Top Law Schools

Why isn't the law school admissions process done in a different way? Let me explain.

I believe that complete anonymity should be an absolute priority, thus to not favor a certain family name, benefactor, or other.

I believe that names should be renamed to automatically generated ID numbers, simply an LSAC account number like we have now. I also believe that race should not be shown either.

I think that would make the law school admission process very transparent and would allow for the fairest of application decisions. Why does one need to see a name and a race? Those things should be kept hidden.

secretad wrote:Why isn't the law school admissions process done in a different way? Let me explain.

I believe that complete anonymity should be an absolute priority, thus to not favor a certain family name, benefactor, or other.

I believe that names should be renamed to automatically generated ID numbers, simply an LSAC account number like we have now. I also believe that race should not be shown either.

I think that would make the law school admission process very transparent and would allow for the fairest of application decisions. Why does one need to see a name and a race? Those things should be kept hidden.

Oh, an AA thread. Lovely.

This isnt going anywhere good...

YankeesFan wrote:This isnt going anywhere good...

I disagree.

IBTL

I would like to have a system with names as ID numbers with no race being shown and no gender being shown.

Would it not make the admissions process more fair?

secretad wrote:I would like to have a system with names as ID numbers with no race being shown and no gender being shown.

Would it not make the admissions process more fair?

Only if everyone had the same quality of upbringing/education. Equalizing one aspect that is meant to help those who (on average) received less benefits in other areas is NOT fair.

Rather it reemphasizes prior instances of unfairness.

(However, it should be noted that most law schools don't use this sort of justification in order to defend their affirmative action type policies.)

If you're gonna go that far, how bout' this:

I believe that complete anonymity should be an absolute priority, thus to not favor a certain family name, benefactor, or other.

I believe that names of law schools should be renamed to automatically generated ID numbers, simply a ranking like we have now. I also believe that race should not be shown either.

Why have a Harvard, Yale, or Stanford when you can just have "Production Block 1", "Production Block 2", and "Production Block 3"?

I like how you hide your obvious desire to start an AA thread by including name anonymity, as if one's name is on the same level as one's race.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:I like how you hide your obvious desire to start an AA thread by including name anonymity, as if one's name is on the same level as one's race.

Name anonymity would be absolutely necessary to stop the selection by race or gender. It would be quite easy to determine who was native american, etc.

emmbar53 wrote:

secretad wrote:I would like to have a system with names as ID numbers with no race being shown and no gender being shown.

Would it not make the admissions process more fair?

Only if everyone had the same quality of upbringing/education. Equalizing one aspect that is meant to help those who (on average) received less benefits in other areas is NOT fair.

Rather it reemphasizes prior instances of unfairness.

(However, it should be noted that most law schools don't use this sort of justification in order to defend their affirmative action type policies.)

Well, I did not have the same quality upbringing/education as other people, yet I may be passed due to things I cannot handle. If I have a certain LSAT and gpa and another person has a lower LSAT and gpa, why is any factor given to gender/last name/race.

Last name is a huge deal if you are from a huge benefacting family at institutions.

secretad wrote:

MrPapagiorgio wrote:I like how you hide your obvious desire to start an AA thread by including name anonymity, as if one's name is on the same level as one's race.

Name anonymity would be absolutely necessary to stop the selection by race or gender. It would be quite easy to determine who was native american, etc.

emmbar53 wrote:

secretad wrote:I would like to have a system with names as ID numbers with no race being shown and no gender being shown.

Would it not make the admissions process more fair?

Only if everyone had the same quality of upbringing/education. Equalizing one aspect that is meant to help those who (on average) received less benefits in other areas is NOT fair.

Rather it reemphasizes prior instances of unfairness.

(However, it should be noted that most law schools don't use this sort of justification in order to defend their affirmative action type policies.)

Well, I did not have the same quality upbringing/education as other people, yet I may be passed due to things I cannot handle. If I have a certain LSAT and gpa and another person has a lower LSAT and gpa, why is any factor given to gender/last name/race.

Last name is a huge deal if you are from a huge benefacting family at institutions.

There's a reason I said ON AVERAGE. A system this large is not able to handle these issues on an individual basis.

On a side note, there is nothing wrong with being passed over for a job or a school because of something you can't handle. We don't let blind people drive buses or black people play George Washington in plays. There is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with judging people on the basis of involuntary characteristics. Though, of course, there is a debate to be had concerning whether such judging should be allowed in this circumstance.

secretad wrote:Name anonymity would be absolutely necessary to stop the selection by race or gender. It would be quite easy to determine who was native american, etc.

Tell that to Joe Smith (black), Reggie Cleveland (white), Billy Ray Bates (black), Jim Thorpe (Native American), and Jevan Snead (white).

emmbar53 wrote:

secretad wrote:Name anonymity would be absolutely necessary to stop the selection by race or gender. It would be quite easy to determine who was native american, etc.

Tell that to Joe Smith (black), Reggie Cleveland (white), Billy Ray Bates (black), Jim Thorpe (Native American), and Jevan Snead (white).

