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 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:18 am

ilovethelsat wrote:
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?


i think you are of feeble intellect. dont ask me about tls policy, i am not a mod.

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 2:19 am

vanwinkle wrote:
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.


I've never been temp-banned...

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 2:20 am

ilovethelsat wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
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.

I've never been temp-banned...

That's disappointing. I was under the impression you had. Perhaps things aren't being handled as well here as I had thought.

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 2:21 am

So I guess Im the only person that didnt find the question offensive?? it was a pretty simple question with a/multiple fairly simple answers.

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 2:23 am

tkgrrett wrote:So I guess Im the only person that didnt find the question offensive?? it was a pretty simple question with a/multiple fairly simple answers.


i'm not offended by the question itself, but within the context of the posters history one wonders about certain things.

no worries bro, no need to crusade on behalf of intellectual freedom itt. i already pointed out the answer and the correct response.

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 2:23 am

tkgrrett wrote:So I guess Im the only person that didnt find the question offensive?? it was a pretty simple question with a/multiple fairly simple answers.


Thank you.

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 2:25 am

tkgrrett wrote:So I guess Im the only person that didnt find the question offensive?? it was a pretty simple question with a/multiple fairly simple answers.


You're going to have to explain to me how you fail to see that as offensive. I mean, its not the worst I've heard...but his intent was blatantly obvious in the way in which he fashioned the question.

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 2:26 am

tkgrrett wrote:So I guess Im the only person that didnt find the question offensive?? it was a pretty simple question with a/multiple fairly simple answers.


The answer to the question was actually pretty easy the op should have looked it up. Last year HLS took 67 african americans...it could have been the end of this thread but let's face it ilovethelsat is fun to argue with anyway.

http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA3457.pdf

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 2:27 am

Oh god.. statement rescinded.. just read posters history and found this gem..

"Scientists have known for a while now that intelligence is largely genetic, and our genes are obviously beyond our control. So telling a non-URM to become more competitive in the non-URM pool (i.e. getting better grades and a higher LSAT) is like telling someone to grow taller or change his eye color. It's just not possible."

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 2:27 am

Ragged wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
Ragged wrote:
Na_Swatch wrote:
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.


Still only helps those on the borderline, and I'm of the opinion that the WL (and maybe in later) would probably be the destination for these hypo candidates.

That said, the absence of URMs would likely change the dynamics of admissions altogether, as schools could either have smaller class sizes (as was suggested earlier) or take a mix of splitters/reverse splitters to avoid the need to offer scholarships to more admitted students. Additionally, if we're expanding the scenario beyond Harvard as you did, there is no guarantee those other schools would not take the candidates with strong softs, thus potentially providing little to no additional benefit. Besides, Harvard seems to do just fine on numbers with at least some lower LSATs coming from URMs. High GPAs are easy to come by, and I have no doubt that they'd be able to maintain their current standards (or even higher) while bringing in candidates with impressive softs (such as, say, raising/educating oneself in a non-supportive environment in the inner city, for instance?).

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 2:28 am

tkgrrett wrote:So I guess Im the only person that didnt find the question offensive?? it was a pretty simple question with a/multiple fairly simple answers.

It didn't ask whether it was possible that genetics is an explanation, it asked why we don't accept that as fact. In the context of this thread, it amounted to saying "Minorities do worse on the LSAT because they're genetically inferior, why can't we accept that".

That combined with the poster's previous history of highly inflammatory and racist posting made me jump on it. Maybe I'd have given the benefit of the doubt to someone I didn't already recognize as racist.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you've noticed what I was talking about by now.
Last edited by vanwinkle on Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

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

Postby Helmholtz » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:28 am

Thought about a ban, decided not to, looked at his post history, commence ban.

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 2:29 am

Helmholtz wrote:Thought about a ban, decided not to, looked at his post history, commence ban.

Thank you.

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 2:38 am

So ilovethelsat believes 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 in certain ways as a result. Ilovethelsat has also made this clear on a number of occasions on a number of URM/AA debate threads...so will he/she finally admit that he/she is a racist and thats why he/she makes all these arguements and runs to all the URM/AA threads.

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

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 2:58 am

stratocophic wrote:
Still only helps those on the borderline, and I'm of the opinion that the WL (and maybe in later) would probably be the destination for these hypo candidates.

