Levels of Minority Representation in the T-14 Forum

[Iam3hunna]

Have you really spoken with every black and Hispanic applicant on this subject?

This. His comment was absurd. There's people who certainly know, then there's those who have a fuzzy idea that being black may help, but even then I know a couple of the latter who refused to apply to certain top schools because their stats were "significantly below median".

So you mean you know under-qualified students who decided not to apply to schools that were not qualified for? That's strange, indeed.

Yes because they were clearly under-qualified.

And you mean to tell me that you actually DON'T know every Black and Hispanic? Or you sticking with that claim?

[SCOTUSorBust]

URM, slightly new TLS poster and lurker. I spent almost my entire undergraduate life thinking I would go to a regional law school. I took the LSAT in October of my senior year and I have a 3.67 gpa. It wasn't until December of my senior year that I understood the AA boost. For the 2010 entering class there were only 63 African American students who had an LSAT score of 165+ and a gpa of 3.5+. After figuring that out, I blanketed the whole T-14. I have gotten into a couple, wait listed from some, no huge scholarships yet, but I'm still waiting patiently to see how this cycle might turn out. Now that I know what position I am in I am considering retaking the LSAT and re-applying next cycle. But I also have AA friends who have LSAT's slightly lower than mine and gpa's lower than mine who got full-ride at T6's.

I think many AA's aren't fully aware of the AA boost, so they give up or settle before even really starting the process. Also AA applicants may get into a T-14 school, but the money may not be there for them if they are in the bottom percentile's for the schools they are getting into, so they may go to a lower tier school where they can get $$.

What kind of numbers are we talking for these t6 full rides? Are we sure it's not the anbryce or rtk? Afaik those aren't straight meritt scholarships. After you get accepted it's more about demonstrated commitment than having the best numbers.

I'm talking full tuition at Columbia with less than a 3.2 gpa and less than a 164 LSAT.

The fuck? Yo 3.29 173 AA male here. Where the fuck is my Hamilton.

AA Male here. It is precisely this attitude that has really irks people w/r/t "boosts."

[A. Nony Mouse]

Have you really spoken with every black and Hispanic applicant on this subject?

This. His comment was absurd. There's people who certainly know, then there's those who have a fuzzy idea that being black may help, but even then I know a couple of the latter who refused to apply to certain top schools because their stats were "significantly below median".

So you mean you know under-qualified students who decided not to apply to schools that were not qualified for? That's strange, indeed.

You're moving the goalposts. The issue was whether they knew about the bump. This was an example of people who didn't know that the bump would get them into certain schools, not of people who knew and decided not to take advantage of it.

[unholycow]

removed

[Iam3hunna]

AA Male here. It is precisely this attitude that has really irks people w/r/t "boosts."

Yea because JNWA was probably super serial.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yet again - if it's all because black and Hispanic families don't emphasize law/higher ed, why don't they though? Is it genetic? What about blacks/Hispanics makes them law averse?

joeant, how about you answer this? And you're not allowed to answer "culture" without actually explaining what causes that culture.

Still can't answer this?

[sflyr2016]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I actually agree that counting on an AA boost is probably a factor in this whole mess. But you get that your school doesn't represent the sum total of black/Hispanic students knowledge about the URM boost, right? And that there is a lot more behind the issue of minority underrepresentation than only taking a test once?

[Iam3hunna]

I actually agree that counting on an AA boost is probably a factor in this whole mess. But you get that your school doesn't represent the sum total of black/Hispanic students knowledge about the URM boost, right? And that there is a lot more behind the issue of minority underrepresentation than only taking a test once?

This. I'm not disagreeing that the boost might persuade some from not applying. But there are definitely Black/hispanic folk out there who don't really grasp it. Bad advice is often sometimes to blame. If I followed my pre-law "Advisors" suggestions, I'd be gunning for Cooley and Nova SouthEastern.

