LSAT correlates to success in law school Forum

[Unemployed]

Theoretically, if you were to round up every AA recipient since the program's inception and categorize them by race and gender, white women beneficiaries would far outnumber every other category (duh).

It is probably one of the most confusing pro-AA catchphrases, since it conveniently leaves out the "historical aggregate" qualifier.

1) You switched tenses (from "benefit", implying present tense, to "since the program's inception", past tense. Pick one and stick with it please.

2) I call bullshit. Give proof or you're lying.

3) Even if that were historically true it actually reinforces that AA is successful since they managed to transition from needing it to not needing it. But I don't believe that's the case. If anything women have historically done slightly better than their male peers in academics, their problem has been lack of access due to gender discrimination.

I have no idea what we are fighting about. I don't understand how "beneficiary" is inherently a present tense, but that's besides the point. Didn't you sense my own hostility to the "AA white women" claim? Either it's true and useless information, or it's false.

[fl0w]

Isn't it interesting that in every single country in the world the order of success is roughly

Upper Caste Indians/Ashkenazim Jews
East Asians
Whites
Indians in General
'Hispanics' (since this term is so broad I put it in quotes)
Blacks

This is true even in countries where East Asians are heavily discriminated against and in the minority, like Malaysia. If you think racism is the answer to the poor outcomes of blacks in America, than how do you answer this pattern being the same in every country in the world? I don't know what the answer to this pattern is, but until you can explain this worldwide phenomena all your arguments are bogus.

I LOL'd. Hard.
'Hispanics' is broad but none of the other categories are? You have to be joking.
I guess if you consider the following to be true, then the rest of the categories would be narrow enough
"European" the only kind of white
"Indian" covers all people from India
"Blacks" implies African and Africa is just one country and anyone that is Black is from Africa
"East Asian" means Chinese and all Chinese are of the same ethnic subgroup and Japan is part of China along with Taiwan, North and South Korea, and Mongolia

[Jules Winnfield]

The crazy thing is that she's probably a hell of a lot smarter than Laura Bush and even Hillary Clinton.

Is this going to be like your Jason Kidd > John Stockton argument?

Is this going to be like your "there's no way a black woman can be THAT accomplished" mentality?

I've definitely never made that argument.

1.) I've never argued that Jason Kidd was better than john Stockton. I said Jason Kidd could be a to 3 PG of all-time in NBA history. Go check the thread.

2.) I never said you made that argument. I'm assuming, however, that you have that mentality since you were attempting to discredit Michelle Obama solely because she didn't write the best thesis.

[prolyphek]

Are you confused by the typo if so I apologize I was typing quickly or are you confused by what I said in terms of stating that the people who benifit the most from Affirmative Action are white women?

If it's the typo I understand...if it's the later I don't (that premise is easily researchable)

I'm confused by the completely unfounded and wrong assertion that white women currently benefit from AA at all, let alone that they benefit more than blacks and Hispanics. Women currently slightly outnumber men in college enrollment, and that's without any kind of current AA assistance.

You're right completely unfounded, no one has ever written about this stuff.

http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affir ... ion-babies
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -2,00.html
--LinkRemoved--
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/spr98gender.html
--LinkRemoved--
--LinkRemoved--
http://open.salon.com/blog/marygrav/200 ... n_pray_not
http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/ ... n-for.html
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qs ... d=96480005

[prolyphek]

Theoretically, if you were to round up every AA recipient since the program's inception and categorize them by race and gender, white women beneficiaries would far outnumber every other category (duh).

It is probably one of the most confusing pro-AA catchphrases, since it conveniently leaves out the "historical aggregate" qualifier.

1) You switched tenses (from "benefit", implying present tense, to "since the program's inception", past tense. Pick one and stick with it please.

2) I call bullshit. Give proof or you're lying.

3) Even if that were historically true it actually reinforces that AA is successful since they managed to transition from needing it to not needing it. But I don't believe that's the case. If anything women have historically done slightly better than their male peers in academics, their problem has been lack of access due to gender discrimination.

Yeah and Affirmative Action didn't help "women" get into those positions that were and still are discriminatory in nature, lol you should call Bull Shit because you obviously have no idea wtf you are talking about

[Jones, Dow]

1.) I've never argued that Jason Kidd was better than john Stockton. I said Jason Kidd could be a to 3 PG of all-time in NBA history. Go check the thread.

but deron williams is already better than jason kidd. that's two jazz guards better than jason kidd. add magic in there, and there's no way possible he's top 3.

