LSAT correlates to success in law school Forum

[Joga Bonito]

I don't see color post-Obama.

+1000

[09042014]

Well, I did assume you were white but I figured I included enough sterotypes, I also ment to add libertarian, your either libertarian or republican in terms of sensibilities or just kidding yourself.

So let me get this straight your saying that because of AA, universities are more racist than any other institution.
WTF! What about the American Criminal Justice System and its sentencing.

Not a libertarian either. There is a lot of racism in America, but I just don't see any in the universities.

Also, reread my post. I said universities are the least racist institutions in the US. The justice system is a great example of a system that has a high degree of racism in it.

In what way do you think universities are racist. I'm curious, because I spent 4 years in one, and didn't notice much of a problem. I'd like to know what I'm missing.

[Joga Bonito]

Well, I did assume you were white but I figured I included enough sterotypes, I also ment to add libertarian, your either libertarian or republican in terms of sensibilities or just kidding yourself.

So let me get this straight your saying that because of AA, universities are more racist than any other institution.
WTF! What about the American Criminal Justice System and its sentencing.

Not a libertarian either. There is a lot of racism in America, but I just don't see any in the universities.

Also, reread my post. I said universities are the least racist institutions in the US. The justice system is a great example of a system that has a high degree of racism in it.

In what way do you think universities are racist. I'm curious, because I spent 4 years in one, and didn't notice much of a problem. I'd like to know what I'm missing.

Sorry,misread your post, man what a difference one word makes. "least" is an important word. I agree with that statement actually. Sorry.

But anyway, I don't think that universities as institutions are really bad in terms of racism. I just find it hard to believe that no noteworthy degree of racism exist within them, in general. Also, I meant racism present among students, professors, popular opinion etc., things like that not so much systemic, structural racism. I also didn't mean systemic or structural racsim so much, although it might exist to a degree at some universities.

My main arguement was against the belief that racism is not an issue at universities anymore, because I think it def. is. On that point I disagree, but agree that Univ. are better than almost all large institutions that I can think of.

[the_kidult]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

Agreed!

URM is ridiculous, because with all due honesty, racism is not an issue in universities anymore (at least the ones I am familiar with). So URM does not protect minorities from being discriminated against, because they don't have to worry about such discrimination in an academic setting.

So the only possible explanation for URM in law schools is that URM are more likely to come from a poor background, and have succeeded despite not having the same opportunities of their caucasian counterparts.

But this argument is just untrue. The socioeconomic division is not a major influence today, and statistics indicate that most URM who attend law school had socioeconomic backgrounds similar to their non-URM counterparts. Should an African American applicant who grew up in a million dollar home, and went to a private prep high school have an enormous advantage over a white applicant who worked two jobs through high school to get out of the projects?

The answer is no. The only way for URM to be a fair system is to set it up in accordance with the applicant's socioeconomic background. If your household made 20k a year then you have an advantage over an applicant whose household made 300k a year regardless of race. However, the moment we do this is the moment we govern our school systems with a socialist philosophy.

So just get rid of URM!

^ Coming from someone who qualifies as a URM, but will probably not be utilizing this status in my law school applications.

Okay. Historical perspective. The problem here is that you have failed to recognize the correlation between race and socioeconomic class. Slavery and discriminatory laws put the overwhelming amount of minorities (and especially blacks) in a position of low economic class. It's only after minorities were forced into this position that a white-composed government ended the "war on race" and replaced it with a "war on class." If anything, racism can be argued as getting worse for minorities, as its now much harder to call out. Let's not forget that during this time of more blatant oppression, whites were the ones going to ivy colleges, making it so that being a legacy kid is pretty much just AA for white rich kids. For most cases, Race = class. Accept it.

So now we're in a position where most minority students are less likely to succeed in school because of a bad socioeconomic environment, often being forced to choose work over school to support their low-income family, having to worry about living in high-crime areas in less-healthy industrial environments, and you want the colleges not to account for this? That's fair competition to you?

Seriously?

