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

[vanwinkle]

That's far more useful and on-point. The problem is that it's still vague enough that it can be construed either way; you can point to it and show that genetics does have a strong correlation to IQ, while I can likewise point to it to show that there is variation in IQ between genetically similar individuals that is attributable to other, environmental factors.

The implication of the statistics is that if there is a 0.7 correlation between genetics and IQ, then even if you perfectly match environmental factors you will still see a disparity in the population as a while if there is a disparity in the genetic factors. Ie: it is possible that complete equality in upbringing might reduce an achievement gap from 1 SD to 0.4 SD, but could not eliminate it.

That's true in itself, but when viewed in combination with other evidence (blacks and other minorities able to achieve on par with whites when given the same environmental factors both in and out of school) it suggests that the problems that minorities face in an "IQ gap" is more the result of environmental than genetic factors. For it to actually be the result of genetic factors you would see 1) consistently lower intelligence levels even among well-educated and affluent minorities, and 2) an inability for a change in environmental factors to close the gap entirely.

This sets an interesting trap for those who try to use the genetic argument to discriminate against minorities. Does President Obama represent symbolically the fact that minorities who grow up in the proper environment can achieve just as much as whites? Or do you attribute that performance to the "white" part of his background/genetics, and if so, doesn't that actually encourage the idea of interracial relationships in order to give them the "more intelligent" genes they're supposedly lacking?

[stratocophic]

Intelligence is much less of a fixed variable than was previously thought. There are two big catches, however.

First, when one increases one's intelligence through diligent work and practice, it increases in a very specific way. In contrast, baseline/genetic intelligence tends to have wider correlation between different applications. Obviously, this doesn't mean that people don't have natural intellectual strengths and weaknesses, but rather that someone who is very strong in one area is unlikely to be very weak in another.

Second, increasing one's intelligence takes hard work over a much longer time horizon than most people are willing to accept. You can work really hard in calculus for a semester and do well, but if you return to normal work levels the next semester, you will not have gained measurable cognitive ability. It takes years of consistent work in order to improve one's ability. If one can sustain these kinds of workloads, the limits of one's improved cognitive ability are actually staggering. I've seen this effect first hand. A friend of mine almost failed out of my school in junior high, but was still working 4-5 hours/night (tough, private school). He has basically continued to work like that for over a decade, and has now published academic papers in both economics and pure math. I still help him a lot with the actual writing, which continues to be a weakness for him.

Granted, these conclusions are subject to the critique that they muddle the distinction between intelligence and performance. I would counter that that distinction has always been muddled. The reason I would call the phenomenon I've described as a change in capacity (rather than just performance), is that it has limited transferability within the specific type of intelligence. One's capacity is increased when one can face a unique problem, though stilll within the discipline, and work through it quickly and artfully.

Because there aren't plenty of cases (and studies) proving that people who are "very strong" in mathematics/sciences struggle with humanities...and vice-versa.

This thread is pure entertainment crap.

Hai, I'm TLS, have we met?

[imisscollege]

I want to hear an argument AGAINST the hypothetical concept of somehow being about to prove your parents'/your income and having whatever diversity/need-based assistance in admissions be based on that (some sort of sliding scale). It seems that this is a ridiculously complex and controversial issue and that just being able to check off that one is half mexican on an application completely oversimplifies it.

And I don't want to hear the argument against this idea in terms of "oh well it'd be awkward in the school if there was one black kid." I want to hear it in objective and overall utility terms. Why WOULDN'T that be a better system? It would certainly get rid of any "oh he could afford test prep and I couldn't" or "private school and I couldn't" or "he had parents that both had grad degrees and pushed him to perform intellectually and I didn't" arguments.

Why have we not moved past this whole color-of-skin thing? Do we expect to...ever? I am all for people who can prove some objective disadvantage getting some sort of advantage but again I know far too many very well off URM's who seem to be unfairly benefitting from this simple version of AA.