That said, the absence of URMs would likely change the dynamics of admissions altogether, as schools could either have smaller class sizes (as was suggested earlier) or take a mix of splitters/reverse splitters to avoid the need to offer scholarships to more admitted students. Additionally, if we're expanding the scenario beyond Harvard as you did, there is no guarantee those other schools would not take the candidates with strong softs, thus potentially providing little to no additional benefit. Besides, Harvard seems to do just fine on numbers with at least some lower LSATs coming from URMs. High GPAs are easy to come by, and I have no doubt that they'd be able to maintain their current standards (or even higher) while bringing in candidates with impressive softs (such as, say, raising/educating oneself in a non-supportive environment in the inner city, for instance?).


Agreed with the bolded part. On average, it will make the cut off stats a little lower for virtually all schools, due to more free slots, even if we allow for some stellar softs applicants. The couple of points in LSAT, or .1 or .2 on GPA can make a huge difference when we are talking Top 10.

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 3:04 am

Joga Bonito wrote:So ilovethelsat believes 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 in certain ways as a result. Ilovethelsat has also made this clear on a number of occasions on a number of URM/AA debate threads...so will he/she finally admit that he/she is a racist and thats why he/she makes all these arguements and runs to all the URM/AA threads.

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

You're late to the party, friend, he's banned already. No one will have to listen to his racist ramblings anymore.

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 3:06 am

tkgrrett wrote:Oh god.. statement rescinded.. just read posters history and found this gem..

"Scientists have known for a while now that intelligence is largely genetic, and our genes are obviously beyond our control. So telling a non-URM to become more competitive in the non-URM pool (i.e. getting better grades and a higher LSAT) is like telling someone to grow taller or change his eye color. It's just not possible."



I just can't help but say that the idea of intelligence being (at least partly) genetic is not at all unreasonable or offensive. I mean, we do know that not everyone has equal intelligence. So, why is the concept that smarter parents (regardless of race) are more likely to have a smarter child is so unacceptable to some?

I'm not sure if there was any conclusive research done on that subject, but just because we haven't found the genes responsible for it yet, doesn't mean the idea is false or is somehow rasict.

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 3:09 am

Ragged wrote:
stratocophic wrote:
Still only helps those on the borderline, and I'm of the opinion that the WL (and maybe in later) would probably be the destination for these hypo candidates.

That said, the absence of URMs would likely change the dynamics of admissions altogether, as schools could either have smaller class sizes (as was suggested earlier) or take a mix of splitters/reverse splitters to avoid the need to offer scholarships to more admitted students. Additionally, if we're expanding the scenario beyond Harvard as you did, there is no guarantee those other schools would not take the candidates with strong softs, thus potentially providing little to no additional benefit. Besides, Harvard seems to do just fine on numbers with at least some lower LSATs coming from URMs. High GPAs are easy to come by, and I have no doubt that they'd be able to maintain their current standards (or even higher) while bringing in candidates with impressive softs (such as, say, raising/educating oneself in a non-supportive environment in the inner city, for instance?).


Agreed with the bolded part. On average, it will make the cut off stats a little lower for virtually all schools, due to more free slots, even if we allow for some stellar softs applicants. The couple of points in LSAT, or .1 or .2 on GPA can make a huge difference when we are talking Top 10.


I still think that due to the average numbers, the medians would be more likely to increase ever so slightly at the top schools than decrease without minority applicants (or possibly LSAT ^ GPA v), but it would probably not be enough to be appreciable to anyone but the closest of borderliners... say, a 170+ 3.83/3.84 at UVa this cycle, for instance.

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 3:10 am

Ragged wrote:I just can't help but say that the idea of intelligence being (at least partly) genetic is not at all unreasonable or offensive. I mean, we do know that not everyone has equal intelligence. So, why is the concept that smarter parents (regardless of race) are more likely to have a smarter child is so unacceptable to some?

I'm not sure if there was any conclusive research done on that subject, but just because we haven't found the genes responsible for it yet, doesn't mean the idea is false or is somehow rasict.

1) This has been debunked.

2) This has been debunked because the concept of "genetic inferiority" is what was used to justify excluding minorities from access to quality education for years, the rationale being that they're too dumb to appreciate it anyway so why spend the resources on them. This became widely accepted and was used widely all the way up to the 1950s as one of the arguments against desegregation. Its vigorous debunking occurred as a way to counter these arguments.

