Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
ObviousAlias
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:55 pm

Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby ObviousAlias » Thu May 09, 2013 3:38 pm

How strongly would an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the odds of non-URMS gaining admission to T14s?

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby bdubs » Thu May 09, 2013 3:49 pm

ObviousAlias wrote:How strongly would an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the odds of non-URMS gaining admission to T14s?


Very, very small. See what happened in CA and MI for a case study of why things won't really change.

Hrun
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby Hrun » Thu May 09, 2013 3:52 pm

Depends on the scope of their decision? Maybe they strike down the practice being used in undergrad admissions only. However, I thought it only affects the admission process for public schools. So private schools might be able to use it still (11 of 14).

User avatar
jtabustos
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby jtabustos » Thu May 09, 2013 3:53 pm

bdubs wrote:
ObviousAlias wrote:How strongly would an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the odds of non-URMS gaining admission to T14s?


Very, very small. See what happened in CA and MI for a case study of why things won't really change.


From CA here.

At the undergraduate level, Prop ?? in the 90's reduced URMs and increased Asian Americans and whites at the UC's.

I don't know about law school, however.

Why wouldn't an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the numbers?

User avatar
jtabustos
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby jtabustos » Thu May 09, 2013 3:57 pm

The one thing I will say is that it's possible that URMs may still be given "preferences" under other criteria like SES considerations. I think that many schools may use SES as a proxy for race considerations.

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby JamMasterJ » Thu May 09, 2013 4:06 pm

law schools know how to sidestep the issue.

El Principe
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:10 am

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby El Principe » Thu May 09, 2013 4:17 pm

I don't need affirmative action... 8)

User avatar
jas1503
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:27 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby jas1503 » Fri May 10, 2013 2:19 pm

AA is a scam anyway. Just another lazy social policy that gives half-assed consideration to the history of the groups that it's supposedly trying to serve the most. Similar to this law school URM-bump scam, all it does is give permission to people who are not oppressed in society to whine about how oppressed they think they are now.

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby nickb285 » Fri May 10, 2013 2:22 pm

Hey, I've got a great idea, let's start an argument about racially charged politics on the internet!

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby Yukos » Fri May 10, 2013 3:02 pm

I'm not a mod but I can tell you talking about whether AA is a good thing or not will get this thread locked fast and possibly result in a ban. AFAIK there's no problem with discussing the technical implications of AA being forbidden by SCOTUS.

At my high school in California everyone seemed pretty convinced that URMs would still get a boost but they had to signal in other ways -- they faced discrimination or grew up poor or whatever. Then again, my school had virtually no minorities except Asians so even the college advisors probably didn't have much experience with URM admissions.

User avatar
dawyzest1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby dawyzest1 » Fri May 10, 2013 3:57 pm

nickb285 wrote:Hey, I've got a great idea, let's start an argument about racially charged politics on the internet!


Thank you! Not only is going here prohibited in on-topic forums, but there's just little point in having a discussion about the merits of AA. We all kind of are where we are on it, and passionately.

As for the technical question around what the implications of a reversal will be, my expectation is that not much will change at all.

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

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby TaipeiMort » Fri May 10, 2013 4:31 pm

jas1503 wrote:AA is a scam anyway. Just another lazy social policy that gives half-assed consideration to the history of the groups that it's supposedly trying to serve the most. Similar to this law school URM-bump scam, all it does is give permission to people who are not oppressed in society to whine about how oppressed they think they are now.


+1000

It is immoral and unnecessary when upper-middle class African Americans claim URM boosts. It is like they are tacitly saying they are genetically stupider or have a crappier life situation than others-- both of which aren't true and lead to disgusting labels.

The diversity angle is garbage too. I've learned more from LGBT, Atheist, Southern Evangelical, and Libertarian classmates than any boost on race. There is no argument against this.

There is huge societal value to getting more indigent-type minorities into law school. But, there should be a way to differentiate.

User avatar
jas1503
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:27 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby jas1503 » Fri May 10, 2013 5:05 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
jas1503 wrote:AA is a scam anyway. Just another lazy social policy that gives half-assed consideration to the history of the groups that it's supposedly trying to serve the most. Similar to this law school URM-bump scam, all it does is give permission to people who are not oppressed in society to whine about how oppressed they think they are now.


+1000

It is immoral and unnecessary when upper-middle class African Americans claim URM boosts. It is like they are tacitly saying they are genetically stupider or have a crappier life situation than others-- both of which aren't true and lead to disgusting labels.

The diversity angle is garbage too. I've learned more from LGBT, Atheist, Southern Evangelical, and Libertarian classmates than any boost on race. There is no argument against this.

There is huge societal value to getting more indigent-type minorities into law school. But, there should be a way to differentiate.


While I agree with the bold, the rest of this post is part of the whining that I hinted at.

This thread is pointless.

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby Yukos » Fri May 10, 2013 5:12 pm

This thread just

Image

Lock incoming 3, 2, 1...

El Principe
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:10 am

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby El Principe » Fri May 10, 2013 10:23 pm

This will end well. :roll:

User avatar
VegasLaw702
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:40 am

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby VegasLaw702 » Sat May 11, 2013 4:06 am

El Principe wrote:I don't need affirmative action... 8)


I'll refrain from touching on that one since this thread is soon to be locked

User avatar
SisyphusHappy
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: Affirmative Action and SCOTUS

Postby SisyphusHappy » Sat May 11, 2013 6:13 am

Image

EDIT: What are the implications of a SCOTUS decision on African American gifs?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests