T14s accept 70-80 URMs per year? 50 URMs score >170? Forum

[Kohinoor]

If we are to talk, let us begin from a position of truth. LSAC doesn't require anything of law schools with regard to minority admission rates. The programs are conceived and operated by the individual law schools.

What do you suggest then?

Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934372123648583.html

An opinion piece by an author with a clear anti-affirmative action agenda whose sources do not exist when checked but do link to an equally opinionated website. I'll comment further when I actually get to see some of the evidence that has thus far proven impossible to obtain.

[Kohinoor]

If we are to talk, let us begin from a position of truth. LSAC doesn't require anything of law schools with regard to minority admission rates. The programs are conceived and operated by the individual law schools.

What do you suggest then?

Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934372123648583.html

Please link to a source where the claims of the author can be verified. None of her sources actually link to anything.

[egghead]

.

[lawdog]

URM admissions is NOT just about the numbers at the T14's. I'm a URM 2L at HLS, and my LSAT and GPA (from a top Ivy) were above 170 & 3.7 respectively. My apps were solid as were my LOR's, but I didn't get into Yale and Stanford while other URM's with lower numbers did. So what does that tell you about the thought process exercised by the T-14's when it comes to admitting URM's?

I think this point was skipped. Wanted to Bump it.

[Kohinoor]

Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934372123648583.html

Please link to a source where the claims of the author can be verified. None of her sources actually link to anything.

As I recall, you made the original assertion, so I'm not sure why you haven't backed it up with cited sources. But since you asked, here is another piece with more details:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007954
And since you seem to think the wall street journal has no fact checking - he also testified to the CCR. Their complete report is here:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/AALSreport.pdf
With commentary here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... -on-c.html
Which contains the quote from the CCR press release: "The Commission criticizes the ABA standard because it 'substitutes the judgment of the Council for that of the law schools in deciding whether diversity is essential to their educational mission.'"
Obviously, everyone who testified had a viewpoint, as I'm sure members of the CCR did, but it's hard to make the assertion that the ABA isn't pressing for AA.
And a few more for good measure:
http://www.law.com/jsp/mlj/PubArticleML ... ype=Survey
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006 ... ivilrights
which links to this:
http://www.abanet.org/media/legaled/hod210_212.pdf

Google is a wonderful thing.
Even if you don't believe that the ABA is bullying law schools into having AA, the existence of that policy shows they're not unbiased on the issue.
And just so we're clear, I haven't expressed an opinion on AA - but the ABA, a "governing authority," clearly has.

The new first article you link provides no support for the assertions in the original article you linked. That's too bad because, unlike these other articles, the Heriot article at least provided concrete (if unsupported) statements of the ABA strong-arming a specific school into admitting minorities. Once we toss that out, we turn to this general testimony and allegations that the ABA has a vested interest in affirmative action.

Looking at the criticized proposition:
“a law school shall demonstrate, by concrete action, a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a study body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”
it does not require law schools to meet a quota or use affirmative action at all. The only testimony to the contrary was speculation from interested parties. In all of the testimony, I failed to see a single person make allegations of actual ABA imposition of AA.

I see them pressing for diversity, not AA. The Commission criticizes them for their emphasis on diversity. Let's not conflate the two practices.

It's actually pretty easy to argue that the ABA isn't pressing for AA considering that we have no evidence of them... pressing for AA.

The ABA is almost certainly pro-AA. That has nothing to do with claims that they force that view on institutions.

Please check your articles more carefully. Google is indeed a wonderful thing, but you can't google "affirmative action" and just use the first 5 articles as supporting evidence without reading them.

[Kant]

I did not know that. That annoys the hell out of me.

[egghead]

.

[Kohinoor]

A major newspaper published a concrete allegation of the ABA forcing AA on GMU (the first article I linked) and an article explaining the mechanism they use to do that (the second article). I have not seen a rebuttal from the ABA. If that's not enough evidence for you then we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece which was never backed up with falsifiable facts. I have in fact seen the rebuttal from the ABA but didn't link it because I ignore unsubstantiated opinions when trying to prove facts.

[egghead]

.

[Kohinoor]

A major newspaper published a concrete allegation of the ABA forcing AA on GMU (the first article I linked) and an article explaining the mechanism they use to do that (the second article). I have not seen a rebuttal from the ABA. If that's not enough evidence for you then we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece which was never backed up with falsifiable facts. I have in fact seen the rebuttal from the ABA but didn't link it because I ignore unsubstantiated opinions when trying to prove facts.

These were the original documents from the ABA to GMU in 2001, which is when they were cited the first time. They specifially cite as concern GMU's non-compliance with standard 211. As you said, standard 211 does not specify a quota, but apparently one is implied (or read into it) if it can be cited as a reason for concern, particularly when the school is already demonstrating effort in achieving diversity.
--LinkRemoved--

I would honestly be interested in seeing the ABA rebuttal if you are able to find it - apparently google is less awesome than I thought because I wasn't able to. I'd be curious to see what their take is.

Interesting. It seems that their diversity crisis was one of many issues that the reviewers mentioned in their accreditation checks. Hierot failed to mention that. Also, still don't see any signs of the ABA even obliquely requesting that they AA harder.

http://m.insidehighered.com/news/2008/06/26/gmu

Olivas, who has participated in ABA accreditation site visits, said the attacks on the diversity standard as applied to Mason were "very unfair and very misleading" because of the small sample size and suggested that minority students at a law school like George Mason might not feel welcome. "I think the support program has made a difference and I think the appropriate admissions standards for a top-40 law school have also made a difference," LaPaille said of the law school's more recent efforts.

[egghead]

.

[Kohinoor]

Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.

[rundoxierun]

Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.

Where the hell did you get that from??? I seriously, seriously doubt its true that number of black test takers in the 170s is in the hundreds all of a sudden. From less than 30 in 2004 to over 100 in 2009??

EDIT: Before you even answer.. I know for a FACT that last years cycle had only around 50 black applicants with 3.5+ GPA/165+ LSAT and only 1 Applicant with 3.5+ GPA/175+ LSAT. No way the data is complete for this year, so whoever told you this is NOT in the know.

[Ragged]

Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.

[rundoxierun]

Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.

Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...

[Ragged]

Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.

Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...

why wouldn't it?

[Na_Swatch]

Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.

Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...

why wouldn't it?

Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?

[stratocophic]

Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.

Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...

why wouldn't it?

Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?

Only works for the borderline candidates. There are a lot of people throwing Hail Marys at YHSC and I'd imagine a lot of adcomms mentally at their apps. 8000 - Hail Mary candidates = ?, but probably still not enough of a difference to matter. Also, above poster, you committed a percentage fail (or so your post would suggest) worth two orders of magnitude. That's 0.625%, not 0.00625%. That makes your odds a little better when adjusted, but it's still only going to be 1/20, or 5%, if there are 400 candidates that are close and you are among those 400. Not enough to be an appreciable difference.

[rundoxierun]

Only 50? Damn. If thats the case, I wonder how much easier it would be for non-URMs to get into top schools (espessially top 5) if there was no URM boost... I imagine a lot.

Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...

why wouldn't it?

Not gonna say for sure it wouldnt stay constant but I know A LOT of money is thrown around by LSAC and other organizations to push diversity in law schools. It wouldnt surprise me at all if some of those seats were specifically for URM students.. of course no school will come out and say it

[LjakW]

According to http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/au ... te-AA.html, (which might be a racist website, I can't tell, but he quotes to LSAC reports):"in 2007–2008 there were only 16 Blacks nationwide who scored at 168 or above." There's a lot more data in the article for those who want to try to verify this info.

[rundoxierun]

According to http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/au ... te-AA.html, (which might be a racist website, I can't tell, but he quotes to LSAC reports):"in 2007–2008 there were only 16 Blacks nationwide who scored at 168 or above." There's a lot more data in the article for those who want to try to verify this info.

Ehh that guy arrives at that number using a statistical technique to estimate 2 standard deviations above the mean. That kind of technique assumes perfect normal distribution, in this case its pretty close to normal but not 100%. His number is definitely an underestimate but not by a huge amount. Idk if anyone outside of LSAC has access to data for 168, I was only told LSAT data in units of 5. I dont think the guy is racist but the language he uses definitely shows that he doesnt understand the reasons behind the differences in means. People like him need to realize that unofficial(non-legalized) segregation took place in a lot of areas into the 1970s. 35ish years is not a very long time.