It's highly inflammatory because of its long history of being used as a theory to disenfranchise minorities and because studies have since conclusively shown there is no discernable connection between skin color and intelligence level.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:10 am

.
Last edited by rayiner on Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 3:12 am

rayiner wrote:If pointing out this isn't racist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm
Why is pointing out this racist?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4133716



RAYINER JUST OUTED HIMSELF AS A MICROPENIS

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

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

Postby D. H2Oman » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:16 am

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:
rayiner wrote:If pointing out this isn't racist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm
Why is pointing out this racist?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4133716



RAYINER JUST OUTED HIMSELF AS A MICROPENIS

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 3:24 am

rayiner wrote:If pointing out this isn't racist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm
Why is pointing out this racist?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4133716


Ill point this out again before I sleep.. one(penis size) is a HERITABLE characteristic while the other is NOT considered to be HERITABLE(level of intelligence) but is rather considered to be a LEARNED characteristic. It is very difficult to do a study on heritability of intelligence because it is very difficult to remove environment from the equation without crossing some ethical boundaries.

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 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:55 am

rayiner wrote:If pointing out this isn't racist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm
Why is pointing out this racist?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4133716

Who said pointing out the second one is racist?

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

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

Postby PDaddy » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:50 am

Drake014 wrote:Just like with any group there's going to be variation. I'm a URM who did a significant amount of prep for the LSAT and scored much higher than I needed. Likewise, I've heard another URM talk about how they only needed to score so high to get into the grad program they wanted. I've also heard a rich white kid say he doesn't have to worry about his grades or his test scores because his father is alumni and a major donor. I find the latter scenario to be the most disturbing even though its the least talked about.


TITCR. Most people (especially those against "AA") still don't get it. The majority of AA in grad school applications, as well as undergraduate admissions, is accounted for by legacies and GOBN. Besides that, AA really doesn't exist. Law schools don't admit "less qualified" or "unqualified" applicants. They'd never want to waste their time and resources, not to mention their reputations.

Look at it this way. The LSAT is about 35-60% of the typical white applican'ts profile, whereas it it ccounts for about 20-30% of a URM's profile. But that also means that white applicants need not have essays that are as strong. After all, they usually do not have to explain how growing up in dire financial straights built their character (Note: I said "usually"). But that other 30% difficulty is replaced by the stringent writing standards and profile construction imposed on URM's. To get into Harvard, a URM can't have a single typo! Every single date must match up, and those LOR's had better all be stellar. The grade trend has to be steady or upward, with no drops. Plus, if a URM claims to be poor, his college work record needs to reflect that, so his resume must have not only W.E., but good W.E. And URM's are still asked to perform community service if possible, just like rich whites.

And although they do need to have community service or have darn good explanations for not having it, white applicants' other soft factors just don't factor in as much. For URM's, soft factors are a big part of the process, and that makes it much more difficult to construct their profiles for the adcoms. One obstacle (high LSAT score) is exchanged for another (the need for a much more comprehensive, well-constructed application). I don't know which is the higher burden, trying to convince adcoms that you belong in law school despite having lower scores (that's quite a sales job one must pull off), or spending six months to a year working for a 165+ on the toughest styandardized exam in the world. It seems to me that the playing field is level in many ways.

Besides, regardless of background, the people with the highest test scores do not always make the best law students or attorneys.

FTR, I have always wondered what would happen if the LSAT actually mimicked actual law exams in terms of format. Real law exams are 3.5-4 hours long, combinations of short answer, essay, multiple choice and bonus, and students can allocate their time as they see fit. A smart (law school) test taker goes for the "points", thus taking on the most cumbersome questions as designated by the professor. In this way, the LSAT does test one's mentality. After all, we do have to go for our points, but their value is designated by what each test-taker does best.

For ex: in logic games, some people are better with ordering, some are better with grouping, others mapping. Some people find the combination questions easiest. From that perspective, the LSAT does simulate law exams, but the management of time factor is another story. What would happen there were no short bursts? What if we had 3.5 hours to just go for it and could take our breaks as we saw fit? Maybe the cultural biases that inflict URM's insofar as standardized testing is concerned is somewhere in the formatting. And maybe that's why the same minorities who score lower on the LSAT find it easier to get through actual law school exams.
Last edited by PDaddy on Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:21 am, edited 4 times in total.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests