Levels of Minority Representation in the T-14 Forum

[Budfox55]

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.

Lol, you're basically describing me. I disagree with Joe's thesis about systematic racism not having an effect blah blah blah, but will concede that the fact that URMs don't have to achieve higher scores definitely has some effect....since I myself am a culprit. I went to an ivy, studied for less than two months for the LSAT (though an intense 2 months as I was between jobs), took it in June and got a 168. Vastly underperformed my PTs though. Originally had planned to retake in October, but my job unexpectedly sent me out of the country for four months. There was no way that I was going to study for the LSAT abroad so I didn't (and do not regret it at all. One of the best and most memorable experiences of my life and I may not get another chance). Applied with my 168 and ended up with good money from some lower t-14s. Theres no doubt in my mind, however, that I could have gotten in the low-to-mid 170s if I just studied a little more and retook it. Could I have possibly gotten a hammy or into HYS if I retook? Possibly. But I didn't have to and I''m pretty content with the way it played out.

Edit: I was typing quickly and have atrocious spelling lol.

[Budfox55]

I will also add that major choice may have an effect. Quantitative majors do better on the LSAT. URMs are less represented in quantitative majors. Anecdotal, but I myself majored in something quantitative and I feel like that helped IMMENSELY as my whole thinking process throughout the whole test was very analytical. From talking to other people who've taken the LSAT I feel like people who don't come from quantitative majors have trouble thinking analytically like this.

[sflyr2016]

.

[sflyr2016]

.

[mvp99]

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."

PR LSAT numbers are probably not representative of mainland Puerto Ricans. most PR taking the LSAT are from the territory

[Budfox55]

I will also add that major choice may have an effect. Quantitative majors do better on the LSAT. URMs are less represented in quantitative majors. Anecdotal, but I myself majored in something quantitative and I feel like that helped IMMENSELY as my whole thinking process throughout the whole test was very analytical. From talking to other people who've taken the LSAT I feel like people who don't come from quantitative majors have trouble thinking analytically like this.

I made this point earlier, too.

Apologies, must have accidentally missed it.

[T14orTradeSchool]

Precisely. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just offering one reason that I think contributes to the gap, especially for Hispanic and blacks scoring above a 165 - there is less reason to do so. No doubt the poster above could have scored better; just didn't need to. This, on the whole, affects URM lsat scores.

Lol this, on a whole, probably accounts for 1/10th of the gap between scores lol your support for your argument is extremely weak. You'd fail that question on the LSAT every time.

[sflyr2016]

.

[Another1]

Precisely. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just offering one reason that I think contributes to the gap, especially for Hispanic and blacks scoring above a 165 - there is less reason to do so. No doubt the poster above could have scored better; just didn't need to. This, on the whole, affects URM lsat scores.

Lol this, on a whole, probably accounts for 1/10th of the gap between scores lol your support for your argument is extremely weak. You'd fail that question on the LSAT every time.

A single factor that may account for 10% of this extremely complex and heavily studied problem would be more significant than I even supposed it might.

he meant 1/1000th

[T14orTradeSchool]

Precisely. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just offering one reason that I think contributes to the gap, especially for Hispanic and blacks scoring above a 165 - there is less reason to do so. No doubt the poster above could have scored better; just didn't need to. This, on the whole, affects URM lsat scores.

Lol this, on a whole, probably accounts for 1/10th of the gap between scores lol your support for your argument is extremely weak. You'd fail that question on the LSAT every time.

A single factor that may account for 10% of this extremely complex and heavily studied problem would be more significant than I even supposed it might.

he meant 1/1000th

This^.

[Another1]

We keep talking about how the "boost" might produce an incentive for students of color to settle, but has anyone spoke on how it may give-way for some students of color to aspire to attend such elite schools? There are many students of color who do not even think about applying to Harvard because they believe that it is completely out of their reach (even if it isn't). Before viewing TLS forums I would not have imagined sending an app to Harvard. You can't make one sided arguments about how this boost affects the mentality of urm applicants, it doesn't work.

[sflyr2016]

.