[Na_Swatch]

Dont assume that the number of seats would remain constant...

why wouldn't it?

Doesn't really make sense. lets just take one school, say Harvard for example:

Each year there are probably ~40 AA admits and ~30 Hispanic, AI I think is far fewer. We round it off to say around 80 URM. Now usually there are 1/4~1/2 of the URM who have actual median/ near median numbers so they would get in anyways.

This leaves an extra of say 50~60 slots. Divide that by the applicant pool of 8000, and you get a 0.00625 increase in your chances at admittance. So much easier huh?

Only works for the borderline candidates. There are a lot of people throwing Hail Marys at YHSC and I'd imagine a lot of adcomms mentally at their apps. 8000 - Hail Mary candidates = ?, but probably still not enough of a difference to matter. Also, above poster, you committed a percentage fail (or so your post would suggest) worth two orders of magnitude. That's 0.625%, not 0.00625%. That makes your odds a little better when adjusted, but it's still only going to be 1/20, or 5%, if there are 400 candidates that are close and you are among those 400. Not enough to be an appreciable difference.

Yeah, numbers were rough but even adjusted with a bunch of stuff, its still a very small increase in chances.

However, the one making the math mistake is you haha, I said a chance of 0.00625 which is the equivalent of saying 0.625% (Adding a % sign is the equivalent of multiplying by 0.01 in probability, if you just say chance then the straight probability out of 1 is taken)

[Kohinoor]

Thread necromancy for the greater good. According to someone in the know, recent data puts the number of black test takers in the 170s in the low 3 figures.

Where the hell did you get that from??? I seriously, seriously doubt its true that number of black test takers in the 170s is in the hundreds all of a sudden. From less than 30 in 2004 to over 100 in 2009??

EDIT: Before you even answer.. I know for a FACT that last years cycle had only around 50 black applicants with 3.5+ GPA/165+ LSAT and only 1 Applicant with 3.5+ GPA/175+ LSAT. No way the data is complete for this year, so whoever told you this is NOT in the know.

My source is more credible than yours, but I've established a strong policy of not arguing with any fact that a pre-matriculate knows to be true ^_^

[Kohinoor]

According to http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/au ... te-AA.html, (which might be a racist website, I can't tell, but he quotes to LSAC reports):"in 2007–2008 there were only 16 Blacks nationwide who scored at 168 or above." There's a lot more data in the article for those who want to try to verify this info.

Rest assured that it's a racist website. Moreover, the author appears to own a racial supremacy book publishing company?

[mpasi]

Wow, only 40-50 black URMs score over 170 each year. That is quite shocking actually. Makes you wonder what the explanation is. Maybe it is just the fact, that as a URM, being aware that if you have a half decent GPA from a half decent college, something in the lower 160 will probably suffice to get you into a T20, if not T10 school. So consequently, URMs just take it easy on the LSAT.

This is not meant to start any controvesy (hell, if I could get into Chicago wih a 162, why would I study my ass off to get a 170?!? It's just human nature).

You are mistaking something: I don't think URMS will say, "I can get into law schools easier than the rest of the population... so I won't study!"

There is a statistically significant lagging in the scores of URMs (in MCATS/PCATS/LSATS). It's important to keep a socio-context when thinking about these things into consideration.

Just like with any group there's going to be variation. I'm a URM who did a significant amount of prep for the LSAT and scored much higher than I needed. Likewise, I've heard another URM talk about how they only needed to score so high to get into the grad program they wanted. I've also heard a rich white kid say he doesn't have to worry about his grades or his test scores because his father is alumni and a major donor. I find the latter scenario to be the most disturbing even though its the least talked about.

+1
I find it interesting how some people get so upset or disturbed over AA admissions yet I never hear a peep about legacy admissions and other admission policies which essentially reward people for being born to the right family with the right income and connections etc. But I’m sure there’s a good reason for this disparity.

Don't forget out of state applicants. They get a preference over the in-state kids.