T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:24 pm

Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


you're just kidding here, right? beyond the statistical data that consistently pegs the number at +/- 25 every year, dont you think there would be way more 170+ blacks on lsn if this were the case?

or maybe i'm aspie and you're just messing around

edit: and the thread title has absurdly wrong numbers

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Kohinoor » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:30 pm

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


you're just kidding here, right? beyond the statistical data that consistently pegs the number as +/- 25 every year, dont you think there would be way more 170+ blacks on lsn if this were the case?

or maybe i'm aspie and you're just messing around
I know a few 170 URMs who aren't on TLS/LSN because they feel no desire to be. Extrapolating from my population sample, there would be 3 not on LSN for each one on LSN. Such extrapolation is baseless but does serve to demonstrate the futility of trying to guess why people aren't on a website. I was simply reporting something I heard from a credible source. Feel free to ignore it for the sake of your analysis.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:33 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


you're just kidding here, right? beyond the statistical data that consistently pegs the number as +/- 25 every year, dont you think there would be way more 170+ blacks on lsn if this were the case?

or maybe i'm aspie and you're just messing around
I know a few 170 URMs who aren't on TLS/LSN because they feel no desire to be. I was simply reporting something I heard from a credible source. Feel free to ignore it for the sake of your analysis.


fair enough. if that is really the case, i think its really fantastic news. like seriously, it would be something to celebrate.

however, given my pathetic gpa, i think there is no way that i would have had the cycle that I've had if there were more high lsat AA candidates for me to compete with. i guess we'll see what happens when lsac releases the data for this year

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby rundoxierun » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:35 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


Where the hell did you get that from??? I seriously, seriously doubt its true that number of black test takers in the 170s is in the hundreds all of a sudden. From less than 30 in 2004 to over 100 in 2009??

EDIT: Before you even answer.. I know for a FACT that last years cycle had only around 50 black applicants with 3.5+ GPA/165+ LSAT and only 1 Applicant with 3.5+ GPA/175+ LSAT. No way the data is complete for this year, so whoever told you this is NOT in the know.

My source is more credible than yours, but I've established a strong policy of not arguing with any fact that a pre-matriculate knows to be true ^_^


Not sure about why whether I am matriculating or not affects if Im right or not but regardless you might want to watch your snarkiness... My source is a current admissions officer at a law school who is involved with the LSAC sponsored diversity programs. In addition, I have the common sense to know that the number of blacks getting 170+ hasnt quadrupled from 29 to 100+ since 2004 while the number of black applicants has actually decreased and the LSAT median for blacks has essentially remained the same... yea, clearly you know more than I do..

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Kohinoor » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:35 pm

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


you're just kidding here, right? beyond the statistical data that consistently pegs the number as +/- 25 every year, dont you think there would be way more 170+ blacks on lsn if this were the case?

or maybe i'm aspie and you're just messing around
I know a few 170 URMs who aren't on TLS/LSN because they feel no desire to be. I was simply reporting something I heard from a credible source. Feel free to ignore it for the sake of your analysis.


fair enough. if that is really the case, i think its really fantastic news. like seriously, it would be something to celebrate.

however, given my pathetic gpa, i think there is no way that i would have had the cycle that I've had if there were more high lsat AA candidates for me to compete with. i guess we'll see what happens when lsac releases the data for this year

Nobody said that the high LSAT performers had high GPAs :oops:

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby rundoxierun » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:37 pm

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


you're just kidding here, right? beyond the statistical data that consistently pegs the number as +/- 25 every year, dont you think there would be way more 170+ blacks on lsn if this were the case?

or maybe i'm aspie and you're just messing around
I know a few 170 URMs who aren't on TLS/LSN because they feel no desire to be. I was simply reporting something I heard from a credible source. Feel free to ignore it for the sake of your analysis.


fair enough. if that is really the case, i think its really fantastic news. like seriously, it would be something to celebrate.

however, given my pathetic gpa, i think there is no way that i would have had the cycle that I've had if there were more high lsat AA candidates for me to compete with. i guess we'll see what happens when lsac releases the data for this year


Im not gonna say this guy is lying, but maybe his source is quoting the number for all URMs not just blacks.. if they are taling about blacks alone I am 99% sure a jump like that would be statistically improbable to say the least..

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:42 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


Where the hell did you get that from??? I seriously, seriously doubt its true that number of black test takers in the 170s is in the hundreds all of a sudden. From less than 30 in 2004 to over 100 in 2009??

EDIT: Before you even answer.. I know for a FACT that last years cycle had only around 50 black applicants with 3.5+ GPA/165+ LSAT and only 1 Applicant with 3.5+ GPA/175+ LSAT. No way the data is complete for this year, so whoever told you this is NOT in the know.

My source is more credible than yours, but I've established a strong policy of not arguing with any fact that a pre-matriculate knows to be true ^_^


Not sure about why whether I am matriculating or not affects if Im right or not but regardless you might want to watch your snarkiness... My source is a current admissions officer at a law school who is involved with the LSAC sponsored diversity programs. In addition, I have the common sense to know that the number of blacks getting 170+ hasnt quadrupled from 29 to 100+ since 2004 while the number of black applicants has actually decreased and the LSAT median for blacks has essentially remained the same... yea, clearly you know more than I do..


hey man, no need to take things here personally or anything. kohinoor is a valuable contributor around these parts, so i'm inclined to take what he says seriously.
Last edited by APimpNamedSlickback on Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Kohinoor » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:44 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.


Where the hell did you get that from??? I seriously, seriously doubt its true that number of black test takers in the 170s is in the hundreds all of a sudden. From less than 30 in 2004 to over 100 in 2009??

EDIT: Before you even answer.. I know for a FACT that last years cycle had only around 50 black applicants with 3.5+ GPA/165+ LSAT and only 1 Applicant with 3.5+ GPA/175+ LSAT. No way the data is complete for this year, so whoever told you this is NOT in the know.

My source is more credible than yours, but I've established a strong policy of not arguing with any fact that a pre-matriculate knows to be true ^_^


Not sure about why whether I am matriculating or not affects if Im right or not but regardless you might want to watch your snarkiness... My source is a current admissions officer at a law school who is involved with the LSAC sponsored diversity programs. In addition, I have the common sense to know that the number of blacks getting 170+ hasnt quadrupled from 29 to 100+ since 2004 while the number of black applicants has actually decreased and the LSAT median for blacks has essentially remained the same... yea, clearly you know more than I do..
You being a pre-matriculate is relevant because you guys have a penchant for taking a position based on limited knowledge and digging your heels in. I'm not harping on you and this issue in particular. I've also seen them do it regarding being at the top of the curve and insisting that prospects at school X are blah blah blah. It's typically not worth it to argue. You have your source, and I have mine. I didn't quote your post and insist that I seriously, seriously doubt it to be true. My datum simply presents an alternative jumping off point for any analysis.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby rundoxierun » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:50 pm

ehh ok I guess we have to have a truce then, didnt mean to be jumping on people but previous data here (http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html) combined with data from LSACs 2008 National Applicant trends combined with common sense just makes this 100+ 170 scorers seem like an impossibility to me even if you do not believe that I have a source..

User avatar
Na_Swatch
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Na_Swatch » Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:06 am

tkgrrett wrote:ehh ok I guess we have to have a truce then, didnt mean to be jumping on people but previous data here (http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html) combined with data from LSACs 2008 National Applicant trends combined with common sense just makes this 100+ 170 scorers seem like an impossibility to me even if you do not believe that I have a source..