What about being a URM ENTITLES one to assistance? I feel like the vast majority would say some sort of disadvantages, primarily socio-economic. Why not just use those instead?

(sorry if my post got redundant by the end)

[Kohinoor]

I want to hear an argument AGAINST the hypothetical concept of somehow being about to prove your parents'/your income and having whatever diversity/need-based assistance in admissions be based on that (some sort of sliding scale). It seems that this is a ridiculously complex and controversial issue and that just being able to check off that one is half mexican on an application completely oversimplifies it.

And I don't want to hear the argument against this idea in terms of "oh well it'd be awkward in the school if there was one black kid." I want to hear it in objective and overall utility terms. Why WOULDN'T that be a better system? It would certainly get rid of any "oh he could afford test prep and I couldn't" or "private school and I couldn't" or "he had parents that both had grad degrees and pushed him to perform intellectually and I didn't" arguments.

Why have we not moved past this whole color-of-skin thing? Do we expect to...ever? I am all for people who can prove some objective disadvantage getting some sort of advantage but again I know far too many very well off URM's who seem to be unfairly benefitting from this simple version of AA.

What about being a URM ENTITLES one to assistance? I feel like the vast majority would say some sort of disadvantages, primarily socio-economic. Why not just use those instead?

(sorry if my post got redundant by the end)

Wouldn't that be an AA debate?

[magicman]

A lot of applicants (not just black) do not understand studying/prepping for the LSAT. I don't know a lot of people of ANY race who can shell out 1200 for a prep test.

If you do not prep, you have to be genius to deconstruct a logic sentence, or you was probably a philosophy major.

So you can probably infer, most minorities do not have the 1200 for prep testing & most minorities probably do not go to college for philosophy degrees. Therefore minorities score lower on the lsat.

Or maybe you are just retarded. So everyone that scores well on the lsat is either a philosophy major, or paid for a prep course? All you need to be able to do to deconstruct a logic sentence, is think logically. You are obviously incapable of this.

[Haven]

I go away for a few weeks and this is what happens to my general inquiry thread about URM statistics?

And to Kohinoor, since you resurrected this thread, could you at least provide a source for your information about hundreds of URMs scoring >169? It'd be great if you had something more than, "Trust me, I know people."

[rundoxierun]

I go away for a few weeks and this is what happens to my general inquiry thread about URM statistics?

And to Kohinoor, since you resurrected this thread, could you at least provide a source for your information about hundreds of URMs scoring >169? It'd be great if you had something more than, "Trust me, I know people."

oh god, back on this merry-go-round again.. Warning: Kohinoor does not listen to pre-matriculates.

[ATOIsp07]

I go away for a few weeks and this is what happens to my general inquiry thread about URM statistics?

And to Kohinoor, since you resurrected this thread, could you at least provide a source for your information about hundreds of URMs scoring >169? It'd be great if you had something more than, "Trust me, I know people."

It is rather disingenuous of you to complain of the lack of insightful statistics/responses after creating this thread on TLS...

[Haven]

I go away for a few weeks and this is what happens to my general inquiry thread about URM statistics?

And to Kohinoor, since you resurrected this thread, could you at least provide a source for your information about hundreds of URMs scoring >169? It'd be great if you had something more than, "Trust me, I know people."

It is rather disingenuous of you to complain of the lack of insightful statistics/responses after creating this thread on TLS...

I actually got some pretty good information from Rand and others back when this thread was fresh. Kohinoor brought back a dead thread to add some information, so I was asking him to provide some sources.


Not too outlandish of a request.

[ATOIsp07]

I go away for a few weeks and this is what happens to my general inquiry thread about URM statistics?

And to Kohinoor, since you resurrected this thread, could you at least provide a source for your information about hundreds of URMs scoring >169? It'd be great if you had something more than, "Trust me, I know people."

