Top Law Schools

fatduck wrote:correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

I always thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct the imbalance in justice, wealth, education, housing options, educational opportunities, law enforcement protection, etc. that results when you let powerful institutions be controlled almost exclusively by racial-majority (and many times high standardized scoring) persons.

Not trying to correct you though. Just sharing what I thought.

LAWLAW09 wrote:

fatduck wrote:correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

I always thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct the imbalance in justice, wealth, education, housing options, educational opportunities, law enforcement protection, etc. that results when you let powerful institutions be controlled almost exclusively by racial-majority (and many times high standardized scoring) persons.

Not trying to correct you though. Just sharing what I thought.

okay. that also makes sense.

i guess what i was wondering is: if it's about incentivizing higher education for racial minorities, then it would seem like preferential financial aid would make more sense than preferential admissions. if it's about correcting imbalances in qualifications (because of standardized tests, and other factors that prevent racial minorities from being as "numerically qualified" as applicants), then preferential admissions makes sense, but it would seem like by that argument, low SES individuals (regardless of race) should get also preferential admissions.

i failed to consider your argument, however. even if you get more of the underrepresented population to attend colleges, you may not make substantive change in the most powerful institutions if you don't provide an advantage in admissions, since it's predominately schools in the highest echelon that place people into positions of real power. if that's the goal, then AA makes sense even for middle/upper-class minority applicants.

i hope that my post is civil enough for everyone.

aliarrow wrote:

Borhas wrote:the biggest difference between the affluent and the poor is that the affluent can get away with being stupid... if you are stupid and poor, well you are just SOL. Of course, environmental factors like poor diet, poor parenting during developmental periods can also lead to decreased mental function, and of course so does substance abuse...

pretty bad cycle, poverty sucks

but legit poverty is not something I've ever really experienced. I mean I've always had food, a decent upbringing, parents never abused drugs, etc... There's a really big opportunity gap between people that are in poverty, and people that grew up in "working class" families. Actual poverty consumes most people it touches, even if they would have otherwise been good productive people in another environment.

This thread makes me want to rent Trading Places.

And I agree, it's much harder to detect stupidity when it's veiled by at least proper english and mannerisms provided by the upper middle class environment.

I don't want to do one of those "I'm going to refer to studies but I'm not going to cite them" deals... but

one of the things that a "high IQ" can provide is the ability to resist environmental pressures... if you have low "IQ" then you'll succumb to environmental pressures easily. This means those in relatively healthy environments can get away with having a low IQ, while those in unhealthy environments won't be be so lucky.

at least so goes one theory

fatduck wrote:

LAWLAW09 wrote:

fatduck wrote:correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

I always thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct the imbalance in justice, wealth, education, housing options, educational opportunities, law enforcement protection, etc. that results when you let powerful institutions be controlled almost exclusively by racial-majority (and many times high standardized scoring) persons.

Not trying to correct you though. Just sharing what I thought.

okay. that also makes sense.

i guess what i was wondering is: if it's about incentivizing higher education for racial minorities, then it would seem like preferential financial aid would make more sense than preferential admissions. if it's about correcting imbalances in qualifications (because of standardized tests, and other factors that prevent racial minorities from being as "numerically qualified" as applicants), then preferential admissions makes sense, but it would seem like by that argument, low SES individuals (regardless of race) should get also preferential admissions.

i failed to consider your argument, however. even if you get more of the underrepresented population to attend colleges, you may not make substantive change in the most powerful institutions if you don't provide an advantage in admissions, since it's predominately schools in the highest echelon that place people into positions of real power. if that's the goal, then AA makes sense even for middle/upper-class minority applicants.

i hope that my post is civil enough for everyone.

It (including your previous one) is certainly civil enough for me. Good luck.

aliarrow wrote: This thread makes me want to rent Trading Places.

Love that movie since it's set here. I used to admire the Union League from afar.

LAWLAW09 wrote:

fatduck wrote:correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

I always thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct the imbalance in justice, wealth, education, housing options, educational opportunities, law enforcement protection, etc. that results when you let powerful institutions be controlled almost exclusively by racial-majority (and many times high standardized scoring) persons.

Not trying to correct you though. Just sharing what I thought.

But if powerful institutions are controlled by racial majorities then how does it help people to give the underrepped a boost at admissions time? I'm not suggesting that it's incorrect to give boosts, but it seems like if the point is to compensate for institutional imbalances, then accomodating admissions criteria don't really provide that much benefit by moving a negligible amount of the population into an even more tightly controlled environment, particularly if the preceding circumstances don't prepare them (crap elementary schools, crap middle schools, crap high schools).

