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