Levels of Minority Representation in the T-14 Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

joeant, racism is way more complicated than "hate from whites."

[sflyr2016]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Immigrant blacks aren't similarly situated to native blacks. The issue is not just "someone looks at me and doesn't like the color of my skin." The issue is a history of systematic exclusion from institutions and resources, and immigrants simply don't grapple with that history in the same way that non-immigrants do. That's not to say immigrants are immune from discrimination or don't also face other, different obstacles that native blacks don't. But saying that black immigrants succeed where native blacks don't doesn't mean racism plays no part in the situation.

[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.

As to a recent census breakdown by race, see: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens ... 60-252.pdf -- go to page 14.
As to carribean blacks, see: http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/site ... cle_02.pdf -- page 7; see also http://home.uchicago.edu/~arauh/Rauh2013b.pdf -- read the whole thing.

I'm not here for reading whole anythings. The second thing was published in 1979 so that's out, and I see no parsing of married households NOR Afrocaribbeans from 2 parent households on page 14.

[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 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-disparities and hate from whites cannot be it.

There are a myriad of reasons affluent blacks and Hispanics might do worse than whites on tests, too (if this is in fact true). Sample size? Bias within the test? I mean, I think as someone who has taken the LSAT, you can come up with a few more. I think you fail to see the system part of it and you're looking for rigor in an explanation but fail to see the simplest of explanations, one that is truly at the base of it. I mean, the fact that you think the handful of "affluent" Blacks and Hispanics that do worse than whites on these tests is a good enough reason to "scratch off the table" that wealth isn't a factor in 19% of black students going to college lacks a little rigor of thought itself, to say the least.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Immigrant blacks aren't similarly situated to native blacks. The issue is not just "someone looks at me and doesn't like the color of my skin." The issue is a history of systematic exclusion from institutions and resources, and immigrants simply don't grapple with that history in the same way that non-immigrants do.

Last response: A group's history, for better or for worse, goes more toward an environmental/cultural and not a current systemic phenomena. That's how I would look at it anyway. I just don't see an active force pushing against blacks and Hispanics who want to go to law school that would explain their lower lsat scores across the board. Especially so when other poor and oppressed people (of the same skin color) do so much better.

Then you're just defining terms differently from everyone else here. Because when we talk about systemic issues, they're the result of historical factors that other groups didn't face. It's not that anyone's saying there's a bunch of white guys in a secret conference room plotting to keep the blacks/Hispanics down. It's that there are a whole lot of environmental/cultural factors directly related to race relations and discrimination at play in determining who ends up going to law school and who doesn't. Again, the point isn't just skin color, but all the other things that have gone along with it. (You want to erase the past and say it doesn't matter. It still matters.)

[jnwa]

Immigrant blacks aren't similarly situated to native blacks. The issue is not just "someone looks at me and doesn't like the color of my skin." The issue is a history of systematic exclusion from institutions and resources, and immigrants simply don't grapple with that history in the same way that non-immigrants do. That's not to say immigrants are immune from discrimination or don't also face other, different obstacles that native blacks don't. But saying that black immigrants succeed where native blacks don't doesn't mean racism plays no part in the situation.

Yeah. Nigerian-Americans are the most educated racial/ethnic group in the US (wooo suck it Asians, we da best) but it has a lot to do with a post colonial emphasis on education in Nigeria specifically. The crux of this debate is that history matters. The educational achievement of African Americans in cant be decontextualized from the unique history of African Americans. Racism isnt always i hate you because youre black.

[fliptrip]

deleting my attempt at a joke that may not come across quite how I want.

[jnwa]

jnwa, you're Nigerian? Those ladies at Michigan better watch out!!!!

hahahha yeah man, i was born there. Didnt roll through to Canada until the 6th grade.

[fliptrip]

Oh, thank goodness, you took my joke in the spirit it was intended. That was a great example of a situation where two seconds after hitting send you think, "uh, that might not come across right".

For those not in on the joke, Nigerians have quite a reputation for snagging the ladies.

[T14orTradeSchool]

Also, HOLD UP. Is the last article you posted (http://home.uchicago.edu/~arauh/Rauh2013b.pdf) really in support of the idea that... you mean to say that when you take the population of people immigrating from another country out, then people who's families (their direct, past generations) were affected by slavery in the United States don't do as well? LOL, I mean, do you even realize what that's saying? I do. Not to even mention the other factors motivating an immigrants decisions to move to another country and what that says about them (maybe that they are harder workers? and maybe these are your "affluent blacks"? and maybe that's why they may out-earn certain households?)... either way, we know that that isn't necessarily the population we are focusing on, especially when we emphasize the historical system of racism and how it has ALREADY affected the population.

[jnwa]

Oh, thank goodness, you took my joke in the spirit it was intended. That was a great example of a situation where two seconds after hitting send you think, "uh, that might not come across right".

For those not in on the joke, Nigerians have quite a reputation for snagging the ladies.

stop blowing up my spot flip.

[fliptrip]

Sorry, back to our airy and light-hearted debate, though now that Joe has left, there's no one to argue against.

[texcellence]

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.

I agree. Their culture. Especially since ppl with the same skin color from different places (and thus different cultures) perform better economically and, to the relevant point here, on standardized tests. Fact is Cubans do better than Puerto Ricans on the LSAT, for example. My point is simply that this is more likely due to culture, and not "systemic oppression."

Are you serious? I'm embarrassed you're a Latino who doesn't understand how brain drain and automatic asylum -- which NO OTHER LATAM COUNTRY HAS -- basically allowed wealthy, already educated, white/lighter skin Cubans to form a critical mass in Miami (and other parts of the country). Yes, automatic asylum for the top 5% of earners is precisely a systemic reason why one LatAm group is, on the whole, more successful than another.

[Necho2]

Are you serious? I'm embarrassed you're a Latino who doesn't understand how brain drain and automatic asylum -- which NO OTHER LATAM COUNTRY HAS -- basically allowed wealthy, already educated, white/lighter skin Cubans to form a critical mass in Miami (and other parts of the country). Yes, automatic asylum for the top 5% of earners is precisely a systemic reason why one LatAm group is, on the whole, more successful than another.

Yeah as a Mexican/white dude whose family got across the border basically before it was nearly as difficult/restricted as it has been for decades now, it's incredibly frustrating to read through this and recognize that this poster really just doesn't see how those differences can make things different. My grandfather doesn't end up in the Navy, doesn't marry my white grandmother, and I certainly don't get born if he doesn't grow up the way he did and with the options that were still open to him back then in Watts, even though my great-grandparents were from Juarez.

Automatic asylum + educated/wealth status more likely really makes the Cuban situation a different ballgame, and if you don't know that, it's tough to take this argument seriously.

There's something really strange about the way that Joeant talks about "cultural/environmental preferences", but blocks out the idea of systematic racism. Families behave in certain ways, and a lot of that variation comes from what they went through, and what their parents went through, and so on and so forth. It's not about white people hating anyone (I mean sometimes, yeah it is...) but the broader idea that each cultural/ethnic group has a different experience, and it doesn't make sense to just act like being poor and an immigrant has meant the exact same thing in each group. It also is not particularly difficult (if you try) to understand that there's a big difference between being a recent immigrant of the same ethnic background, and coming out of a culture that's been very significantly oppressed in this country for literal centuries.

Joeant- there's a million important arguments where digging into data matters and is admirable, this is really a topic where a firmer understanding of what everyone else in this thread actually means when they talk about "systematic racism" might be helpful. Like how much do you actually know about the african american or mexican/hispanic experience in the US over the last couple centuries? It's kind of lazy to talk about how families raise their kids if you don't know why they might raise their kids in different ways, and what broad forces have shaped that in the past.

[michlaw]

So let me try to understand what is being said here. People actually think URM's settle for scores that do not represent their true abilities because they are relying on the "boost". How the hell would one do that? Take practice tests over and over again making sure that they don't go above 165? Or taking 7/8 of a prep course leaving the last 1/8 off just to be sure you don't score to high? In a country where the graduation rate at Naive American high schools is 52% Indians taking the LSAT aim to under perform their ability? Decades of research show the relative performance of ethnicities is a real and definable phenomenon. You do know that the odds of dramatically improving on retakes are quite low? Oh I forgot they were just being lazy the first time so improvement is a cinch. What utter nonsense.

[fliptrip]

So let me try to understand what is being said here. People actually think URM's settle for scores that do not represent their true abilities because they are relying on the "boost". How the hell would one do that? Take practice tests over and over again making sure that they don't go above 165? Or taking 7/8 of a prep course leaving the last 1/8 off just to be sure you don't score to high? In a country where the graduation rate at Naive American high schools is 52% Indians taking the LSAT aim to under perform their ability? Decades of research show the relative performance of ethnicities is a real and definable phenomenon. You do know that the odds of dramatically improving on retakes are quite low? Oh I forgot they were just being lazy the first time so improvement is a cinch. What utter nonsense.

Why write a whole paragraph when one sentence would suffice? Don't you want to say URMs are less capable than non-URMs? At least then you wouldn't have to burden yourself with trying to understand what we are saying here.

[Budfox55]

Joent - you seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea that culture is a function of systematic racism ( culture_t[systematic racism_t-1]). As in culture today is partially described by the level and type of system racism in the past. Why are you so against this notion/relationship? So do you not think that institutional discrimination (racism) against minorities for centuries in certain professions and other facts of life have then shaped the way that certain minorities behaved and that this behavior has been perpetuated into the present?

I am also the child of poor immigrants and was raised with very similar values, but why do you think we were raised with those values as opposed to values that lead to a culture performing better in test-scores or obtaining better jobs? Both the elite classes from the country where my parents are from and the country where your parents are from descend from either pure European or close to it ancestry (as is the case in every Latin American country). As I'm sure you know, people with indigenous and african ancestry from these groups faced all sorts of racial discrimination and the marginalized status of these types of people were in many of these countries viewed as official state policy. Do you not think that this systematic racism over centuries affected the behavior of these people in the aggregate and led to disparate outcomes in values between the elite group and the marginalized group? Do you not think that these two different systems of values were perpetuated across generations, even as Latin America has become more equal (even though its getting better...LOL at the notion of Latin America having any semblance of racial equality), to the point that even during the time that your parents immigrated to the US, their values stemmed from the generations beforehand which in turn were influenced by the racism that at one time these groups experienced?

[A. Nony Mouse]

So let me try to understand what is being said here. People actually think URM's settle for scores that do not represent their true abilities because they are relying on the "boost". How the hell would one do that? Take practice tests over and over again making sure that they don't go above 165? Or taking 7/8 of a prep course leaving the last 1/8 off just to be sure you don't score to high? In a country where the graduation rate at Naive American high schools is 52% Indians taking the LSAT aim to under perform their ability? Decades of research show the relative performance of ethnicities is a real and definable phenomenon. You do know that the odds of dramatically improving on retakes are quite low? Oh I forgot they were just being lazy the first time so improvement is a cinch. What utter nonsense.

I don't think anyone (besides joeant) has suggested that the only reason for the gap is URMs "settling" for lower scores. But it's not outside the realm of possibility that there's some effect. Not everyone preps like they do on TLS; not everyone is aware of all the practice tests out there or has the money to buy them or take a course. Plenty of people (regardless of race/ethnicity) take the test after going to the local Barnes and Noble, buying a couple Kaplan books, and studying for maybe a couple of months. If, at that time, they get a score that gets them into a school where they want to go, why would they retake? They took it once. It costs money to retake. The difference between URMs and nonURMs in this context is that a URM with (say) 162 has a shot at higher-ranked schools/more money than a non-URM with a 162 (all else equal). So the URM may not feel the same incentive to learn about additional resources and retake, but it's not about being lazy, it's about not having complete information.