[jnwa]

URM, slightly new TLS poster and lurker. I spent almost my entire undergraduate life thinking I would go to a regional law school. I took the LSAT in October of my senior year and I have a 3.67 gpa. It wasn't until December of my senior year that I understood the AA boost. For the 2010 entering class there were only 63 African American students who had an LSAT score of 165+ and a gpa of 3.5+. After figuring that out, I blanketed the whole T-14. I have gotten into a couple, wait listed from some, no huge scholarships yet, but I'm still waiting patiently to see how this cycle might turn out. Now that I know what position I am in I am considering retaking the LSAT and re-applying next cycle. But I also have AA friends who have LSAT's slightly lower than mine and gpa's lower than mine who got full-ride at T6's.

I think many AA's aren't fully aware of the AA boost, so they give up or settle before even really starting the process. Also AA applicants may get into a T-14 school, but the money may not be there for them if they are in the bottom percentile's for the schools they are getting into, so they may go to a lower tier school where they can get $$.

What kind of numbers are we talking for these t6 full rides? Are we sure it's not the anbryce or rtk? Afaik those aren't straight meritt scholarships. After you get accepted it's more about demonstrated commitment than having the best numbers.

I'm talking full tuition at Columbia with less than a 3.2 gpa and less than a 164 LSAT.

The fuck? Yo 3.29 173 AA male here. Where the fuck is my Hamilton.

AA Male here. It is precisely this attitude that has really irks people w/r/t "boosts."

I was joking but the fact that a comment like that would irk people is stupid.

[sflyr2016]

.

[Another1]

Yet again - if it's all because black and Hispanic families don't emphasize law/higher ed, why don't they though? Is it genetic? What about blacks/Hispanics makes them law averse?

joeant, how about you answer this? And you're not allowed to answer "culture" without actually explaining what causes that culture.

Still can't answer this?

You want me to answer "what causes culture"? Are you kidding.

As to why Hispanics and blacks may not put a premium on otherwise "prestigious" careers or education as much as they do on other things -- geez I do not know.

[A. Nony Mouse]

joeant, do you realize that the reasons why blacks and Hispanics who've been here for generations are underrepresented might be different from the reasons why your individual family didn't push you wrt education? And that again your own experience isn't representative of every URM's experience?

[sflyr2016]

.

[MixtapeFellThrough]

All of which are environmental, and not necessarily "systemic," factors. Again, if even rich black and Hispanic kids don't score as well on these exams (see article posted above), or go skiing, then cultural preferences must explain some of it. No? Certainly rich black folk can, if they wanted to, go "skiing," right?

There are systemic factors that caused black people to live in certain areas. There are systemic factors that caused black people to be significantly less wealthy than whites. Your assertions of cultural preferences are still vague, and still lacking substance without any mechanism. It's also fallacious to argue that systemic factors aren't at play at all simply because one mitigating factor (wealth) doesn't completely eliminate the disparities.

Edit: I'm just going to bow out of this now. This whole discussion has been a microcosm of how frustrating it is to talk about race.

Says, in all likelihood, a non black or Hispanic. I find it so frustrating as a URM to fight through the rhetoric that keeps suggesting it's all racism when I simply can't find the objective evidence that shows that.

And if by systemic oppression you mean poor, then the fact that even wealthy blacks and Hispanics still don't do as well hurts your position. If you mean something else, then please explain it to me. Because as far as I can tell, Asians earn more than whites do, and Cubans and Caribbean Blacks earn significantly better than their counterparts (and even more that whites when you control for certain variables, such as two-parent households) -- certainly these (very physically apparent) minority groups would face the same sort of "systemic" pressures you keep appealing to, would they not? Somehow, though, they do better than people that look just like them, and often better than whites.

I'd advise against the attacks based on backgrounds, but given your apparent views I suppose I should be flattered that you think I'm nonwhite. I'm sorry to disappoint, I guess, but I'm willing to bet that I'm of darker skin than most people in this thread, if not this forum as a whole.

