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

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:13 pm

rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.


I do think though, that in a way they are forced to evaluate URM candidates differently from non-URMs. If LSAT scores didn't deviate so much across races, there would be no need to weigh a 170 non-URM from a 170 URM. I don't really know if the nature of the LSAT is what accounts for such deviations, but if it does, then LSAC should change it so those deviations are minimized.



Yes, because certain abilities like logic are different for different races. (Sarcasm)

The lsat tests reasoning ability....either you can or you cant...it has nothing to do with race.

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:15 pm

Kant wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:If we are to talk, let us begin from a position of truth. LSAC doesn't require anything of law schools with regard to minority admission rates. The programs are conceived and operated by the individual law schools.


What do you suggest then?

Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.



It should be illegal for all schools that get the public dollar.

As Michigan has demonstrated, that is entirely in the hands of the legislature. With that said, the nature of admissions would prevent all but the most stringent measures from materially impacting the admission policies of schools.

User avatar
rGsgbJsl1
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:47 am

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

Postby rGsgbJsl1 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:19 pm

Kant wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.


I do think though, that in a way they are forced to evaluate URM candidates differently from non-URMs. If LSAT scores didn't deviate so much across races, there would be no need to weigh a 170 non-URM from a 170 URM. I don't really know if the nature of the LSAT is what accounts for such deviations, but if it does, then LSAC should change it so those deviations are minimized.



Yes, because certain abilities like logic are different for different races. (Sarcasm)

The lsat tests reasoning ability....either you can or you cant...it has nothing to do with race.


But the LSAT is also a test that can be learned. I can assure you that if I hadn't had the money to buy 50+ PTs at face value, the three LG Bibles, and free time to study during summer, I wouldn't have gone from a cold PT score of 142 to averaging 168 by the beginning of September.

Also, I never claimed that the LSAT is inherently biased.
Last edited by rGsgbJsl1 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:19 pm

Reasoning can be learned.

Im not a URM. For the sept test all I could afford was one ten best book. I took a total of 5 tests. Maybe I should get some type of bump.

User avatar
KaraThrace
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:39 am

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

Postby KaraThrace » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:21 pm

Kant wrote:
The lsat tests reasoning ability....either you can or you cant...it has nothing to do with race.


Oh, that explains why people spend thousands of dollars on prep books, "Bibles," and Testmasters courses. This standardized test simply tests your innate logical reasoning ability.

Guess I should stop studying, then.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:24 pm

KaraThrace wrote:
Kant wrote:
The lsat tests reasoning ability....either you can or you cant...it has nothing to do with race.


Oh, that explains why people spend thousands of dollars on prep books, "Bibles," and Testmasters courses. This standardized test simply tests your innate logical reasoning ability.

Guess I should stop studying, then.



When you are studying you are learning how to reason.

Again I have taken 5 tests before sept and I read the LG bible. I took last dec and probably crammed in 7-10 tests in the weeks before all of which I had to check out at the library, because I am broke.

I am pretty sure that I got at least a 165 on the Sept test.....

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:25 pm

rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.


I do think though, that in a way they are forced to evaluate URM candidates differently from non-URMs. If LSAT scores didn't deviate so much across races, there would be no need to weigh a 170 non-URM from a 170 URM. I don't really know if the nature of the LSAT is what accounts for such deviations, but if it does, then LSAC should change it so those deviations are minimized.

Well, clearly the LSAT wasn't designed to cause people with melanin to perform poorly. As I mentioned earlier, a disproportionate number of the top black scorers are African immigrants and we're genetically identical to our American kindred. The performance gap is the result of a confluence of social factors. The LSAT tests your access to prep material, your social support and individual drive, your knowledge of English, and the quality of your education up until that moment. We tend to underperform because we tend to be worse off in those areas on average.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:26 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.


I do think though, that in a way they are forced to evaluate URM candidates differently from non-URMs. If LSAT scores didn't deviate so much across races, there would be no need to weigh a 170 non-URM from a 170 URM. I don't really know if the nature of the LSAT is what accounts for such deviations, but if it does, then LSAC should change it so those deviations are minimized.

Well, clearly the LSAT wasn't designed to cause people with melanin to perform poorly. As I mentioned earlier, a disproportionate number of the top black scorers are African immigrants and we're genetically identical to our American kindred. The performance gap is the result of a confluence of social factors. The LSAT tests your access to prep material, your social support and individual drive, your knowledge of English, and the quality of your education up until that moment. We tend to underperform because we tend to be worse off in those areas on average.


But that is personal choice.

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:30 pm

Kant wrote:
KaraThrace wrote:
Kant wrote:
The lsat tests reasoning ability....either you can or you cant...it has nothing to do with race.


Oh, that explains why people spend thousands of dollars on prep books, "Bibles," and Testmasters courses. This standardized test simply tests your innate logical reasoning ability.

Guess I should stop studying, then.



When you are studying you are learning how to reason.

Again I have taken 5 tests before sept and I read the LG bible. I took last dec and probably crammed in 7-10 tests in the weeks before all of which I had to check out at the library, because I am broke.

I am pretty sure that I got at least a 165 on the Sept test.....

I didn't have to study very hard for the LSAT because it was a lot like the SAT which was a lot like the PSAT, et cetera, et cetera. The advantages of education and learning certain modes of thinking are cumulative. The reasoning tested by the LSAT is very specific and is no more intuitive than calculus. The 'they can buy the books' argument fails because of that and because it ignores other social factors.

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:33 pm

Kant wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.


I do think though, that in a way they are forced to evaluate URM candidates differently from non-URMs. If LSAT scores didn't deviate so much across races, there would be no need to weigh a 170 non-URM from a 170 URM. I don't really know if the nature of the LSAT is what accounts for such deviations, but if it does, then LSAC should change it so those deviations are minimized.

Well, clearly the LSAT wasn't designed to cause people with melanin to perform poorly. As I mentioned earlier, a disproportionate number of the top black scorers are African immigrants and we're genetically identical to our American kindred. The performance gap is the result of a confluence of social factors. The LSAT tests your access to prep material, your social support and individual drive, your knowledge of English, and the quality of your education up until that moment. We tend to underperform because we tend to be worse off in those areas on average.


But that is personal choice.
How do I choose my socioeconomic status and social support which are highly determinative of my drive, access to materials, and grasp of English?

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:33 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:

When you are studying you are learning how to reason.

Again I have taken 5 tests before sept and I read the LG bible. I took last dec and probably crammed in 7-10 tests in the weeks before all of which I had to check out at the library, because I am broke.

I am pretty sure that I got at least a 165 on the Sept test.....

I didn't have to study very hard for the LSAT because it was a lot like the SAT which was a lot like the PSAT, et cetera, et cetera. The advantages of education and learning certain modes of thinking are cumulative. The reasoning tested by the LSAT is very specific and is no more intuitive than calculus. The 'they can buy the books' argument fails because of that and because it ignores other social factors.



My point was that money is not why black do worse compared to the rest of the population.

I do think that getting a good education is your own personal resposibility, be you black, white, or green.

User avatar
rGsgbJsl1
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:47 am

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

Postby rGsgbJsl1 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:36 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:
KaraThrace wrote:
Kant wrote:
The lsat tests reasoning ability....either you can or you cant...it has nothing to do with race.


Oh, that explains why people spend thousands of dollars on prep books, "Bibles," and Testmasters courses. This standardized test simply tests your innate logical reasoning ability.

Guess I should stop studying, then.



When you are studying you are learning how to reason.

Again I have taken 5 tests before sept and I read the LG bible. I took last dec and probably crammed in 7-10 tests in the weeks before all of which I had to check out at the library, because I am broke.

I am pretty sure that I got at least a 165 on the Sept test.....

I didn't have to study very hard for the LSAT because it was a lot like the SAT which was a lot like the PSAT, et cetera, et cetera. The advantages of education and learning certain modes of thinking are cumulative. The reasoning tested by the LSAT is very specific and is no more intuitive than calculus. The 'they can buy the books' argument fails because of that and because it ignores other social factors.


It doesn't fail because although social factors do matter, there's no argument that the LSAT isn't a learnable test. As I said, I would have had no chance if I hadn't had the time to bust my ass and money to buy PTs.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:38 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:Well, clearly the LSAT wasn't designed to cause people with melanin to perform poorly. As I mentioned earlier, a disproportionate number of the top black scorers are African immigrants and we're genetically identical to our American kindred. The performance gap is the result of a confluence of social factors. The LSAT tests your access to prep material, your social support and individual drive, your knowledge of English, and the quality of your education up until that moment. We tend to underperform because we tend to be worse off in those areas on average.


But that is personal choice.
How do I choose my socioeconomic status and social support which are highly determinative of my drive, access to materials, and grasp of English?


It has nothing to do with economic status. It has everything to do with: parents, choices made in high school, choices made in college,...etc.