@firemed I didn't mean you in particular, sorry if it seemed that way. Maybe just from the undergrad I went to and the people I work with, but it seems like most people feel like they are entitled to it or that their parents have failed them in some way if they don't get it. I had roommates in college who would tell me to go out with them and just be completely confused as to why I would be working if I had parents. And I get that it sucks to work before and throughout undergrad (I think in HS even doing full time min wage/slightly above min wage work I had like 8k saved up which paid for...two courses) but it seems like there's a pretty huge benefit to saying at 18 you are responsible for yourself. I probably would not have been able to get the job I did when I graduated if I hadn't had to work through school, and it's a lot easier to figure out financial things or make responsible choices because I know there's nobody I can ask for help. But then again I don't know what it's like to be a parent and love someone as much as you probably love your kid, so if I ever have any, I'lll probably end up coddling them till their social security kicks in.

TheStrand wrote:But if powerful institutions are controlled by racial majorities then how does it help people to give the underrepped a boost at admissions time? I'm not suggesting that it's incorrect to give boosts, but it seems like if the point is to compensate for institutional imbalances, then accomodating admissions criteria don't really provide that much benefit by moving a negligible amount of the population into an even more tightly controlled environment, particularly if the preceding circumstances don't prepare them (crap elementary schools, crap middle schools, crap high schools).

To help make those industries less dominated by the racial majorities? And while preceding circumstances such as poor education will definitely affect someone's ability to thrive in a college environment, I've always assumed that admissions counselor pick students based on potential. I went to a terribly poor school in an inner-city, was one of two who went to college, and yet I managed to do pretty well and am now at a top law school. I think if many of my high school friends hadn't been ruined by family problems/substance abuse/etc. they also could've thrived in college, although it would've taken a lot of time and effort.

TheStrand wrote: @firemed I didn't mean you in particular, sorry if it seemed that way. Maybe just from the undergrad I went to and the people I work with, but it seems like most people feel like they are entitled to it or that their parents have failed them in some way if they don't get it. I had roommates in college who would tell me to go out with them and just be completely confused as to why I would be working if I had parents. And I get that it sucks to work before and throughout undergrad (I think in HS even doing full time min wage/slightly above min wage work I had like 8k saved up which paid for...two courses) but it seems like there's a pretty huge benefit to saying at 18 you are responsible for yourself. I probably would not have been able to get the job I did when I graduated if I hadn't had to work through school, and it's a lot easier to figure out financial things or make responsible choices because I know there's nobody I can ask for help. But then again I don't know what it's like to be a parent and love someone as much as you probably love your kid, so if I ever have any, I'lll probably end up coddling them till their social security kicks in.

I'll definitely agree with the bolded. But taking care of yourself/working during high school and college isn't mutually exclusive with parental help for college. Obviously it's amazing when parents can provide for their children, but in situations where they can't, isn't that why there's financial aid?

TheStrand wrote: But if powerful institutions are controlled by racial majorities then how does it help people to give the underrepped a boost at admissions time? I'm not suggesting that it's incorrect to give boosts, but it seems like if the point is to compensate for institutional imbalances, then accomodating admissions criteria don't really provide that much benefit by moving a negligible amount of the population into an even more tightly controlled environment, particularly if the preceding circumstances don't prepare them (crap elementary schools, crap middle schools, crap high schools).

By slowly and continuously feeding underrepresented folks into power institutions, eventually they will get into position of power, and they will do more to represent their interest - their racial groups. I don't know if that's a good fix, but you have to consider why underrepresented group (blacks) came to become underrepresented. It isn't so much that blacks lack in numbers, it is that historically they have been shut out of political, economical, and social representation at the power level, for the last few hundreds of years. Their interests were not legally represented for a long time, and then their interests were legalized, but still not represented in any meaningful way. Instead of a drastic movement to provide a better balance (think the failed reconstruction), we are not slowly, over the next 100-200 years (?) to bring back their representation. Democracy in this country are driven by interests groups, sub groups of our society, so by allowing more access to the power layer, it will slowly change the dynamics and landscape at the top, and hopefully they will shape a better outlook for the rest of the underrepresented.

fatduck wrote: i failed to consider your argument, however. even if you get more of the underrepresented population to attend colleges, you may not make substantive change in the most powerful institutions if you don't provide an advantage in admissions, since it's predominately schools in the highest echelon that place people into positions of real power. if that's the goal, then AA makes sense even for middle/upper-class minority applicants.

i hope that my post is civil enough for everyone.

Just keep in mind the cost/benefits at the margin for such policies. This significantly impacts whether there are superior alternatives.