Anyways, I never said poor -- it's you who's insistent on conflating systemic problems with wealth; most of your detractors (myself included) are explicitly saying it's not just wealth in question. Asians earning more than whites do is great, and Cubans and Caribbean blacks earning better than their counterparts is fascinating, but when the topic of discussion is how systemic factors present in America have affected black and Hispanics in America neither case is really relevant here. True, Asians have been oppressed, as have Cubans and Caribbean blacks and women and Jews and so on, but oppression isn't interchangeable; Asian Americans don't deal with the exact same problems as Hispanic Americans or AAs, so them having different rates of success doesn't mean systemic oppression doesn't exist, it means your methods of evaluation are bad. And for the record, non-American URMs doing better than their American counterparts suggests that there is a factor present in America that's affecting the success of URMs here and weakens that the idea that blacks by virtue of being blacks are just uninterested in education or certain professions.

[sflyr2016]

.

[MixtapeFellThrough]

Yet again - if it's all because black and Hispanic families don't emphasize law/higher ed, why don't they though? Is it genetic? What about blacks/Hispanics makes them law averse?

joeant, how about you answer this? And you're not allowed to answer "culture" without actually explaining what causes that culture.

Still can't answer this?

You want me to answer "what causes culture"? Are you kidding.

As to why Hispanics and blacks may not put a premium on otherwise "prestigious" careers or education as much as they do on other things -- geez I do not know. But I will say this: for me, at least, my parents hardly spoke English and came here as adults; therefore, they did not know about the kinds of opportunities available to here in the US to the extent that I will or my kids will. But this would be true even if my parents came here with tons of money. And aside from the lack of information, they simply put more of an emphasis on things like sports, religion, and family growing up, as compared to my grades; not to say other groups don't place an emphasis on those things as well, but just saying the reasons my parents did not focus as much on education is because that's how they grew up. Now, all of this has NOTHING to do with racism as much as it has to do with environmental factors. Even if my parents were fluent in English and knew all there was to know about the economic and educational landscape in the US, I would still be more or less inclined to take up enter certain fields than people from other groups and upbringing. Again, none of this has anything to do with racism. This cuts the other way too, as Asians seem to heavily focus on education and reap the rewards for doing so.

w/r/t your last post, I'll point out that Mouse's question wasn't ridiculous, you just didn't understand what was being asked, and still haven't answered it. If you're going to say that "culture" or "preferences" explain something, we want to know what you mean. You seem to think that one group or another just so happens to favor education just because. We want to know because WHAT. So if you're trying to tell me that Asians heavily focus on education, I want to know WHY, because I do not buy the argument that they do because "culture". What is the cause of this "culture" ? You're trying to tell me that literally of hundreds of years of oppression against (again, American) blacks or others hasn't had ANYTHING to do with their educational or professional successes today?

[sflyr2016]

.

[Another1]

Yet again - if it's all because black and Hispanic families don't emphasize law/higher ed, why don't they though? Is it genetic? What about blacks/Hispanics makes them law averse?

joeant, how about you answer this? And you're not allowed to answer "culture" without actually explaining what causes that culture.

Still can't answer this?

You want me to answer "what causes culture"? Are you kidding.

As to why Hispanics and blacks may not put a premium on otherwise "prestigious" careers or education as much as they do on other things -- geez I do not know. But I will say this: for me, at least, my parents hardly spoke English and came here as adults; therefore, they did not know about the kinds of opportunities available to here in the US to the extent that I will or my kids will. But this would be true even if my parents came here with tons of money. And aside from the lack of information, they simply put more of an emphasis on things like sports, religion, and family growing up, as compared to my grades; not to say other groups don't place an emphasis on those things as well, but just saying the reasons my parents did not focus as much on education is because that's how they grew up. Now, all of this has NOTHING to do with racism as much as it has to do with environmental factors. Even if my parents were fluent in English and knew all there was to know about the economic and educational landscape in the US, I would still be more or less inclined to take up enter certain fields than people from other groups and upbringing. Again, none of this has anything to do with racism. This cuts the other way too, as Asians seem to heavily focus on education and reap the rewards for doing so.

w/r/t your last post, I'll point out that Mouse's question wasn't ridiculous, you just didn't understand what was being asked, and still haven't answered it. If you're going to say that "culture" or "preferences" explain something, we want to know what you mean. You seem to think that one group or another just so happens to favor education just because. We want to know because WHAT. So if you're trying to tell me that Asians heavily focus on education, I want to know WHY, because I do not buy the argument that they do because "culture". What is the cause of this "culture" ? You're trying to tell me that literally of hundreds of years of oppression against (again, American) blacks or others hasn't had ANYTHING to do with their educational or professional successes today?