[RVP11]

Okay. Historical perspective. The problem here is that you have failed to recognize the correlation between race and socioeconomic class. Slavery and discriminatory laws put the overwhelming amount of minorities (and especially blacks) in a position of low economic class. It's only after minorities were forced into this position that a white-composed government ended the "war on race" and replaced it with a "war on class." If anything, racism can be argued as getting worse for minorities, as its now much harder to call out. Let's not forget that during this time of more blatant oppression, whites were the ones going to ivy colleges, making it so that being a legacy kid is pretty much just AA for white rich kids. For most cases, Race = class. Accept it.

So now we're in a position where most minority students are less likely to succeed in school because of a bad socioeconomic environment, often being forced to choose work over school to support their low-income family, having to worry about living in high-crime areas in less-healthy industrial environments, and you want the colleges not to account for this? That's fair competition to you?

Seriously?

As dumb as I think the whole debate is, I think you might find it important to know that at least African-Americans have lower LSAT/SAT/whatever scores than Caucasians at each given socioeconomic level. So it's difficult, or impossible, to explain away the difference with socieconomics alone.

[fl0w]

As dumb as I think the whole debate is, I think you might find it important to know that at least African-Americans have lower LSAT/SAT/whatever scores than Caucasians at each given socioeconomic level. So it's difficult, or impossible, to explain away the difference with socieconomics alone.

Challenging, ok. Impossible, hardly (not that i'm about to explain it fully, it just simply is not impossible). Impossible for some people to ever understand, probably.

Socioeconomic: deals with social & economic factors. the word encompasses a lot. sociology, psychology, history, economics. There's a lot in that word to explain things. I'm not sure how you define a "socioeconomic level" when all of that is encompassed. It seems like you are using the term interchangeably with "class".

The vast majority of this can likely be explained through expansion of these ideas if you can actually understand the reaching implications. Problem is that either:

1) Most people don't/can't understand (so what if black people are poor. there are poor white people too!)

or

2) Most people dont'/can't understand (so what if black people are black? the laws say we can't treat them differently so why are they complaining? at least they aren't slaves anymore. they should be grateful.)

Non URM don't have to deal with what URMs deal with and aren't associated with the same history so they tend to not recognize that there is a problem.

A non-URM would really just have to live a life in a URM's shoes to FULLY understand. People want to say things are ok so badly that they are fooling themselves.

[logicman86]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

Agreed!

URM is ridiculous, because with all due honesty, racism is not an issue in universities anymore (at least the ones I am familiar with). So URM does not protect minorities from being discriminated against, because they don't have to worry about such discrimination in an academic setting.

So the only possible explanation for URM in law schools is that URM are more likely to come from a poor background, and have succeeded despite not having the same opportunities of their caucasian counterparts.

But this argument is just untrue. The socioeconomic division is not a major influence today, and statistics indicate that most URM who attend law school had socioeconomic backgrounds similar to their non-URM counterparts. Should an African American applicant who grew up in a million dollar home, and went to a private prep high school have an enormous advantage over a white applicant who worked two jobs through high school to get out of the projects?

The answer is no. The only way for URM to be a fair system is to set it up in accordance with the applicant's socioeconomic background. If your household made 20k a year then you have an advantage over an applicant whose household made 300k a year regardless of race. However, the moment we do this is the moment we govern our school systems with a socialist philosophy.

So just get rid of URM!

^ Coming from someone who qualifies as a URM, but will probably not be utilizing this status in my law school applications.

Okay. Historical perspective. The problem here is that you have failed to recognize the correlation between race and socioeconomic class. Slavery and discriminatory laws put the overwhelming amount of minorities (and especially blacks) in a position of low economic class. It's only after minorities were forced into this position that a white-composed government ended the "war on race" and replaced it with a "war on class." If anything, racism can be argued as getting worse for minorities, as its now much harder to call out. Let's not forget that during this time of more blatant oppression, whites were the ones going to ivy colleges, making it so that being a legacy kid is pretty much just AA for white rich kids. For most cases, Race = class. Accept it.

So now we're in a position where most minority students are less likely to succeed in school because of a bad socioeconomic environment, often being forced to choose work over school to support their low-income family, having to worry about living in high-crime areas in less-healthy industrial environments, and you want the colleges not to account for this? That's fair competition to you?

Seriously?

"For most cases race = class. Accept it."

Seriously?

So because that's true most of the time, let's just ignore where it isn't true but treat it as though it was? Is this how public policy should be run in your opinion? Well, there's a 58% it's true so let's just whole heartedly assume it's true?

Again, would this be fair to the general population applicant who grew up in the projects but is disadvantaged against a URM applicant who has parents both of whom are doctors?

With regards to your reference to slavery, I agree with everything you spoke about here. But 1.) the slave descended population in our country is well under 20% of law school applicants, and African-Americans do not even constitute 50% of the applicant pool so this point isn't fully relevant. 2.) And I say this with all due respect, slavery ended over 150 years ago. I am aware that prejudice echoed on until the 1960's, and that even then a great deal of racism still persisted. I do not want to discount any of this, but take the Jewish people for example. 60 years ago, their possessions were seized by the government, they were tortured and brutally murdered... in many cases America even sent ships back to Aushwitz because they did not feel it was their obligation to take in refugees. Remember this was only 60 years ago. Yet the Jewish people do not qualify for URM... even though they make up less than 1% of the population. While America is not as personally responsible for their hardship as they are to that of the African American and Native American community, you can certainly argue that they are far more responsible to the Jewish struggle than the struggles of the Hispanic and Pacific Islander communities. Yet they do not receive URM status, so trust me, it has nothing to do with slavery or racism in America (there is plenty of anti-Semitism), but is more about government predictions of how certain races might perform in the future, and this at least to me cries out "racist."

Maybe I am the only one who has an issue with this, but to me URM takes minorities and says, you need a weighted system to have an equal shot at success. From a strictly self confidence standpoint, how are they even post success going to feel about themselves?

[Trifles]

Logicman86, jewish people arn't underrepresented in the legal field by any stretch of the imagination. It isn't a boost for people who are discriminated against, its a boost for underrepresented minorities.

[20121109]

Benefits of being black:

1. URM boost in law school admissions
2. Using the N-word
3. Maybe running a little faster than most...

Benefits of being white:

1. Everything else


EDIT: These threads never fail to deliver

[Jules Winnfield]

Benefits of being black:

1. URM boost in law school admissions
2. Using the N-word
3. Maybe running a little faster than most...

Benefits of being white:

1. Everything else


EDIT: These threads never fail to deliver

+1....GAIA to the rescue!

[prolyphek]

+ a million

[fl0w]

With regards to your reference to slavery, I agree with everything you spoke about here. But 1.) the slave descended population in our country is well under 20% of law school applicants, and African-Americans do not even constitute 50% of the applicant pool so this point isn't fully relevant.

I don't fully understand what you are trying to say here. you may want to specify. Estimated 12.9% of Americans are descendants of Africans. Majority of those ancestors were brought over as slaves. I think around 10% of law school applicants are black. What were you trying to do with these numbers? I'm not sure. The numbers seem relevant to me.

2.) And I say this with all due respect, slavery ended over 150 years ago. I am aware that prejudice echoed on until the 1960's, and that even then a great deal of racism still persisted.

Yeah, as in the Voting Rights Act wasn't enacted until 1965. Sure slavery ended a long time ago, but blacks were not treated as full human beings for LONG after that.

I do not want to discount any of this, but take the Jewish people for example. 60 years ago, their possessions were seized by the government, they were tortured and brutally murdered... in many cases America even sent ships back to Aushwitz because they did not feel it was their obligation to take in refugees. Remember this was only 60 years ago. Yet the Jewish people do not qualify for URM... even though they make up l[strike]ess than 1%[/strike] close to 2% of the population. While America is not as personally responsible for their hardship as they are to that of the African American and Native American community, you can certainly argue that they are far more responsible to the Jewish struggle than the struggles of the Hispanic and Pacific Islander communities. Yet they do not receive URM status, so trust me, it has nothing to do with slavery or racism in America (there is plenty of anti-Semitism), but is more about government predictions of how certain races might perform in the future, and this at least to me cries out "racist."