[gossipgirl]

1.) I've never argued that Jason Kidd was better than john Stockton. I said Jason Kidd could be a to 3 PG of all-time in NBA history. Go check the thread.

but deron williams is already better than jason kidd. that's two jazz guards better than jason kidd. add magic in there, and there's no way possible he's top 3.

Deron Williams is top 3? Lemme get some of what you're smoking...

[fl0w]

Are you confused by the typo if so I apologize I was typing quickly or are you confused by what I said in terms of stating that the people who benifit the most from Affirmative Action are white women?

If it's the typo I understand...if it's the later I don't (that premise is easily researchable)

I'm confused by the completely unfounded and wrong assertion that white women currently benefit from AA at all, let alone that they benefit more than blacks and Hispanics. Women currently slightly outnumber men in college enrollment, and that's without any kind of current AA assistance.

You're right completely unfounded, no one has ever written about this stuff.

http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affir ... ion-babies

I like this line

So why is it that people of color still lag so far behind their white female counterparts? Could it be that white men—who still overwhelming control hiring and promotion in the workplace—chose the lesser of two evils, if you will, in advancing white women over black men and women of color?

My opinion is that white women have not, so much, been the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action, but that they have made the most gains because they are white. what i mean is that requiring that white women have the same rights was enough to elevate them as opposed to the need for implementing other systemic policies to assist other disadvantaged groups.

This is going to sound a bit "off color" (excuse any pun) but when more groups were given equal rights, white men likely felt better about white women having the rights because 1) they are in the same racial group 2) they are having sex with them. If you're having sex with a woman, you're going to need to agree with her opinions about equal rights to keep having sex with her.

I'm sort of joking... but sort of not.

[Jules Winnfield]

1.) I've never argued that Jason Kidd was better than john Stockton. I said Jason Kidd could be a to 3 PG of all-time in NBA history. Go check the thread.

but deron williams is already better than jason kidd. that's two jazz guards better than jason kidd. add magic in there, and there's no way possible he's top 3.

Erroneous on all counts.

[vampy]

You can argue about the exact categories I made, but that is to miss the entire point. The point is that different groups perform in the same rank order around the world. Of course, chinese in china are poor, but that says nothing about the relative ranking of wealth in china by ethnicity. When you rank by country that says nothing about the actual wealth of the groups by country. You will find that in every country, chinese, korean, japanese have more per capita income, at least after the first generation, than most other groups. At the same time you will find the blacks have lower per capita income. This is worldwide.

[vampy]

'Hispanic' is more broad than the other categories as there is no race 'hispanic'. Hispanic can mean anything -- white, native american, black, indian, etc.

[prolyphek]

Are you confused by the typo if so I apologize I was typing quickly or are you confused by what I said in terms of stating that the people who benifit the most from Affirmative Action are white women?

If it's the typo I understand...if it's the later I don't (that premise is easily researchable)

I'm confused by the completely unfounded and wrong assertion that white women currently benefit from AA at all, let alone that they benefit more than blacks and Hispanics. Women currently slightly outnumber men in college enrollment, and that's without any kind of current AA assistance.

You're right completely unfounded, no one has ever written about this stuff.

http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affir ... ion-babies

I like this line

So why is it that people of color still lag so far behind their white female counterparts? Could it be that white men—who still overwhelming control hiring and promotion in the workplace—chose the lesser of two evils, if you will, in advancing white women over black men and women of color?

My opinion is that white women have not, so much, been the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action, but that they have made the most gains because they are white. what i mean is that requiring that white women have the same rights was enough to elevate them as opposed to the need for implementing other systemic policies to assist other disadvantaged groups.

This is going to sound a bit "off color" (excuse any pun) but when more groups were given equal rights, white men likely felt better about white women having the rights because 1) they are in the same racial group 2) they are having sex with them. If you're having sex with a woman, you're going to need to agree with her opinions about equal rights to keep having sex with her.

I'm sort of joking... but sort of not.

One of the articles speaks to that. It talks about how given what you said, and given that white men typically marry white women they have also indirectly benifited from the gains that white women have made under AA. My thing is that peple need to talk about AA honestly, and not frame it like it just a black/hispanic thing. The reality is there are several categories of underrpresented people who are benifiting or have benifited and for good reason. When people frame it like it is just a black thing or whatever, the debate and the convo goes to crap. At the end of the day who cares, the only thing that should matter is we are all going to law school and need to learn how to be colleagues despite the issues.