Culture answers why some groups do what they do. I won't event try to pretend to know why some cultures are different than others; but that's not the point. The point is simply that it isn't some oppressive and systemic device used that white people and/or the government uses to oppress only certain URMs that causes Asians to be inclined to enter higher-paying fields than whites do, and Mexicans less-so than Cubans. It's simply what explains, in part, the fact that these groups do prioritize things differently.

That's actually the whole point.

[fliptrip]

I don't think anyone is saying that the things we are talking about can be explained solely by pointing to racism. But, to disregard racism as a cause for any social phenomenon that lines up according to racial differences in a thoroughly racialized society is to take a determined departure from the reality of this country.

Let's return to the question, why are minorities underrepresented, relative to several factors*, in the T-14? Let's focus on black students.

Blacks make up 6.4% of students across the t-14. In a given class, that's about 293 students. For the T-14 to match the % of blacks in the matriculant population, 8.7%, they'd have to enroll 396 folks, so about 100 more students. But where are they going to look to find these students?

Based on info that folks who frequent the URM threads know well (blacks and LS by the numbers), there are only about 200 black applicants with a 160 or higher LSAT in a given cycle. So, schools are already enrolling at least 100 students below 160. The at or above score threshold for AA applicants to get 396 applicants is somewhere around a 157. If schools wanted to push to the 10.3% of black students who have a bachelor's degree, they'd have to push that LSAT floor down another point to 156. Clearly, for whatever reason, schools have decided that they do not want to take students who can't get within 8 points or so of their median.

So, I think the answer is three fold.

1. There's a lack of supply of high enough scoring black applicants to t-14 schools.
2. Schools are not incentivized to raise black enrollment beyond its current levels.
3. Blacks, as a group, underperform on the LSAT.

Harvard and Columbia are the only two T-14s to approach or exceed that 8.7% matriculant threshold. Why is this the case? Here's my theory:

1. Harvard's the #1 choice for black folks as far as I can tell. Yale and Stanford are a little weird, too small, and sorta scary. So, I think Harvard pretty much gets its pick of the top students. Blacks are actually slightly overrepresented at Harvard.
2. Columbia is #2 to Harvard. It's has several recruiting advantages--Ivy League + NYC can close the deal in a way that UChicago and NYU just can't compete with.

*i) Black applications to law school (ii) Black bachelor's degree holders iii)Black matriculants to law school.

[sflyr2016]

.

[T14orTradeSchool]

EDIT: TLDR as fuck lol don't know how that happened. Go straight to the bolded if you want a main takeaway.

Lol this thread is funny. I actually read through all of it. I know it’s been stated ad nauseam in past pages but I have to just throw in my like, 7 cents.

It’s not that populations have to be represented percent-for-percent in every field, but when you see large disparities (60, 70, 80%??) in things like education, it’s hard for it to be simply a result of choice. Like, it’s hard for 80-90% of African Americans to choose not to go to college. Would you agree with that? It’s just such a suspicious number, and one that should raise eyebrows off the bat.

Being that (for the most part) college leads to higher income earning potential, and you need money to survive, then the rational person would likely want to do that (or at least to the level where they are satisfied and more money makes them worse off. Definitely not a level of what most African Americans earn today, though). Again, and I’ll use your own words here Jeoant, isn’t the fact that 80-90% of African Americans don’t “prioritize” maximizing their earning potential a little fishy? It seems odd that so many people would not prioritize something like that. (Also, I realize you started off talking about law school %s but I think I can illustrate this better with simply college %s.)

“What” explains this priority hierarchy? I mean, I could simply say race, and I will say that race is at the base of the issue, but the word itself maybe turns people off.