It is rather disingenuous of you to complain of the lack of insightful statistics/responses after creating this thread on TLS...

I actually got some pretty good information from Rand and others back when this thread was fresh. Kohinoor brought back a dead thread to add some information, so I was asking him to provide some sources.


Not too outlandish of a request.

Fair enough. But between the first 2-3 pages and this page (10), you can certainly understand my dismay in the direction of the thread. Can you?

[Haven]

I go away for a few weeks and this is what happens to my general inquiry thread about URM statistics?

And to Kohinoor, since you resurrected this thread, could you at least provide a source for your information about hundreds of URMs scoring >169? It'd be great if you had something more than, "Trust me, I know people."

It is rather disingenuous of you to complain of the lack of insightful statistics/responses after creating this thread on TLS...

I actually got some pretty good information from Rand and others back when this thread was fresh. Kohinoor brought back a dead thread to add some information, so I was asking him to provide some sources.


Not too outlandish of a request.

Fair enough. But between the first 2-3 pages and this page (10), you can certainly understand my dismay in the direction of the thread. Can you?

Heh, definitely, especially since I share that feeling of dismay.

I did get some good information from this thread though:
1. Some stats on URM admissions and URM LSAT scores (somewhat recent data)
2. 170+ puts you in a good place, but doesn't necessarily make you a lock at the T14
3. T14s seem to like URM reverse splitters more than URM regular splitters
4. Other parts of the application may have greater significance for URMS (LORs, WE, etc)

These aren't exactly backed up by facts, but they seem to be what everyone can agree on here.

[ATOIsp07]

Heh, definitely, especially since I share that feeling of dismay.

I did get some good information from this thread though:
1. Some stats on URM admissions and URM LSAT scores (somewhat recent data)
2. 170+ puts you in a good place, but doesn't necessarily make you a lock at the T14
3. T14s seem to like URM reverse splitters more than URM regular splitters
4. Other parts of the application may have greater significance for URMS (LORs, WE, etc)

These aren't exactly backed up by facts, but they seem to be what everyone can agree on here.

and remember, according to some, URMs are inherently intellectually inferior....

[PDaddy]

A lot of applicants (not just black) do not understand studying/prepping for the LSAT. I don't know a lot of people of ANY race who can shell out 1200 for a prep test.

If you do not prep, you have to be genius to deconstruct a logic sentence, or you was probably a philosophy major.

So you can probably infer, most minorities do not have the 1200 for prep testing & most minorities probably do not go to college for philosophy degrees. Therefore minorities score lower on the lsat.

This sentence is poorly constructed.

lol

Dude! "Lawdog"! There's a guy named "lawdog3" on this board, but he's a much better writer than you are.

[PDaddy]

I noticed that costs of prep are commonly mentioned here as the possible cause of some of the difference in LSAT scores. I would like to point out that all the PT's released by LSAC and the powerscore bibles, and possibly the Kaplan and other books (this I don't know for a fact but I don't see why not) are available for free (illegally of course) online via bittorrent. I am not here to argue how right or wrong getting them this way is, but if you truly cannot afford the books then I think this is what you should turn to to get the prep material. I think the right solution to the problem of prep discrepancy for cost reasons is not to say that schools should make up for this problem via the URM bump, but that collective action should be taken to force the LSAC to stop ripping us off.

My $0.02. Also trying to help other people who may have been unable to afford the best prep stuff.

This is true, but it still doesn't account for the long-term educational disparities that separate whites and privileged Asians from URM's.

[PDaddy]

It is entirely possible that, as a sub-population in the United States, blacks have a lower level of intelligence on average.

The thing is, I believe that this is actually true, but not as a result of genetics. Brain chemistry and intelligence function are very interesting things. The brain is designed to respond to stimulus, and observable and rapid changes in the brain occur as new information is learned. It is also affected by external stimuli such as nutrition and sociological factors such as emotional response (a depressed emotional state can actually lower the responsive IQ of an individual).