Also, there is a strong correlation between aid and admissions. In a regression model admissions can be seen as the cut off point with financial aid a linear function beyond that.

Borhas wrote:I don't want to do one of those "I'm going to refer to studies but I'm not going to cite them" deals... but

one of the things that a "high IQ" can provide is the ability to resist environmental pressures... if you have low "IQ" then you'll succumb to environmental pressures easily. This means those in relatively healthy environments can get away with having a low IQ, while those in unhealthy environments won't be be so lucky.

at least so goes one theory

The link I posted said just that (but with statistics.) The lowest test scorers in the upper class have a higher likelihood of college graduation than the highest test scorers in the lower class. This is for individuals (aggregates would be exponentially more skewed towards the rich.)


Note: This thread is quickly turning into an AA debate. So far it's been civil but it's getting more dangerous with each additional post...

Figure A shows the percentage of people who have completed a college degree. It groups them into quartiles (groups of 25%) based on their performance in 8th grade mathematics and their SES. There are three test score groups—low score (kids scoring in the bottom quartile), middle score (kids scoring in the two middle quartiles), and high score (kids scoring in the top quartile). In each test score group (low, middle, and high) there are three bars shown, one for those in the bottom quartile in terms of SES (low income), one for those in the two middle quartiles in SES (middle income), and one for those in the top quartile (high income).

--ImageRemoved--

The figure shows great disparities in college completion based on socioeconomic status. The worst scoring students from high SES families complete college as frequently as the best students from low SES families. Only 29% of high-achieving kids belonging to the lowest SES quartile obtained a bachelor's degree, compared to 74% of high-achieving kids in the top SES quartile. This success rate for high-aptitude poor students (29%) is less than the success rate for students with the lowest aptitude from the top SES families. Of these well-off but less academically meritorious students, 30% completed a bachelor's degree even though they had scored in the bottom quartile in 8th grade math.

I would like to point out that a bottom 10% bachelor's degree is nothing like a top 10% bachelor's degree in any aspect other than the name. We should probably look at earning power throughout adulthood as a better indicator than degree attainment.

r6_philly wrote:I would like to point out that a bottom 10% bachelor's degree is nothing like a top 10% bachelor's degree in any aspect other than the name. We should probably look at earning power throughout adulthood as a better indicator than degree attainment.

Agreed. But the statistics point in the exact same direction for that criteria too.

Bachelor's degree attainment is frequently used because it's easier to isolate variables and use control/experimental groups.

Moxie wrote: To help make those industries less dominated by the racial majorities? And while preceding circumstances such as poor education will definitely affect someone's ability to thrive in a college environment, I've always assumed that admissions counselor pick students based on potential. I went to a terribly poor school in an inner-city, was one of two who went to college, and yet I managed to do pretty well and am now at a top law school. I think if many of my high school friends hadn't been ruined by family problems/substance abuse/etc. they also could've thrived in college, although it would've taken a lot of time and effort.

That's what I mean though. If you come from crap circumstances and you have family issues, even if the admissions process helps you get in, once you're in school you're still affected by those circumstances, which can derail you no matter what your potential is. Or even if you are not poor, if academic testing is inherently racially biased, or if there are institutional factors preventing you from success (not having connections to get a job say, or interviewers' bias, or geographical issues), then you're still in an environment where you're more likely to fail. I just don't feel like the admissions boost alone can impact whether the industry is less dominated by majorities because once you get in you still have to jump through a series of hoops where you might not continue to get consideration.

@r6 I suppose I'm just impatient for that institutional change to happen. There's still only one female Biglaw name partner and women have been allowed to go to law school since the early 1900s. Though I admit that is partially out of self-selection.

Have I welcomed us into the danger zone?

TheStrand wrote:

firemed wrote: The college fund I would have had would have been invaluable.

I really don't understand college funds. Why do most people feel entitled to this? If you're going to college you're probably around 18, you should have been working for about two years, and you should take financial responsibility for yourself especially since you're going to reap the benefit of better career opportunities. Why is it the parents' responsibility to make sure the kid gets this paid for? I'm always readings these things about how terrible the economy is that parents can't pay for their kids' college and the kid drops out (loans??). Or how high income people feel like they're struggling because their kids go to expensive colleges. I honestly don't mean this in a combative way, I just really don't understand why it's expected that a "good" parent would pay for this. Or to a lesser extent, why parents pay for their kids' JDs or other graduate level studies on top of this.

Legal age of an adult =/= capabilities of an adult.

