you'd done enough because the URM bump would push you to where you needed to be.
As noted in an earlier post, this isn't quite accurate.
Futuregohan14 wrote:I concluded prior to my sitting that exam that I'd reached the peak of LSAT preparation-162 was pretty much as good as I was going to do. A re-take may (and that is a big MAY) have yielded 1 more point, 2 at most, but probably not enough to significantly improve my chances. A 1 or 2 point drop was just as likely in my evaluation based on the prep I had done.
It was only after making this statement that I decided to point out the objective fact that a 162 for an AA is a near autolock for a T-14. That was in response to a user who marked 165-169 as the beginning of the T-14 "autolock" range for AAs. The statistics say that this range is a bit high, so I pointed that out.
Apparently this annoyed some people...
Because of that you got the full force of the thread to push you to retake (also your posts often seem unnecessarily argumentative, which rubs people the wrong way).
If anyone else comes onto TLS, or especially onto this thread, saying that they've done well enough, but not their best, and doesn't present some specific, concrete goal they are hoping to achieve, then they will get the exact same treatment that you got.
...even though I did not do that thing...
Why? Because the legal market is absolute shit, and everyone going into this venture recognizes that the costs of attending law school are too high in both time and money to not give yourself the best starting point that you can possibly have.
I do not think that the motives of the critiques put forward here at TLS come from a place as noble and compassionate as you claim here.