I really don't think you should compare the plight of different ethnicities. It's not the same. I don't really want to get too far into it, but A jewish person can, if they so choose, hide the fact that they are jewish. I'm not saying they would ever want to, but they are able to. A black person cannot hide the fact that they are black. If an employer is anti-Semitic, one could just not tell them they are jewish and hide any telling visual signs that would indicate so in an interview. If an interviewer hates black people ... well you can't take your skin off or shrink the size of your lips.

Part of the problem is the deep rooted association that our culture has with black people. slaves, poorly educated, poor, violent, criminal, etc. They get all of this just by LOOKING at a black person. Even if that black person is a member of the Cosby family, it doesn't stop someone from seeing them and making them a victim of racism (in the MANY forms that it can be manifested).

Maybe I am the only one who has an issue with this, but to me URM takes minorities and says, you need a weighted system to have an equal shot at success. From a strictly self confidence standpoint, how are they even post success going to feel about themselves?

You have a point. But URMs not feeling good about themselves has more to do with society's perception and stereotypes than affirmative action. Look at the american perception of beauty, the assumptions about the people that are dangerous or lazy or "alien". These contribute more to destruction of self confidence than knowing that as a result of being mistreated, URMs may get a leg up.

[Joga Bonito]

Benefits of being black:

1. URM boost in law school admissions
2. Using the N-word
3. Maybe running a little faster than most...

Benefits of being white:

1. Everything else


EDIT: These threads never fail to deliver

+1,000,000

[Jules Winnfield]

I hope the people against AA in this thread are also against preferential consideration for Legacy admits.

[Joga Bonito]

I hope the people against AA in this thread are also against preferential consideration for Legacy admits.

They tend to not care about those sorts of things, but since I just said that, one will come out against legacies too.

[Jules Winnfield]

I hope the people against AA in this thread are also against preferential consideration for Legacy admits.

They tend to not care about those sorts of things, but since I just said that, one will come out against legacies too.

the sad truth.

[Trifles]

I'm against both AA and legacy admissions for any university that receives any government funding. If you are going to spend taxpayer money on education, at least make admissions based on merit. For what its worth, I am part Native American and didn't answer questions about race on my law school applications, so I wouldn't receive preferential treatment.

[Jules Winnfield]

I'm against both AA and legacy admissions for any university that receives any government funding. If you are going to spend taxpayer money on education, at least make admissions based on merit. For what its worth, I am part Native American and didn't answer questions about race on my law school applications, so I wouldn't receive preferential treatment.

While your intent of admission based on personal merit is noble, it was damn foolish of you to omit information regarding your Native American background, I must say. As an applicant, you should increase your chances of admission as much as possible. Did you write a Diversity Statement? How about a Personal Statement?

[prolyphek]

I'm against both AA and legacy admissions for any university that receives any government funding. If you are going to spend taxpayer money on education, at least make admissions based on merit. For what its worth, I am part Native American and didn't answer questions about race on my law school applications, so I wouldn't receive preferential treatment.

While your intent of admission based on personal merit is noble, it was damn foolish of you to omit information regarding your Native American background, I must say. As an applicant, you should increase your chances of admission as much as possible.

+1

[dontknowwhereimgoin]

Generally speaking, I disregard the form-letter platitudes on rejection/admission letters. But there is one that warrants merit: ...can do the work.

LSAT scores above say the 90th percentile (while far below median at most top schools) suggest an aptitude for being able to "do the work" which tends to be relatively uniform in difficulty across most schools.

Granted the quality of students at a T6 will make a lower achieving (LSAT) student's grades worse (per the curve), but it doesn't indicate that student will not be able to do the work given-- if in an admittedly less clever fashion.

So, a student admitted to a top school with a low-mid 160's score, who-- while finishing in the bottom third-- manages to snag a firm job due to other factors, might still be able to succeed at lawyering as much as a student in the top 1/3 at the same school because the former has reached a sufficient level of aptitude at doing the work.

[Jules Winnfield]

Generally speaking, I disregard the form-letter platitudes on rejection/admission letters. But there is one that warrants merit: ...can do the work.