So what explains this priority… that these other populations don’t want to maximize their potential? We can strike out a few ridiculous things like, they hate themselves or that they simply prefer their current status (because their status isn’t good by most (any) metric). Maybe it’s that they don’t know they’re in a bad position? Possible. HIGHLY unlikely, though.

More likely explanations are that they’re poor and maybe they don’t have enough money to pay for college because they need to eat? Maybe they need to keep electricity on in their house or any of the other immediate survival needs that present themselves. I mean, this doesn’t even touch on the mental aspect of this but it’s obviously all interwoven. But I’ll keep it simple here. Well, how did this specific population get so poor? Well, when you think about it, they’ve actually ALWAYS been poor (and at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder). I mean, it could be a function of the history of their people.

*To go from back to front, say, you and the people running your city have 100 people, you hate them and they work for you for free and build up this fantastic city. Someone comes in and says this is wrong, tells you to stop, they make it law, but explicit releasing of these people doesn’t stop until years after. So, now these guys that worked for free 1. Don’t really have anything (property, real money, xyz) for themselves. 2. Are at the mercy of people who still hate them and can pretty much only rely on them to hire you. 3. You and your friends hold all the power positions in society and you hate all of these people. 4. You and your friends are rich as fuck, can control any area of society you truly want and are raising the next generation of people who will, then, hate these people + your kids will hold these positions that you and your friends had.

This is where the system parts comes into play. It’s part of the system because it’s so deeply rooted. It’s hard to not be poor when you’re poor. There are many (I’d say most) people in the United States who are not racists. But best believe there are people in power right now who are racists as fuck (explicitly or implicitly). But MORE SO THAN ANYTHING, it’s not that there are rampant racists now plotting against minorities. It’s that the effects of racism has already taken it’s toll and it isn’t simply reversible with the snap of a finger or change of a thought process within this population. For you truly put the 100 people you hated on an equal playing field (and this doesn't even cover half of it), maybe you guys should work for them for free and build their city for the duration of it’s maturation, put them in ALL positions of power, let them control the economy, hiring power, own all the property, and on top on all of this, they hate you and maybe even think you should count for less than a person. and then see how they (and your people fair) in this city. I'd put tuition money on the fact that you probably wouldn't be doing that great.

I mean, it's not all about race. but a good chunk of it is, though.

[sflyr2016]

.

[ih8makingscreennames]

EDIT: TLDR as fuck lol don't know how that happened. Go straight to the bolded if you want a main takeaway.

Lol this thread is funny. I actually read through all of it. I know it’s been stated ad nauseam in past pages but I have to just throw in my 2 cents.

It’s not that populations have to be represented percent-for-percent in every field, but when you see large disparities (60, 70, 80%??) in things like education, it’s hard for it to be simply a result of choice. Like, it’s hard for 80-90% of African Americans to choose not to go to college. Would you agree with that? It’s just such a suspicious number, and one that should raise eyebrows off the bat.

Being that (for the most part) college leads to higher income earning potential, and you need money to survive, then the rational person would likely want to do that (or at least to the level where they are satisfied and more money makes them worse off. Definitely not a level of what most African Americans earn today, though). Again, and I’ll use your own words here Jeoant, isn’t the fact that 80-90% of African Americans don’t “prioritize” maximizing their earning potential a little fishy? It seems odd that so many people would not prioritize something like that. (Also, I realize you started off talking about law school %s but I think I can illustrate this better with simply college %s.)

“What” explains this priority hierarchy? I mean, I could simply say race, and I will say that race is at the base of the issue, but the word itself maybe turns people off.

So what explains this priority… that these other populations don’t want to maximize their potential? We can strike out a few ridiculous things like, they hate themselves or that they simply prefer their current status (because their status isn’t good by most (any) metric). Maybe it’s that they don’t know they’re in a bad position? Possible. HIGHLY unlikely, though.