That does absolutely nothing to the argument LMAO. Removing ALL NAMES and REPLACING them with numbers would not harm a single person. How would it harm anybody to pick those without knowing what that person's gender/race/name is?

It is the most fair way to do it.

Emmbar, there are other exceptions as well. Tell a white man that grew up in Detroit in the middle class that he is at a disadvantage compared to a rich african-american or native-american when it comes to getting accepted into law schools because of the URM status. That is ridiculous is it not?

Let us take race/gender/names out of the picture.

secretad wrote:

emmbar53 wrote:

secretad wrote:Name anonymity would be absolutely necessary to stop the selection by race or gender. It would be quite easy to determine who was native american, etc.

Tell that to Joe Smith (black), Reggie Cleveland (white), Billy Ray Bates (black), Jim Thorpe (Native American), and Jevan Snead (white).

That does absolutely nothing to the argument LMAO. Removing ALL NAMES and REPLACING them with numbers would not harm a single person. How would it harm anybody to pick those without knowing what that person's gender/race/name is?

It is the most fair way to do it.

Emmbar, there are other exceptions as well. Tell a white man that grew up in Detroit in the middle class that he is at a disadvantage compared to a rich african-american or native-american when it comes to getting accepted into law schools because of the URM status. That is ridiculous is it not?

Let us take race/gender/names out of the picture.

The names weren't meant to be part of an argument. They're all pro athletes.

As for your second point, you haven't responded to my points.

1. By removing names/races, you are just maintaining a status quo of unequal options.
2. The system is too large to treat things on as specific of an individual basis as you want.

There are two options. Your option involves the maintaining of a tremendously unfair level of stratification. The option law schools currently take involves alleviating this problem in an imperfect way.

Honestly, your argument seems to be no more than "The system isn't perfect so we shouldn't use it."

I'm going to play devil's advocate on the pedigree thing. (I am not very biased; I will be the first of my family to go to law school.)

A dean of admissions recently discussed a different way to look at the "name" issue. He took too almost equal imaginary candidates, and had one be Applicant A, the son of two successful Law School X alum. The other was a Applicant B with no name, whose parents were teachers. He said that one of the reason for a bump in the guy with the Law School X pedigree was that his parent's donations would actually help the entire student body of Law School X including many other people such as Applicant B via financial aid. The key was to not give too many people with Applicant A's pedigree a bump in admissions without letting enough Applicant A's in.

He also mentioned that if Law School X rejected Applicant A, that they would expect zero future dollars from the parents, which has probably been proven true in his years in admissions.

It was an interesting point.

emmbar53 wrote:

secretad wrote:

emmbar53 wrote:

secretad wrote:Name anonymity would be absolutely necessary to stop the selection by race or gender. It would be quite easy to determine who was native american, etc.

Tell that to Joe Smith (black), Reggie Cleveland (white), Billy Ray Bates (black), Jim Thorpe (Native American), and Jevan Snead (white).

That does absolutely nothing to the argument LMAO. Removing ALL NAMES and REPLACING them with numbers would not harm a single person. How would it harm anybody to pick those without knowing what that person's gender/race/name is?

It is the most fair way to do it.

Emmbar, there are other exceptions as well. Tell a white man that grew up in Detroit in the middle class that he is at a disadvantage compared to a rich african-american or native-american when it comes to getting accepted into law schools because of the URM status. That is ridiculous is it not?

Let us take race/gender/names out of the picture.

The names weren't meant to be part of an argument. They're all pro athletes.

As for your second point, you haven't responded to my points.

1. By removing names/races, you are just maintaining a status quo of unequal options.
2. The system is too large to treat things on as specific of an individual basis as you want.

There are two options. Your option involves the maintaining of a tremendously unfair level of stratification. The option law schools currently take involves alleviating this problem in an imperfect way.

Honestly, your argument seems to be no more than "The system isn't perfect so we shouldn't use it."

Ok, no kidding they are pro athletes.

I will respond to your points.

1. The current system maintains a status quo of inequality among white middle class people, whose family members are essentially part of the working poor in this country.

Why is it fair for native americans to have a bump for fairness and not those white middle class people? There should NEVER EVER be a bump for one class of people over another.

Your argument is nothing more than "that would cause inequality among minorities wanting to go to law school" when in fact the same disadvantages you portray those minorities as having are also faced by white people.

Why can't the system not disclose names, race, or gender?

I feel it in my bones: this will finally be where TLS settles the national debate over affirmative action.

Are we going to also "anonymize" everyone's PS and DS?

also ibtl.

Definitely IBTL.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=145363

If you wish to talk about AA, please see the above link. It's been discussed ad nauseam.

Renzo wrote:I feel it in my bones: this will finally be where TLS settles the national debate over affirmative action.

Or maybe convince one person of something.

Secretad,

What you propose would, on average, maintain unfair inequalities. What law schools currently do, on average, establishes greater equality (through a leveling of the playing field).

You keep returning to the same argument. Yes, there are some white people who are negatively affected by this. But we are not talking about just specific cases here. We are talking about what has better effects on average.

You know what?

I'm tired of the AA debates. Locked.