EVEN IF I had put away every single cent of the two years of work I managed to get a hold of while I was in high school, it would never have amounted to even the first year cost of tuition at the local state university. You don't make much, and you don't get many hours. And don't even get me started on loans. Go shop around an 18 year-old student to some student loan companies and see if anybody bites. They won't.

pwyoung wrote: Legal age of an adult =/= capabilities of an adult.

EVEN IF I had put away every single cent of the two years of work I managed to get a hold of while I was in high school, it would never have amounted to even the first year cost of tuition at the local state university. You don't make much, and you don't get many hours. And don't even get me started on loans. Go shop around an 18 year-old student to some student loan companies and see if anybody bites. They won't.

I'm not saying you would be able to pay the entire cost flat out. I am doubtful any of the parents who pay for their kids' college costs pay for them outright. You would also have to work through college and take out loans. And there were quite a few lenders who were willing to make easy cash off of me when I took them out at 18. No shortage of lenders willing to lend even larger amounts to students going straight from undergrad w/o work experience to fourth tier law schools either. It is also a bit silly to say that because you couldn't afford to pay for the entire cost of something upfront, your parents, who likely also do not have that ability should do so for you.

TheStrand wrote:

pwyoung wrote: Legal age of an adult =/= capabilities of an adult.

EVEN IF I had put away every single cent of the two years of work I managed to get a hold of while I was in high school, it would never have amounted to even the first year cost of tuition at the local state university. You don't make much, and you don't get many hours. And don't even get me started on loans. Go shop around an 18 year-old student to some student loan companies and see if anybody bites. They won't.

I'm not saying you would be able to pay the entire cost flat out. I am doubtful any of the parents who pay for their kids' college costs pay for them outright. You would also have to work through college and take out loans. And there were quite a few lenders who were willing to make easy cash off of me when I took them out at 18. No shortage of lenders willing to lend even larger amounts to students going straight from undergrad w/o work experience to fourth tier law schools either. It is also a bit silly to say that because you couldn't afford to pay for the entire cost of something upfront, your parents, who likely also do not have that ability should do so for you.

It's a question of opportunity cost. The more time you spend working the less you have studying. There is a correlation between studying and grades (though wiggle room does exist.)

It makes sense for a student to not work while in school because what they will earn in the future is almost certainly higher than the interest rate on loans. In other words: In the future if your work is worth 5x menial labor you will use far less time to pay off your debts -- even with interest. This is also why it is so much easier for parents to pay for their child's education + if they save money they can actually gain interest.

This doesn't mean work is essentially bad. As long as a person does not work a significant amount to deter from their education it can be a good thing. It really shouldn't be looked at as a way to pay for a person's education.

r6_philly wrote:I got WLed by UCLA despite having called the LA streets home, and having numbers above both 75's.

In the end, everyone likes my stories, but I feel that I am not better off in the application process than if I had come from a middle class family. But it's ok. Most people with poorer upbringings develop determination and strong work ethnic, or they wouldn't be able to make it this far, graduating college and applying to law school. Aside from the debt/cost, we are probably less disadvantaged than traditional students because of our life lessons and what we learned through them. At least I hope so.

+1 also waitlisted by UCLA as a URM candidate (Black/male) and applied ED. I grew up in extreme poverty in probably the worst neighborhood in Chicago. My mother was a single parent for most of my life and she was hit by a drunk driver, causing her to become disabled. My brother was shot in the head in front of our apartment building, and over one five month period we had over 80 murders (in a neighborhood of 40,000). Looking at LSP I thought i was in for sure and I actually wondered if my application was just crap. but that same application got me into 6 of the top 10 law schools in America. I think UCLA is just tough to understand. They know what they want and that's who they go after.

In my experience applying as an underprivileged applicant, it helps to disclose as much financial information as possible to allow the admissions to consider your scholarship option. Law schools will admit you in hopes that they will be able to retain you, and they will try to accommodate as much as they can.

Also to note: Put yourself in the best possible position to merit such scholarship. It's a lot easier for someone to fight for you if you have solid academic achievements than simply being poor.

This thread is kind of depressing, but I'm happy to see that there are many other high-achieving students from low socio-economic backgrounds

Something that really shocked/surprised me was when I visited Yale Law (my 90% likely law school choice) a few weeks ago. The students all seemed warm, friendly, and whatnot at first, but then when they asked me what college I went to and I mentioned my big state school they sort of got a bit condescending--"why would you ever choose that school; I don't know of anyone here who ever went there." When I talked about my financial situation and background and how that limited me to a big state school that would give me a big scholarship (at the time I was applying for undergrad, I wasn't aware that the Harvards of the world are so generous to low income students), everyone got a bit distant and it almost seemed like they looked down at me.