LSAT scores above say the 90th percentile (while far below median at most top schools) suggest an aptitude for being able to "do the work" which tends to be relatively uniform in difficulty across most schools.

Granted the quality of students at a T6 will make a lower achieving (LSAT) student's grades worse (per the curve), but it doesn't indicate that student will not be able to do the work given-- if in an admittedly less clever fashion.

So, a student admitted to a top school with a low-mid 160's score, who-- while finishing in the bottom third-- manages to snag a firm job due to other factors, might still be able to succeed at lawyering as much as a student in the top 1/3 at the same school because the former has reached a sufficient level of aptitude at doing the work.

CORRECTAMUNDO!

[JTX]

CORRECTAMUNDO!

blatant anti-english trolling

[Joga Bonito]

CORRECTAMUNDO!

blatant anti-english trolling

qué va

[vanwinkle]

I really feel like one of the biggest problems with the AA debate is that neither side is willing to even consider the merits of the other side's argument. The AA opponents believe that somehow racism is dead and ignore the strong historical implications of racism that still permeate our society. They use ridiculous analogies like the one imisscollege used that completely miss the point. Meanwhile, AA supporters seem to ignore any of the solid arguments put forward by the anti-AA group.

Flaw: There are no solid arguments put forward by the anti-AA group.

It's not fair to say that people who are pro-AA have not considered the other side's argument at all. I don't think AA is perfect, only that it's a better solution than anything else I've heard proposed so far. I've considered both sides' arguments, and the need for AA wins out. The courts agree with this assessment, and there hasn't been some novel new argument against it to arise since then, nor have conditions changed that drastically in America to reduce the necessity of it.

Most people who protest AA either 1) have no idea how much struggle there still is left to achieve equality in this country, 2) greatly overestimate the effect that AA has on law school admissions for non-URMs, 3) are wishing they could also have such an "advantage" without also wanting the disadvantage that makes it necessary, or often enough, 4) all of the above.

[Joga Bonito]

I really feel like one of the biggest problems with the AA debate is that neither side is willing to even consider the merits of the other side's argument. The AA opponents believe that somehow racism is dead and ignore the strong historical implications of racism that still permeate our society. They use ridiculous analogies like the one imisscollege used that completely miss the point. Meanwhile, AA supporters seem to ignore any of the solid arguments put forward by the anti-AA group. Every time an AA thread pops up, people like GAIAthecheerleader and Jules just shut the other side down and the anti-AA people get accused of being racist, Republican rednecks with no historical understanding. C'mon people, there are good arguments on both sides.

GAIA, you said that being white gives a person an advantage in all areas of life (except for URM boost, use of the n-word, and being faster). That is probably true to some extent, but that gap is certainly closing. Sorry to rain on your pity party, but were you so grossly disadvantaged that it somehow warrants a systemic favoring of URMS over non-URMs? What is the point where we can change the system to something other than AA? I keep hearing people say, "You white people need to suck it up and work within the system," but what about URMs? At what point do we say, "Enough is enough. You have to overcome adversity and make it like everyone else."

I personally believe that a basic form of AA is necessary in hiring and in schools. If two people have similar numbers, but one had to overcome racism, a rough background, etc. then they deserve a bump. As it is now though, I believe AA is too extreme in its current form. I really could play devil's advocate on this issue for both sides. I just wish everyone would cut it out with the stereotypes, straw-man arguments, and name calling and show some respect.

One of my main problems with AA opponents is that it seems to me, that they are usually only concerned about soap boxing because some African-American or Latino took their seat at X law school. It seems like they often come to the argument with little concern about things such as equal access to education, minority achievement, underrepresentation and the relationship between these and poverty and racism etc. I am not saying that because of this you can just disregard their arguments but, perspective and intent matter. So yeah they make some good arguments to defend their position, but honestly I need more than a good abstract argument for a position. I want a good argument that supports good policies that will give society good results. If someone is opposed to raced based AA then give a good viable alternative to that, or a remedy to address the real issues that AA seeks to address. Most AA opponents don’t use their intellectual abilities to come up with these and I think it’s because most don’t actually care. They just want a seat for their own personal benefit or want to voice their bitterness.