That said, of course it's not that all URMs are "settling," and while it's impossible to measure any one factor, I doubt "relying on the boost" is a major one at all. I just think it's something that's possible for some candidates. ("Relying on the boost" is probably a bad way to label it in that it does suggest a conscious choice not to try on the exam, and to the extent that it's a phenomenon at all, I don't think that's the case. Can't say what joeant thinks, though.) In the grand scheme of LSAT scores, I would suggest there are lot of other, more important factors.

[michlaw]

Why write a whole paragraph when one sentence would suffice? Don't you want to say URMs are less capable than non-URMs? At least then you wouldn't have to burden yourself with trying to understand what we are saying here.

Don't kid yourself. You are transparent. There is no genetic difference between what we refer to as "races". We are all the same down to the chromosomal level. That which is identified as "intelligence" is a social construct. The game is played better by those who have set the rules. Your suggestion that certain races have come to rely on the "safety net" whether it is the "boost" or government assistance is a mindset that I hoped had died with the civil rights movement in the 60's.

[jnwa]

Why write a whole paragraph when one sentence would suffice? Don't you want to say URMs are less capable than non-URMs? At least then you wouldn't have to burden yourself with trying to understand what we are saying here.

Don't kid yourself. You are transparent. There is no genetic differences between what we refer to as "races". We are all the same down to the chromosomal level. That which is identified as "intelligence" is a social construct. The game is played better by those who have set the rules. Your suggestion that certain races have come to rely on the "safety net" whether it is the "boost" or government assistance is a mindset that I hoped had died with the civil rights movement in the 60's.

There are genetic differences between races tho

[A. Nony Mouse]

Don't kid yourself. You are transparent. There is no genetic differences between what we refer to as "races". We are all the same down to the chromosomal level. That which is identified as "intelligence" is a social construct. The game is played better by those who have set the rules. Your suggestion that certain races have come to rely on the "safety net" whether it is the "boost" or government assistance is a mindset that I hoped had died with the civil rights movement in the 60's.

If you're talking to me, I completely agree that race and intelligence are social constructs and I think you misunderstand me. I have never said anyone is relying on a safety net and I don't believe that this phenomenon, if it exists, explains the score gap in any significant way. I'm only acknowledging (as part of a conversation with someone hostile to the idea that racism plays any part in the phenomenon) that it's possible that sometimes the boost has perverse consequences, but I have also repeatedly said that if so, that's not the root cause and doesn't justify ignoring all the other, more important factors.

[fliptrip]

Why write a whole paragraph when one sentence would suffice? Don't you want to say URMs are less capable than non-URMs? At least then you wouldn't have to burden yourself with trying to understand what we are saying here.

Don't kid yourself. You are transparent. There is no genetic differences between what we refer to as "races". We are all the same down to the chromosomal level. That which is identified as "intelligence" is a social construct. The game is played better by those who have set the rules. Your suggestion that certain races have come to rely on the "safety net" whether it is the "boost" or government assistance is a mindset that I hoped had died with the civil rights movement in the 60's.

I'm glad that I'm transparent...we seek to communicate our ideas here, right? Let me continue my transparency, in hopes that you won't distort what I write again. I prefaced what I said about the effect of the AA boost on LSAT performance by pointing out that it applies to only a very small sliver of applicants, and then only to the highest ability applicants who also have the highest access to information. No, of course the AA boost does not in any way account for the entire 9 point gap between the black LSAT median and the white LSAT median. But I do think it in some way accounts for why we see so many HYPS/Ivy 3.8/166s at Harvard. I do not believe all of those folks' native proficiency is 166. I think a great many of them could get to Harvard's median or above if they had to. People respond to incentives, look at what jnwa said about LSAT medians in Canada.