Yeah, especially if you notice that in 2004 there were only 105 blacks scoring above 165. That means in 2004 there were barely triple digits for scores 165+ (which is still a huge gap from 170)... This makes it extremely unlikely that just 5 years later we know have triple digits at the 170 level.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby stratocophic » Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:26 am

Na_Swatch wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
Na_Swatch wrote:
Ragged wrote:why wouldn't it?


Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?


Only works for the borderline candidates. There are a lot of people throwing Hail Marys at YHSC and I'd imagine a lot of adcomms mentally :roll: at their apps. 8000 - Hail Mary candidates = ?, but probably still not enough of a difference to matter. Also, above poster, you committed a percentage fail (or so your post would suggest) worth two orders of magnitude. That's 0.625%, not 0.00625%. That makes your odds a little better when adjusted, but it's still only going to be 1/20, or 5%, if there are 400 candidates that are close and you are among those 400. Not enough to be an appreciable difference.


Yeah, numbers were rough but even adjusted with a bunch of stuff, its still a very small increase in chances.

However, the one making the math mistake is you haha, I said a chance of 0.00625 which is the equivalent of saying 0.625% (Adding a % sign is the equivalent of multiplying by 0.01 in probability, if you just say chance then the straight probability out of 1 is taken) :wink:


Ya know, I did wonder if that was the case for a moment, but discarded the benefit of the doubt since it was a question of mathematics and this is TLS. Not that I'm the next Euler by any means, my math GPA is absolutely putrid, and so I will be a 1L and not a noob engineer next year. Yaaaaay (no sarcasm whatsoever God I hate engineering.)!!!

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Ragged » Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:23 am

Na_Swatch wrote:
Ragged wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
Ragged wrote:Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.


Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...


why wouldn't it?


Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?


Your assumptions are questionable to me. There is only about 3500 people with 170+ LSATs each cycle, leading me to believe that most 8000 applicants have no chance of getting in. Including all those apps in this calculation is misleading. (my chances of being admitted are the same (or nearly the same) regardless whether all of the 90,000 LSAT takers apply to Harvard or just the top 5000, because 98% of 90,000 stand virtually no chance and will be autorejected making no difference. The only applicants I have to worry about are the top 2 or so %)

Imagine there is a 100 people with 172/3.88 numbers fighting it out for the last 10 spots, if schools accpeted on merit alone those same 100 people would be fighting it out for the last 30 seats. I imagine difference in chances of being admitted for those applicants increase dramatically.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby stratocophic » Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:36 am

Ragged wrote:
Na_Swatch wrote:
Ragged wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...


why wouldn't it?


Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?


Your assumptions are questionable to me. There is only about 3500 people with 170+ LSATs each cycle, leading me to believe that most 8000 applicants have no chance of getting in. Including all those apps in this calculation is misleading. (my chances of being admitted are the same (or nearly the same) regardless whether all of the 90,000 LSAT takers apply to Harvard or just the top 5000, because 98% of 90,000 stand virtually no chance and will be autorejected making no difference. The only applicants I have to worry about are the top 2 or so %)

Imagine there is a 100 people with 172/3.88 numbers fighting it out for the last 10 spots, if schools accpeted on merit alone those same 100 people would be fighting it out for the last 30 seats. I imagine difference in chances of being admitted for those applicants increase dramatically.


I already said this ^^^. Also, it's Harvard... it's almost guaranteed that they would have the numbers to simply admit people with fantastic softs in place of the hypothetically rejected URMs anyway. Thus, no benefit (or a negligible one, whichever satisfies semantics better).

ilovethelsat
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:03 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby ilovethelsat » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:02 am

I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

User avatar
Joga Bonito
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Joga Bonito » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:06 am

ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?


Because that would be racist, i.e., the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

See dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Also lsat is not an IQ test.
Last edited by Joga Bonito on Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:08 am

ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.
We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

Image

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby 20121109 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:08 am

ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?


I don't know how to convey my utter disappointment with this statement.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Ragged » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:08 am

stratocophic wrote:
Ragged wrote:
Na_Swatch wrote:
Ragged wrote:
why wouldn't it?


Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?


Your assumptions are questionable to me. There is only about 3500 people with 170+ LSATs each cycle, leading me to believe that most 8000 applicants have no chance of getting in. Including all those apps in this calculation is misleading. (my chances of being admitted are the same (or nearly the same) regardless whether all of the 90,000 LSAT takers apply to Harvard or just the top 5000, because 98% of 90,000 stand virtually no chance and will be autorejected making no difference. The only applicants I have to worry about are the top 2 or so %)

Imagine there is a 100 people with 172/3.88 numbers fighting it out for the last 10 spots, if schools accpeted on merit alone those same 100 people would be fighting it out for the last 30 seats. I imagine difference in chances of being admitted for those applicants increase dramatically.


I already said this ^^^. Also, it's Harvard... it's almost guaranteed that they would have the numbers to simply admit people with fantastic softs in place of the hypothetically rejected URMs anyway. Thus, no benefit (or a negligible one, whichever satisfies semantics better).


Assuming that they would admit someone with fantastic softs over a higher stats borderline applicant seems to go against Harvards reputation as a numbers school. No real reason to believe that. Also, this effect compounded across several schools instead of just one further increases chance of getting in.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Ragged » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:11 am

ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?



Who says we don't believe that? In my school there was an implicit policy of admitting more asians in order to increase GMAT median. I understand that there is more than intelligence of asian race which promts better test results, but intelligence is at least one of the factors.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby rundoxierun » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:12 am

ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?


Im actually not gonna snap at you.. this is could actually easily by a reasonable question to some people. Regardless, it is because intelligence, as defined in the school sense, is thought to be a basic quality of humanity and differing levels of intelligence are thought to be, for the most part, learned characteristics rather than inherited. Faster, stronger, taller, and darker are all inherited characteristics. HTH

ilovethelsat
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:03 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby ilovethelsat » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:13 am

Joga Bonito wrote:
ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?


Because that would be racist, i.e., the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

See dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Also lsat is not an IQ test.


Racism:

"1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"

Learn to read.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:14 am

vanwinkle wrote:
ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.
We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

Image



I actually disagree with banning him or her. In fact, MODS DO NOT BAN THIS PERSON JUST YET.

If people respond to that kind of argument by just closing their ears and yelling, what happens is it just sounds like he saying some painful truth and everyone else is just too politically correct to support a fuller discourse.

anyone who thinks that one guy should be on par with another one in a race despite having to drag the equivalent of an anvil is an idiot. lets just mock him as such.

ilovethelsat
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:03 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby ilovethelsat » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:16 am

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.
We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?

Image



I actually disagree with banning him or her. In fact, MODS DO NOT BAN THIS PERSON JUST YET.

If people respond to that kind of argument by just closing their ears and yelling, what happens is it just sounds like he saying some painful truth and everyone else is just too politically correct to support a fuller discourse.

anyone who thinks that one guy should be on par with another one in a race despite having to drag the equivalent of an anvil is an idiot. lets just mock him as such.


Why would I be banned for saying that different races excel at different things?

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:17 am

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:I actually disagree with banning him or her.

This isn't the first time this poster's been banned. They were temp-banned earlier for being similarly offensive. Now it's time for the heavyweight banhammer.

User avatar
Joga Bonito
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170?

Postby Joga Bonito » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:18 am

ilovethelsat wrote:
Joga Bonito wrote:
ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.

We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?[/quote]

Because that would be racist, i.e., the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

See dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Also lsat is not an IQ test.


Racism:

"1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"

Learn to read.


I'm pretty sure you assumed that race was at least one of other possible primary determinants of how smart someone is going to be. You at least concluded that there is a link between how fast, smart etc one is and their race.


Any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview — the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some "races" are innately superior to others. http://www.answers.com/topic/racism

Perhaps you should read this to me.
Last edited by Joga Bonito on Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.