We have AA for college.....shouldn't attending a very good UG shorten the gap?

I would like to point out that you seem to be a very intelligent sarcastic ass (all compliments), and you are black. Do you think that you need any extra advantages just because of your skin color.

premadance
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:14 am

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

Postby premadance » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:38 pm

URM admissions is NOT just about the numbers at the T14's. I'm a URM 2L at HLS, and my LSAT and GPA (from a top Ivy) were above 170 & 3.7 respectively. My apps were solid as were my LOR's, but I didn't get into Yale and Stanford while other URM's with lower numbers did. So what does that tell you about the thought process exercised by the T-14's when it comes to admitting URM's?

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:39 pm

Kant wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:

When you are studying you are learning how to reason.

Again I have taken 5 tests before sept and I read the LG bible. I took last dec and probably crammed in 7-10 tests in the weeks before all of which I had to check out at the library, because I am broke.

I am pretty sure that I got at least a 165 on the Sept test.....

I didn't have to study very hard for the LSAT because it was a lot like the SAT which was a lot like the PSAT, et cetera, et cetera. The advantages of education and learning certain modes of thinking are cumulative. The reasoning tested by the LSAT is very specific and is no more intuitive than calculus. The 'they can buy the books' argument fails because of that and because it ignores other social factors.



My point was that money is not why black do worse compared to the rest of the population.

I do think that getting a good education is your own personal resposibility, be you black, white, or green.
Money is part of it, though admittedly not as directly as most people intimate. So much of getting that education was out of your hands though. Early in life it's entirely decided by your parents and their access to resources, and later its heavily influenced by your education up until that point and the social conditioning you've experienced.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:40 pm

rGsgbJsl1 wrote:It doesn't fail because although social factors do matter, there's no argument that the LSAT isn't a learnable test. As I said, I would have had no chance if I hadn't had the time to bust my ass and money to buy PTs.


You can get alot of those books from the library.

By this logic lsat boosts should be given on the basis of economic status not race.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:41 pm

premadance wrote:URM admissions is NOT just about the numbers at the T14's. I'm a URM 2L at HLS, and my LSAT and GPA (from a top Ivy) were above 170 & 3.7 respectively. My apps were solid as were my LOR's, but I didn't get into Yale and Stanford while other URM's with lower numbers did. So what does that tell you about the thought process exercised by the T-14's when it comes to admitting URM's?


17x. What is x? You are at Harvard.

User avatar
KaraThrace
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:39 am

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

Postby KaraThrace » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:43 pm

Kant wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:It doesn't fail because although social factors do matter, there's no argument that the LSAT isn't a learnable test. As I said, I would have had no chance if I hadn't had the time to bust my ass and money to buy PTs.


You can get alot of those books from the library.

By this logic lsat boosts should be given on the basis of economic status not race.


But in our society, where people are still discriminated against economically for their skin color, it's very difficult to extricate the two. Even if we all made the same amounts of money, there are still very strong social forces that work against blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.

If you don't believe this, go to the next tea party rally and you'll change your tune.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:45 pm

KaraThrace wrote:
Kant wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:It doesn't fail because although social factors do matter, there's no argument that the LSAT isn't a learnable test. As I said, I would have had no chance if I hadn't had the time to bust my ass and money to buy PTs.


You can get alot of those books from the library.

By this logic lsat boosts should be given on the basis of economic status not race.


But in our society, where people are still discriminated against economically for their skin color, it's very difficult to extricate the two. Even if we all made the same amounts of money, there are still very strong social forces that work against blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.

If you don't believe this, go to the next tea party rally and you'll change your tune.


What happen there?

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:51 pm

Kant wrote:It has nothing to do with economic status. It has everything to do with: parents, choices made in high school, choices made in college,...etc.

We have AA for college.....shouldn't attending a very good UG shorten the gap?

I would like to point out that you seem to be a very intelligent sarcastic ass (all compliments), and you are black. Do you think that you need any extra advantages just because of your skin color.

It does have a bit to do with economic status.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
Socioeconomic status isn't dispositive of anything, but let's not pretend that it doesn't inform the results and, in the case of black versus white at least, the difference isn't so minimal that it can be ignored. Your socioeconomic status determines your neighborhood which determines your schooling. It is highly correlated with the stability of your household and thus with your social support.

Attending a very good UG is great, but your ability to benefit from UG is pretty directly related to your past 18 years of education and how well you acclimate. An inferior K-12 education is not going to be wiped out by 4 years at Yale.