[gossipgirl]

You can argue about the exact categories I made, but that is to miss the entire point. The point is that different groups perform in the same rank order around the world. Of course, chinese in china are poor, but that says nothing about the relative ranking of wealth in china by ethnicity. When you rank by country that says nothing about the actual wealth of the groups by country. You will find that in every country, chinese, korean, japanese have more per capita income, at least after the first generation, than most other groups. At the same time you will find the blacks have lower per capita income. This is worldwide.

You realize that around the world "darker" people are constantly persecuted in favor of "lighter" people? Whether we're talking about India, Sudan, or the U.S., every place has a history of persecuting those that have darker skin color.

My point is that the fact that the darker skin color race is found to be lower on the per capita income totem pole in every country in the world is not an important point or something surprising. It is expected because of the historical persecution. What do you do to correct for this? Give the people who society has persecuted a hand in achieving the success that they can but haven't been able to because of global racism.

[vanwinkle]

You're right completely unfounded, no one has ever written about this stuff.

I read one of those articles (the one on Salon). It talked about things like breast cancer screening and domestic violence shelters as products of Affirmative Action. I suppose those are affirmative actions taken to protect women, but they're also things that obviously target women more because men don't suffer from them nearly as much.

The debate we've been having is about Affirmative Action in secondary education admissions. Everything you've cited (the crazy stuff and the less crazy stuff) doesn't seem to be focused on what we've actually been discussing the last several pages at all.

Currently, white women do not need, nor is there any indication that they receive, preferential treatment in college admissions. Yes, the affirmative action mandate of the 1960s did act to ensure women were given equal access to things like education systems. But the truth is that now they have that access and they no longer need help in that area. They are fully capable of getting into both undergraduate and graduate programs at levels equivalent to their male peers.

[vanwinkle]

My thing is that peple need to talk about AA honestly, and not frame it like it just a black/hispanic thing.

When discussing affirmative actions in law school admissions, people focus on blacks and Hispanics because they constitute two of the three groups whose applications receive a distinct boost due to AA. This is why people focus on them. They don't focus on discussing other races so much except to note that those races don't receive the same level of treatment in AA policies, which is true.

[vampy]

"Darker" people always being persecuted is entirely 100% false. The truth is that the MINORITY tends to be persecuted. Specifically, those who are in the minority of power. Here are some counter examples to 'Darker' people being persecuted.

Chinese in malaysia, indonesia, etc
Gauls, british, etc, in ancient Rome
Whites in Africa (today)
Indians in Africa
Jews everywhere

etc....

You are only correct insofar as certain groups of people tend to have disproportionate success and therefore power relative to their groups size, and therefore are more likely to be in a position to 'persecute' others. However, even when persecuted certain groups always rise to the top unless doing so is completely forbidden. The problem is you are starting with an opinion and then looking for facts, rather than starting with facts and then looking for an opinion.

[vampy]

Furthermore, your 'solution' to what you perceive as racism (which may not be the case but you want your view to be upheld by the force of law) is to have more racism but in a different direction. Thus, you are willing to indiscriminately hurt whites, asians, and indians to help out blacks and hispanics.

Thus you in fact approve of racism but only when it is aligned with your particular views of the world, and perhaps the views of the majority. Of course, just because you believe your view is correct, or because you are backed by the majority, does not mean it is in fact correct. The nazi's thought their views were correct. The southern whites thought their views were correct. The imperialist japanese believed their views were correct. Many people have thought racism was good or necessary, just like you do today.

[Jules Winnfield]

A brief re-cap of this thread:

Does LSAT correlate to law school success?--->URMs have lower LSAT scores so they're not successful in law school--->AA should be banned since URMs admitted into LS aren't successful--->URMs struggle to succeed in LS due to historical inequality and perpetuated discrimination--->URMs aren't the only demographic(s) historically discriminated against/whites & asians suffered too!--->AA hurts the chances of white/Asian applicants---> URMs employ reverse racism through AA

Get it? Got it? Good!

"Why do people always ask these sorts of questions on TLS?", I wonder to myself. I would think that it's rather obvious that these types of thread always end up in wild opinions, theories and accusations which harm the intellectual growth of all TLS posters involved. Furthermore, the initial question seemingly never gets answered as people always bite the race bait.

[vanwinkle]

Furthermore, your 'solution' to what you perceive as racism (which may not be the case but you want your view to be upheld by the force of law) is to have more racism but in a different direction. Thus, you are willing to indiscriminately hurt whites, asians, and indians to help out blacks and hispanics.

