LSAT correlates to success in law school

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
hellokitty
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby hellokitty » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:48 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote: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


+100,000,000,000,000

Gaia, I love you :)

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby fl0w » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:50 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
romothesavior wrote: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.


i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Kohinoor » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:02 pm

Desert Fox wrote: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.
In undergrad I had a friend accused of academic dishonesty solely because the teacher didn't believe she was capable of that work product. After her initial hearing before the committee, the teacher approached her and said "I knew you weren't capable of writing that."

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Kohinoor » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:04 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote: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

4. You know.

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby 20121109 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:12 pm

romothesavior wrote: 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."



Please don't take my joke too seriously. I was only being half-facetious. And I'm really not trying to shut down the AA debate, because let's be serious, this debate is never going to go away, at least not anytime soon. Pity party? I don't pity myself, or any other URM. I would like to take myself as an example. I'm a person who doesn't like settling and is determined to be accepted into my top choice law school on my own merit. If I was not a URM, I would still have a fighting chance at all the schools I intend to apply to next cycle. Though I was told I was good enough to get me into my top choice, I didn't want to take any chances and worked even harder to improve my raw stats. Though I am blessed with the resources to accomplish my goals, I am not representative of the AA population who are mostly unable to attain the levels of education and determination to improve a low level of living. I do believe in the socialization of poverty and I do believe that it has very real consequences for those who can't see a way out. I agree with you in the sense that eventually affirmative action will have to stop. But should it stop now? I don't think we're there yet. Yes, the gap is closing, but the gap is still significant enough to warrant such initiatives.

Systemic favoring of URMs over non-URMs? Each school will take the best non-URM candidates and the best URM candidates they have in their applicant pool. It just happens to be the case that because of societal inequities, the best non-URM is likely to have higher stats than the best URM candidates. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I really feel like non-URMs compete against other non-URMs for seats, and URMs compete against other URMs. I get what you're saying, Romo, but...meh.

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby ccs224 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:15 pm

Affirmative action is a genocidal policy whose intent is to assimilate cultural and ethnic minorities into a white ruling class and therefore destroy the potentially productive breeding ground of resistance that is non-dominant culture by aligning the goals, ideologies and world views of potential leaders with those of the haute-bourgeoisie within an oppressive, exploitive and racist hierarchical system.

User avatar
Jules Winnfield
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Jules Winnfield » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:05 pm

I just love how these "LSAT=LS success" threads mutate into AA debates. I truly wonder how these sort of threads that start out regarding the LSAT or academic achievement somehow manage to dwindle into rants ranging from lack of knowledge/understanding to racial and cultural insensitivity. Whether this is natural or not in these sorts of conversations is really anybody's guess. And although there are more reading comprehension/logical reasoning failures in this thread than I could ever imagine for a community of future attorneys, I must admit that it is mildly entertaining.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby fl0w » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:12 pm

Jules Winnfield wrote:I just love how these "LSAT=LS success" threads mutate into AA debates. I truly wonder how these sort of threads that start out regarding the LSAT or academic achievement somehow manage to dwindle into rants ranging from lack of knowledge/understanding to racial and cultural insensitivity. Whether this is natural or not in these sorts of conversations is really anybody's guess. And although there are more reading comprehension/logical reasoning failures in this thread than I could ever imagine for a community of future attorneys, I must admit that it is mildly entertaining.

It didn't really mutate. Read the OP. It actually started out as a mutant monster.

User avatar
Jules Winnfield
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Jules Winnfield » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:18 pm

fl0w wrote:
Jules Winnfield wrote:I just love how these "LSAT=LS success" threads mutate into AA debates. I truly wonder how these sort of threads that start out regarding the LSAT or academic achievement somehow manage to dwindle into rants ranging from lack of knowledge/understanding to racial and cultural insensitivity. Whether this is natural or not in these sorts of conversations is really anybody's guess. And although there are more reading comprehension/logical reasoning failures in this thread than I could ever imagine for a community of future attorneys, I must admit that it is mildly entertaining.

It didn't really mutate. Read the OP. It actually started out as a mutant monster.