More likely explanations are that they’re poor and maybe they don’t have enough money to pay for college because they need to eat? Maybe they need to keep electricity on in their house or any of the other immediate survival needs that present themselves. I mean, this doesn’t even touch on the mental aspect of this but it’s obviously all interwoven. But I’ll keep it simple here. Well, how did this specific population get so poor? Well, when you think about it, they’ve actually ALWAYS been poor (and at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder). I mean, it could be a function of the history of their people.

*To go from back to front, say, you and the people running your city have 100 people, you hate them and they work for you for free and build up this fantastic city. Someone comes in and says this is wrong, tells you to stop, they make it law, but explicit releasing of these people doesn’t stop until years after. So, now these guys that worked for free 1. Don’t really have anything (property, real money, xyz) for themselves. 2. Are at the mercy of people who still hate them and can pretty much only rely on them to hire you. 3. You and your friends hold all the power positions in society and you hate all of these people. 4. You and your friends are rich as fuck, can control any area of society you truly want and are raising the next generation of people who will, then, hate these people + your kids will hold these positions that you and your friends had.

This is where the system parts comes into play. It’s part of the system because it’s so deeply rooted. It’s hard to not be poor when you’re poor. There are many (I’d say most) people in the United States who are not racists. But best believe there are people in power right now who are racists as fuck (explicitly or implicitly). But MORE SO THAN ANYTHING, it’s not that there are rampant racists now plotting against minorities. It’s that the effects of racism has already taken it’s toll and it isn’t simply reversible with the snap of a finger or change of a thought process within this population. For you truly put the 100 people you hated on an equal playing field (and this doesn't even cover half of it), maybe you guys should work for them for free and build their city for the duration of it’s maturation, put them in ALL positions of power, let them control the economy, hiring power, own all the property, and on top on all of this, they hate you and maybe even think you should count for less than a person. and then see how they (and your people fair) in this city.

I mean, it's not all about race. but a good chunk of it is, though.

As to your theory on wealth, affluent blacks and Hispanics do worse than whites on these tests, too. So let's scratch that off the table. As to hate, poor immigrant groups like Asians and Caribbean blacks (who no clansman could certainly distinguish from other blacks) out-earn their counterparts and, as for Asians generally and Caribbean blacks who are raised in two-parent households in particular, out-earn whites. Bottom line: Many groups despite being "hated" and poor, still do better than others, and often better than whites. So no, wealth and hate from whites cannot be it.

Please don't say things like this without some data.

[fliptrip]

You and I will never agree about my statement with respect to institutionalized racism. I and the 17,234 other posters here saying the same thing aren't going to change your mind and you're not going to change ours.

I can talk about the first sentence of your second paragraph, but not the rest, because that gets too close to an Affirmative Action debate. I believe there is an important, material difference between going to MIT and going to law school. Nony, please correct me if I am wrong, but the same law is being taught by really the same professors (They all went to HYS or some smattering of the others) at every law school in the Top 50 at least. So, it is not the same issue at MIT where if you're below a certain standard of preparedness, you're going to fail out because you cannot function at a level high enough to even engage the learning process. It is similar to not being able to read and going to law school.

If you're competent enough to graduate from Temple (#50), you're smart enough to get through Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. Law school classes are curved for a reason--the actual learning challenge is low enough that pretty much anyone there will pass. The curve is necessary to draw distinctions amongst that large group of students who are passing. Obviously, a kid at Temple's median (160) is going to shock the world if he gets out of the bottom 25% of his HLS (HLS 25th LSAT = 170) class and if he gets median (173), he should be on Time Magazine, but that kid's going to do well enough to graduate. All of this is to say the T-14 schools could go lower without "hurting" their schools, the pressure is on their LSAT 25/50/75 numbers. At some point the <160 URM you took is going to force some movement and they are happy to give URMs as many seats as they can as long as they can hold those numbers. They will not spend a single point to do it though, and that's their business.

Now, there is an LSAT range that suggests big time reasoning/reading comprehension difficulties so severe that you doubt the student can get through school, can pass the bar, or actually provide useful service to clients in the profession. Sadly, that score is higher than the AA LSAT score mean/median and that's what is known in the technical literature as a big fucking problem.