Need advantages? I suppose I didn't. When I start enjoying their benefits though, I'll be quite happy.

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:52 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:It has nothing to do with economic status. It has everything to do with: parents, choices made in high school, choices made in college,...etc.

We have AA for college.....shouldn't attending a very good UG shorten the gap?

I would like to point out that you seem to be a very intelligent sarcastic ass (all compliments), and you are black. Do you think that you need any extra advantages just because of your skin color.

It does have a bit to do with economic status.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
Socioeconomic status isn't dispositive of anything, but let's not pretend that it doesn't inform the results. Your socioeconomic status determines your neighborhood which determines your schooling. It is highly correlated with the stability of your household and thus with your social support.

Attending a very good UG is great, but your ability to benefit from UG is pretty directly related to your past 18 years of education and how well you acclimate. An inferior K-12 education is not going to be wiped out by 4 years at Yale.

Need advantages? I suppose I didn't. When I start enjoying their benefits though, I'll be quite happy.



This is why I want school choice.

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:59 pm

Kant wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:It has nothing to do with economic status. It has everything to do with: parents, choices made in high school, choices made in college,...etc.

We have AA for college.....shouldn't attending a very good UG shorten the gap?

I would like to point out that you seem to be a very intelligent sarcastic ass (all compliments), and you are black. Do you think that you need any extra advantages just because of your skin color.

It does have a bit to do with economic status.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
Socioeconomic status isn't dispositive of anything, but let's not pretend that it doesn't inform the results. Your socioeconomic status determines your neighborhood which determines your schooling. It is highly correlated with the stability of your household and thus with your social support.

Attending a very good UG is great, but your ability to benefit from UG is pretty directly related to your past 18 years of education and how well you acclimate. An inferior K-12 education is not going to be wiped out by 4 years at Yale.

Need advantages? I suppose I didn't. When I start enjoying their benefits though, I'll be quite happy.



This is why I want school choice.
It would still take generations to even things out. If you and I receive the same schooling, but your parents understand that grades=scholarships/college/success/everything and mine have never quite gotten that message, our reinforcement will be very different. I'm sure that over generations the differences would be ironed out though! So, 100 more years! Not your fault, but not mine either.

User avatar
Rand M.
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:24 am

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

Postby Rand M. » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:01 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:It has nothing to do with economic status. It has everything to do with: parents, choices made in high school, choices made in college,...etc.

We have AA for college.....shouldn't attending a very good UG shorten the gap?

I would like to point out that you seem to be a very intelligent sarcastic ass (all compliments), and you are black. Do you think that you need any extra advantages just because of your skin color.

It does have a bit to do with economic status.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
Socioeconomic status isn't dispositive of anything, but let's not pretend that it doesn't inform the results. Your socioeconomic status determines your neighborhood which determines your schooling. It is highly correlated with the stability of your household and thus with your social support.

Attending a very good UG is great, but your ability to benefit from UG is pretty directly related to your past 18 years of education and how well you acclimate. An inferior K-12 education is not going to be wiped out by 4 years at Yale.

Need advantages? I suppose I didn't. When I start enjoying their benefits though, I'll be quite happy.



This is why I want school choice.
It would still take generations to even things out. If you and I receive the same schooling, but your parents understand that grades=scholarships/college/success/everything and mine have never quite gotten that message, our reinforcement will be very different. I'm sure that over generations the differences would be ironed out though! So, 100 more years! Not your fault, but not mine either.


TITCR

Kant
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Postby Kant » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:05 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Kant wrote:

This is why I want school choice.
It would still take generations to even things out. If you and I receive the same schooling, but your parents understand that grades=scholarships/college/success/everything and mine have never quite gotten that message, our reinforcement will be very different. I'm sure that over generations the differences would be ironed out though! So, 100 more years! Not your fault, but not mine either.


I agree with this....but it is really hard to judge what is a fair adjustment and what is not.

As a country we really need to get back to making education a top priority. So many kids want to be a professional athlete/music star/movie star etc. It was better when everyone wanted to be an astronaught.

I was considering being a teacher, and one of my students told me that I should not become a teacher because I would always be poor. I guess he was going to go into the NBA.

User avatar
egghead
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Postby egghead » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:10 am

Kohinoor wrote:
rGsgbJsl1 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:If we are to talk, let us begin from a position of truth. LSAC doesn't require anything of law schools with regard to minority admission rates. The programs are conceived and operated by the individual law schools.


What do you suggest then?

Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934372123648583.html




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 20171lhopeful, latif and 3 guests