While this may be the case, generally speaking, TLS threads that start out as "LSAT=LS success" do dwindle in an absurdly entertaining manner. The OP was ahead of the curve, I suppose.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby fl0w » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:27 pm

Jules Winnfield wrote:
fl0w wrote:
Jules Winnfield wrote:I just love how these "LSAT=LS success" threads mutate into AA debates. I truly wonder how these sort of threads that start out regarding the LSAT or academic achievement somehow manage to dwindle into rants ranging from lack of knowledge/understanding to racial and cultural insensitivity. Whether this is natural or not in these sorts of conversations is really anybody's guess. And although there are more reading comprehension/logical reasoning failures in this thread than I could ever imagine for a community of future attorneys, I must admit that it is mildly entertaining.

It didn't really mutate. Read the OP. It actually started out as a mutant monster.


While this may be the case, generally speaking, TLS threads that start out as "LSAT=LS success" do dwindle in an absurdly entertaining manner. The OP was ahead of the curve, I suppose.


he was. too bad i'm a URM and my boost destroyed any advantage his being ahead of the curve may have afforded him.

User avatar
JTX
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:23 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby JTX » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:14 am

x
Last edited by JTX on Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JustDude
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:07 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby JustDude » Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:15 am

logicman86 wrote:
JustDude wrote: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.


Dude did you read what I wrote??? I am not sure you would agree

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Kohinoor » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:47 pm

JustDude wrote:
logicman86 wrote:
JustDude wrote: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.

Dude did you read what I wrote??? I am not sure you would agree

With a name like logicman, there is a nontrivial chance you're being trolled hard.

User avatar
T14_Scholly
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby T14_Scholly » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:55 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
romothesavior wrote: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.


Your consistently I-know-better tone is annoying.

User avatar
Jules Winnfield
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Jules Winnfield » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:54 pm

T14_Scholly wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
romothesavior wrote: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.


Your consistently I-know-better tone is annoying.


But it'd be hard to deny that his responses/explanations have been making more sense than most posts in this thread...and are probably correct.

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby Joga Bonito » Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:40 pm

ccs224 wrote:Affirmative action is a genocidal policy whose intent is to assimilate cultural and ethnic minorities into a white ruling class and therefore destroy the potentially productive breeding ground of resistance that is non-dominant culture by aligning the goals, ideologies and world views of potential leaders with those of the haute-bourgeoisie within an oppressive, exploitive and racist hierarchical system.


I don't opposse AA but the second half of your arguement is a good reflection of the goals of many progressives, white and black, though they may not realize it.

User avatar
JTX
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:23 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby JTX » Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:39 pm

Joga Bonito wrote:
ccs224 wrote:Affirmative action is a genocidal policy whose intent is to assimilate cultural and ethnic minorities into a white ruling class and therefore destroy the potentially productive breeding ground of resistance that is non-dominant culture by aligning the goals, ideologies and world views of potential leaders with those of the haute-bourgeoisie within an oppressive, exploitive and racist hierarchical system.


I don't opposse AA but the second half of your arguement is a good reflection of the goals of many progressives, white and black, though they may not realize it.


The Boule warn you to cease this exchange.

User avatar
T14_Scholly
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby T14_Scholly » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:20 am

Jules Winnfield wrote:
T14_Scholly wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
romothesavior wrote: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.


Your consistently I-know-better tone is annoying.


But it'd be hard to deny that his responses/explanations have been making more sense than most posts in this thread...and are probably correct.


It's actually pretty easy to deny that his responses/explanations are correct. All you have to do is believe that there's such a thing as a legitimate anti-AA argument.

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby PDaddy » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:58 am

ValiantVic wrote:From what I heard from the Dean at NU the LSAT has a good correlation with one's success in the first semester of law school, that's it. It can't even be projected to one's law school career and of course obviously wouldn't have any bearing on one's career as an attorney.


TITCR. And let me add this: GPA alone is not a very reliable predictor. LSAT alone is a better predictor (not by much), but a combination of the two is the BEST predictor. That doesn't mean that GPA/LSAT is a very reliable predictor as much as it is a good "correlator". I don't like the word "predictor"; there's a difference.