[T14orTradeSchool]

We keep talking about how the "boost" might produce an incentive for students of color to settle, but has anyone spoke on how it may give-way for some students of color to aspire to attend such elite schools? There are many students of color who do not even think about applying to Harvard because they believe that it is completely out of their reach (even if it isn't). Before viewing TLS forums I would not have imagined sending an app to Harvard. You can't make one sided arguments about how this boost affects the mentality of urm applicants, it doesn't work.

and the thing is that it doesn't even close to work. His data attempting to support his argument doesn't even do that either. It's like someone trying to take a more complex (mostly incorrect) route to an answer when it's a lot (or should be a lot) simpler than that.

Reread your third paper (the one from U Chicago), Joeant, and critically think about it and how it relates to your argument. The answer should slap most people right in the face.

EDIT: PS: Just so we are clear, I don't (nor should anyone else) feel bad AT ALL for the boost they get as a URM. When life hands me something, I take full advantage of it and I don't apologize for it either. I mean, anyone is FREE to feel how they want about me or how I got into the school we are currently at, but I'm here. Deal with it.

[Another1]

Also, the whole point of Affirmative-Action is to alleviate the devastating affects of slavery, jim crow, and the 1 million other facets of inequities that racism has produced. Why wouldn't schools dip significantly below their medians to recruit URM's? Aren't these low scoring URM's the most affected by the history of racism within this country? Aren't these URM's the descendants of slaves who were barred from education? Aren't these URM's the descendants of Negroes who couldn't attend educational institutions of quality? So why is it taboo for these urms to benefit from the "boost"? Your underlying notion of such applicants not "deserving" to be at elite schools is disgusting, and it is thanks to the ancestors of these "undeserving" applicants that you are even in America, at a law school.

P.S - There are MANY articles proving that students of color are benefited more by attending elite institutions than slow-track institutions, as Scalia would say. Look them up.

[A. Nony Mouse]

lol.

Why lol? It's just as reasonable a point as yours. People who aren't aware of the boost will think that the published medians apply to them and that they're not competitive.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But also, let me remind people that discussion of any benefits or detriments of AA need to go in the thread dedicated to that topic. So far this has pretty much stayed on-topic to URM representation at dT14s and what causes a gap in test scores. Arguing that AA may contribute to the gap is one thing, but getting further into whether it's good or bad has to be done elsewhere.

[ih8makingscreennames]

lol.

Why lol? It's just as reasonable a point as yours. People who aren't aware of the boost will think that the published medians apply to them and that they're not competitive.

I can anecdotally speak to this. I did not discover TLS until I was googling for Columbia interview questions. My first LSAT attempt was in the 160s. Mind you multiple T14s had already sent me an unsolicited fee waivers after the first take, but I had talked to my Asian and white friends in law school before I took the LSAT who were all like 170+ is the number. So I was lightweight devastated and reregistered the night I got my score. My mom paid my testing fees but I still would have wanted that money to buy shoes. On my second attempt, I got over 170 so I was happy. It was not until after that when I realized this wasn't necessary. Luckily this retake has resulted in some money so it was for the best in the end.

[Another1]

But also, let me remind people that discussion of any benefits or detriments of AA need to go in the thread dedicated to that topic. So far this has pretty much stayed on-topic to URM representation at dT14s and what causes a gap in test scores. Arguing that AA may contribute to the gap is one thing, but getting further into whether it's good or bad has to be done elsewhere.

Sorry, he replied "lol" and I knew what he meant by it.

[sflyr2016]

.

[T14orTradeSchool]

But also, let me remind people that discussion of any benefits or detriments of AA need to go in the thread dedicated to that topic. So far this has pretty much stayed on-topic to URM representation at dT14s and what causes a gap in test scores. Arguing that AA may contribute to the gap is one thing, but getting further into whether it's good or bad has to be done elsewhere.

Sorry, he replied "lol" and I knew what he meant by it.

lol was referring to t14ortradeschool's first saying it would account for 10% and laughing my off, but then noticing that would be pretty significant and claiming he meant .1%. I was not referring to the post immediately above.

Lmao. I can't believe I have to break this down to Lego pieces. I obviously didn't type 1/10th by mistake, the number was one off the top of my head in between a bunch of ramblings.

The essence of the argument was that it accounts for a small portion of what you're trying to explain. You know on a chart where there's a sliver of "others" ...what you're talking about is exactly that. The number 1/10th isn't, of course, fact checked and I didn't get my data from any peer-reviewed articles, so the idea that that should be of focus in any event is asinine.

Your data doesn't support what you're saying and your argument (on it's best day) accounts for a small portion of what you claim you're trying to figure out.