Thus you in fact approve of racism but only when it is aligned with your particular views of the world, and perhaps the views of the majority. Of course, just because you believe your view is correct, or because you are backed by the majority, does not mean it is in fact correct. The nazi's thought their views were correct. The southern whites thought their views were correct. The imperialist japanese believed their views were correct. Many people have thought racism was good or necessary, just like you do today.

1) Who is this referring to?

2) Soft affirmative action to help promote diversity is racism? Lol wut?

3) Godwin's Law says you lose.

[Kohinoor]

Furthermore, your 'solution' to what you perceive as racism (which may not be the case but you want your view to be upheld by the force of law) is to have more racism but in a different direction. Thus, you are willing to indiscriminately hurt whites, asians, and indians to help out blacks and hispanics.

Thus you in fact approve of racism but only when it is aligned with your particular views of the world, and perhaps the views of the majority. Of course, just because you believe your view is correct, or because you are backed by the majority, does not mean it is in fact correct. The nazi's thought their views were correct. The southern whites thought their views were correct. The imperialist japanese believed their views were correct. Many people have thought racism was good or necessary, just like you do today.

How familiar are you with rational basis analysis?

[Kohinoor]

Furthermore, your 'solution' to what you perceive as racism (which may not be the case but you want your view to be upheld by the force of law) is to have more racism but in a different direction. Thus, you are willing to indiscriminately hurt whites, asians, and indians to help out blacks and hispanics.

Thus you in fact approve of racism but only when it is aligned with your particular views of the world, and perhaps the views of the majority. Of course, just because you believe your view is correct, or because you are backed by the majority, does not mean it is in fact correct. The nazi's thought their views were correct. The southern whites thought their views were correct. The imperialist japanese believed their views were correct. Many people have thought racism was good or necessary, just like you do today.

1) Who is this referring to?

2) Soft affirmative action to help promote diversity is racism? Lol wut?

3) Godwin's Law says you lose.

He lost on his first post. This is weird flailing failure where you're not sure whether to respond or sit back and watch the show.

[fl0w]

"Darker" people always being persecuted is entirely 100% false. The truth is that the MINORITY tends to be persecuted. Specifically, those who are in the minority of power. Here are some counter examples to 'Darker' people being persecuted.

Chinese in malaysia, indonesia, etc
Gauls, british, etc, in ancient Rome
Whites in Africa (today)
Indians in Africa
Jews everywhere

etc....

You are only correct insofar as certain groups of people tend to have disproportionate success and therefore power relative to their groups size, and therefore are more likely to be in a position to 'persecute' others. However, even when persecuted certain groups always rise to the top unless doing so is completely forbidden. The problem is you are starting with an opinion and then looking for facts, rather than starting with facts and then looking for an opinion.

Can you be more specific on whites being persecuted in africa? apartheid definitely comes to mind as a counter example (and something that persisted for decades as opposed to being an anomaly).

another counter example to your argument above is lighter skinned "americo liberians" rising to power over the darker natives of liberia.

so you see, i can provide some counter examples to your argument too. Ones that are actually based on historical events as opposed to me just saying so. I don't think the examples you provided are of people being persecuted because they are lighter skinned.

But I suspect that I'm taking you too seriously. My point really is that very few things relating to civilizations are ALWAYS true and you can't just tell someone that they do not have a valid point because you think you've come up with a counter example.

He lost on his first post. This is weird flailing failure where you're not sure whether to respond or sit back and watch the show.

I agree with this.

[HiLine]

Does LSAT correlate to law school success?--->URMs have lower LSAT scores so they're not successful in law schoo

This reasoning is misleading. That the LSAT correlates to law school success indicates that a person will a higher LSAT tends to be more successful in law school while other factors are held equal. Concluding that URM's are not successful in law school just because they have lower LSAT scores, not taking into account other factors, is beyond the scope of the correlation.

[vanwinkle]

Does LSAT correlate to law school success?--->URMs have lower LSAT scores so they're not successful in law schoo

This reasoning is misleading. That the LSAT correlates to law school success indicates that a person will a higher LSAT tends to be more successful in law school while other factors are held equal. Concluding that URM's are not successful in law school just because they have lower LSAT scores, not taking account other factors, is beyond the scope of the correlation.

He wasn't giving reasoning, he was just stating the path that the thread has taken.

[HiLine]

He wasn't giving reasoning, he was just stating the path that the thread has taken.

And I wasn't commenting on his reasoning but the starting point of the thread. Sorry if my quotation was misleading.