When one thing "predicts" another, you have to control for outside influences. The obvious elephants in the room with URM's is that 1) they are constantly being fed information about their supposed intellectual inferiority, 2) standardized exams are not socioeconomically neutral, meaning those individuals whose SES is higher tend to do better, regardless of ethnicity/race, and 3) there are still environmental factors that come into play throught the lives of URM's. For example, what effect, regardless of how subtle, does being URM and studying in majority white institutions have on URM's? That's a complex question that is still being studied today.

There is one disturbing trend, however. Even when you hold SES constant for two people, one URM and the other Non-URM, there will still be a disparity, the results show. I am not a fan of the studies because the data is never shown with them. I watched a professor at UVA give a lecture on this topic, but he had no hard data to back up his statements. Credibility?...Gone! Even if we accept the common wisdom that says LSAT can predict first semester or first year performance, that does not make an entire law school education, and it certainly doesn't make a career.

User avatar
JustDude
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:07 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby JustDude » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:01 am

Kohinoor wrote:With a name like logicman, there is a nontrivial chance you're being trolled hard.


I think its a similar situation as with someone who is using name "BigDickDaddy". Dont expect him to be big or daddy

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby PDaddy » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:35 am

Not everyone has had to make it the way URM's have had to, especially blacks and Indians. URM's don't have a system to work within. The system was set up for white folks, caters to white advancement and continues to be that way. Whites have had AA for centuries...it's called "white skin". It's difficult to work within a system in which the people who control the system just do not want to let go of their "things". They want to keep everything white-owned. They want to keep the best land, have all of the best material possessions, work the highest paying jobs, etc.

Blacks and Indians, and, to a slightly lesser degree, Mexicans, have historically had to attend inferior schools and deal with "institutionalized racism", that is, a system in which their basic needs go unmet, as a matter of LAW, all because of the color of their skin. That's not the same thing as having great-grandparents who migrated from scandanavia in the late 1800's or early 1900's and "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" from poverty. They did so unfettered. They may have had setbacks like poor crops, price increases, union strife, and organized crime to deal with, but they were not dealing with a government that did not recognize them as human beings and enacted legislation accordingly.
Last edited by PDaddy on Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby PDaddy » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:41 am

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
romothesavior wrote: 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."



Please don't take my joke too seriously. I was only being half-facetious. And I'm really not trying to shut down the AA debate, because let's be serious, this debate is never going to go away, at least not anytime soon. Pity party? I don't pity myself, or any other URM. I would like to take myself as an example. I'm a person who doesn't like settling and is determined to be accepted into my top choice law school on my own merit. If I was not a URM, I would still have a fighting chance at all the schools I intend to apply to next cycle. Though I was told I was good enough to get me into my top choice, I didn't want to take any chances and worked even harder to improve my raw stats. Though I am blessed with the resources to accomplish my goals, I am not representative of the AA population who are mostly unable to attain the levels of education and determination to improve a low level of living. I do believe in the socialization of poverty and I do believe that it has very real consequences for those who can't see a way out. I agree with you in the sense that eventually affirmative action will have to stop. But should it stop now? I don't think we're there yet. Yes, the gap is closing, but the gap is still significant enough to warrant such initiatives.

Systemic favoring of URMs over non-URMs? Each school will take the best non-URM candidates and the best URM candidates they have in their applicant pool. It just happens to be the case that because of societal inequities, the best non-URM is likely to have higher stats than the best URM candidates. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I really feel like non-URMs compete against other non-URMs for seats, and URMs compete against other URMs. I get what you're saying, Romo, but...meh.


Non-URM's are competing against Non-URM's for seats...and this is what bothers them. They wonder why other seats are filled with people they deem less capable. Each denied Non-URM believes he was displaced by a URM who was inferior, and if that URM had not been admitted or even applied, the seat would have been his for the taking. It's like me being mad at Jay-Z for marriying (and sleeping with) Beyonce' my fiance'. You know?

I am not a star...YET! LOL. It's not like I actually had a shot at the girl anyways. I am not playing on the same field. They are celebs. URM's compete with URM's for seats. Non-URM's with Non-URM's. Schools are not going to admit all white classes. It wouldn't be good for legal education.