Now of course not everyone at Yale, or Harvard, or wherever is like this, but you would think that these students who have supposedly done so much community service in low-income areas and less-developed countries would know that just because someone might not have the money to take violin lessons or go to an Ivy undergrad or take vacations in Paris, doesn't mean that he isn't a well-educated, hard-working student who might very well deserve all those things.

Anyway, not to sound corny, but a pat on the back to all of you guys Que vivan los nacos!

aliarrow wrote:The worst part is that I'm a white male (in case the trailer park thing didn't give that away). No diversity honors programs, no special scholarships, no URM boost. Most of the AAs I've seen participate in this kind of stuff come from middle class suburban backgrounds, and yes, it does make me a little bitter. But I don't want this to turn into any sort of AA debate.

I can empathize. I'm white, my father's dead and my mother lives 6 hours away and lives below the poverty line. Shopped at yard sales and thrift stores, at typical poor foods, we had food stamps for a while. I've been working odd jobs since I was 15 and paid my own way through undergrad, now I'm working as a paralegal, making ends meet two years after graduation. I get upset that so many people from the middle class and upper class get to beef up their apps because their skin is a couple shades darker. I'm a tad bitter as well, again not trying to turn it into an AA debate.

Though, I get frustrated because I know that I'd have done better in college if my parents had an education and instilled that desire in me from a younger age... that and I didn't work 25 hours a week while in school. But I can't really blame my parents. I think sometimes it just takes a wake up call to make you pay attention, much like the past two years have with me. And out of my entire extended family on both sides, I'll be the first one to ever get a post-graduate degree. And considering only like 2 others have a Bachelors, I'm kind of proud of myself, even if I'm not getting into a T14.

You can change your social economical status, you can't change your skin color. I should be the most bitter since I have an AA social/familial identity for the last 18 years (but have the wrong skin color), but I am not - because I really understand.

crossarmant wrote:

aliarrow wrote:The worst part is that I'm a white male (in case the trailer park thing didn't give that away). No diversity honors programs, no special scholarships, no URM boost. Most of the AAs I've seen participate in this kind of stuff come from middle class suburban backgrounds, and yes, it does make me a little bitter. But I don't want this to turn into any sort of AA debate.

I can empathize. I'm white, my father's dead and my mother lives 6 hours away and lives below the poverty line. Shopped at yard sales and thrift stores, at typical poor foods, we had food stamps for a while. I've been working odd jobs since I was 15 and paid my own way through undergrad, now I'm working as a paralegal, making ends meet two years after graduation. I get upset that so many people from the middle class and upper class get to beef up their apps because their skin is a couple shades darker. I'm a tad bitter as well, again not trying to turn it into an AA debate.

Though, I get frustrated because I know that I'd have done better in college if my parents had an education and instilled that desire in me from a younger age... that and I didn't work 25 hours a week while in school. But I can't really blame my parents. I think sometimes it just takes a wake up call to make you pay attention, much like the past two years have with me. And out of my entire extended family on both sides, I'll be the first one to ever get a post-graduate degree. And considering only like 2 others have a Bachelors, I'm kind of proud of myself, even if I'm not getting into a T14.

Try to recall that having to deal with racism and discrimination would have made everything you accomplished even harder to go through. Be thankful that through all your trials (which, btw, are impressive that you came through so well, and are accomplishing so much) you didn't have to worry about being pulled over and harassed for being the wrong skin color, or having job opportunities denied to you because of your race. Cuz that shit still happens, unfortunately.

firemed wrote:Try to recall that having to deal with racism and discrimination would have made everything you accomplished even harder to go through. Be thankful that through all your trials (which, btw, are impressive that you came through so well, and are accomplishing so much) you didn't have to worry about being pulled over and harassed for being the wrong skin color, or having job opportunities denied to you because of your race. Cuz that shit still happens, unfortunately.

I understand that there is racism, I've been in an inter-racial relationship with my fiancee for 7 years now. But it's not as glaring of an issue as socio-economic status. This isn't the 60s. Sure, if you're a minority and poor I'm sure it confounds things, however if you're upper-middle class and a minority, I'm sure your chances of success are significantly better than a honky in a trailer. I'm not discarding race as being an issue, but I've always felt that economic issues regardless of race were far more powerful when it comes to success.

I have seen lots of scholarships now that though historically or usually for minorities will offer and welcome people of all racial backgrounds. To apply if they have a compelling story.

Bump. I think this thread got off track from the get go. Can any other people that come from low-income backgrounds explain if they think this helped your cycles at the T-14? Did you outperform your numbers? I am sure I am not the only one wondering how much of a factor this is in law school admissions.