User avatar
gossipgirl
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:25 am

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby gossipgirl » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:55 am

PDaddy wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
romothesavior wrote: 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."



Please don't take my joke too seriously. I was only being half-facetious. And I'm really not trying to shut down the AA debate, because let's be serious, this debate is never going to go away, at least not anytime soon. Pity party? I don't pity myself, or any other URM. I would like to take myself as an example. I'm a person who doesn't like settling and is determined to be accepted into my top choice law school on my own merit. If I was not a URM, I would still have a fighting chance at all the schools I intend to apply to next cycle. Though I was told I was good enough to get me into my top choice, I didn't want to take any chances and worked even harder to improve my raw stats. Though I am blessed with the resources to accomplish my goals, I am not representative of the AA population who are mostly unable to attain the levels of education and determination to improve a low level of living. I do believe in the socialization of poverty and I do believe that it has very real consequences for those who can't see a way out. I agree with you in the sense that eventually affirmative action will have to stop. But should it stop now? I don't think we're there yet. Yes, the gap is closing, but the gap is still significant enough to warrant such initiatives.

Systemic favoring of URMs over non-URMs? Each school will take the best non-URM candidates and the best URM candidates they have in their applicant pool. It just happens to be the case that because of societal inequities, the best non-URM is likely to have higher stats than the best URM candidates. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I really feel like non-URMs compete against other non-URMs for seats, and URMs compete against other URMs. I get what you're saying, Romo, but...meh.


Non-URM's are competing against Non-URM's for seats...and this is what bothers them. They wonder why other seats are filled with people they deem less capable. Each denied Non-URM believes he was displaced by a URM who was inferior, and if that URM had not been admitted or even applied, the seat would have been his for the taking. It's like me being mad at Jay-Z for marriying (and sleeping with) Beyonce' my fiance'. You know?

I am not a star...YET! LOL. It's not like I actually had a shot at the girl anyways. I am not playing on the same field. They are celebs. URM's compete with URM's for seats. Non-URM's with Non-URM's. Schools are not going to admit all white classes. It wouldn't be good for legal education.


It would be awkward to not have the number of URMs in schools right now. I'm a non-URM minority and before I went to UG, I went to a school district with the majority of students being minorities. Going to my UG where the number is much lower seemed strange to me and a bit uncomfortable at first. I can't imagine how it would be without AA; it certainly would not be a school I would like to attend.

User avatar
JustDude
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:07 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby JustDude » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:11 am

gossipgirl wrote:It would be awkward to not have the number of URMs in schools right now. I'm a non-URM minority and before I went to UG, I went to a school district with the majority of students being minorities. Going to my UG where the number is much lower seemed strange to me and a bit uncomfortable at first. I can't imagine how it would be without AA; it certainly would not be a school I would like to attend.


You are dorky liberal asian girl. Am I right?

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: LSAT correlates to success in law school

Postby TaipeiMort » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:17 am

Because I am not Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, or American Indian, I am not able to fully comprehend the challenges which these groups have faced historically and still face today. I'm sure that many still face incredible difficulty. Therefore, I try to avoid passing any judgement on the effectiveness or moral correctness of affirmative action.

Nevertheless, I have two questions for affirmative action supporters;

1) Is it morally correct to give all URMs equal boost, regardless of socioeconomic background? Don't affluent URMs steal the spots from the URMs that affirmative action is designed to help?

2) How can it be fair that URMs receive a boost, while other equally (or significantly more disadvantaged groups) don't?-- I think of Hmongs, Australian Aborigines, Taiwanese Aborigines, Tibetans, Burmese, and many other racial or ethnic groups that have been destroyed and economically supressed throughout history-- and still are today.

This is out of scope, but Mormons had both the states of Illinois and Missouri draft extermination orders which made it legal and encouraged to kill them on sight. Missouri did not take their law off of the books until 1977. Should Mormons receive a boost because two state governments tried to wipe them off the face of the earth?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Mullens, packerboy31489 and 4 guests