Given all this, doesn't it make sense that if a population is relatively poor, lacking self-esteem or societal respect, and receiving less intellectual stimulation in primary education to drive brain activity, that as a whole it would grow up to demonstrate a lower level of intelligence on average even without genetics as a factor?

Michael Oher (whose life inspired the movie The Blind Side) makes for a rather interesting example of this. He had a relatively low measured IQ while living with various foster families and getting little consistently positive attention. He was then taken in by an affluent (white) family that spent considerable time and money on him to help him stay in school including private tutoring in high school which helped him ultimately go to college. His measured IQ while in college was actually 20-30 points higher than his relatively low and stable IQ while he was in foster care and the public school system.

Obviously it wasn't genetics that held him back on those 20-30 points, because if it was he wouldn't have been able to make them up later in life.

I can accept this, with the caveat that an affluent black family (like the Obama's or the Cosbys) could have done exactly the same thing to help him.

[vanwinkle]

I can accept this, with the caveat that an affluent black family (like the Obama's or the Cosbys) could have done exactly the same thing to help him.

I don't see that as a "caveat", since I didn't even suggest otherwise. In fact I agree fully with it, and my statement only makes sense if it's equally valid for affluent and well-educated White and Black families; the only reason you don't see that happening as often is that there are relatively few affluent black families in the United States.

[rundoxierun]

I can accept this, with the caveat that an affluent black family (like the Obama's or the Cosbys) could have done exactly the same thing to help him.

I don't see that as a "caveat", since I didn't even suggest otherwise. In fact I agree fully with it, and my statement only makes sense if it's equally valid for affluent and well-educated white and black families; the only reason you don't see that happening as often is that there are relatively few affluent black families in the United States.

Not sure if you mean the fictional characters on the show or the real Cosbys but the Huxtable's are the ultimate.. didnt both Claire and one of her daughters go to Princeton Law?? 2 Princeton Law matriculants in one family is astronomical

[PDaddy]

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.

You find the fact that we live in a society where there are rich people who get an advantage from their wealth more disturbing than the fact that there is a huge segment of our population that is so poor, unemployed, incarcerated, and uneducated that they need a massive boost in admissions to try to create some semblance of equality?

Where does anyone talk about giving boosts (and "massive boosts", at that) to (black) convicted felons who are "unqualified" to get into elite law schools. I know of a white bank robber who has a seat waiting for him at Michigan Law in 2011, and he's very qualified. character might be another story, but time will tell. Elite Law schools don't admit "unqualified" applicants. If one gets into law school, especially the elite ones, he's qualified. This may not be as true at the less competitive end. You must wrap your head around the concept that one can be more qualified than you are without scoring higher on some random test. That's tough.

[LAWLAW09]

"Last time I checked, 125-150 > 170"


34 min mark



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

[RealTalk]

"Last time I checked, 125-150 > 170"


34 min mark


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

this can't be true because in 2004 only 29 blacks scored above a 170.

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html


The number of AA's making 170+ can't have more than quadrupled in the span of just 5 years. If this was true then it would be national news. I'm guessing at most its risen to 50 AA's scoring 170+.

[Jay-Electronica]

"Last time I checked, 125-150 > 170"


34 min mark


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

this can't be true because in 2004 only 29 blacks scored above a 170.

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html


The number of AA's making 170+ can't have more than quadrupled in the span of just 5 years. If this was true then it would be national news. I'm guessing at most its risen to 50 AA's scoring 170+.

Why cant it be true??? You really think it would be national news, let be serious here.

He used to work for LSAC, I think he would know, besides, is it all that unreasonable? I dont think so

[rundoxierun]

"Last time I checked, 125-150 > 170"


34 min mark


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

this can't be true because in 2004 only 29 blacks scored above a 170.

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html


The number of AA's making 170+ can't have more than quadrupled in the span of just 5 years. If this was true then it would be national news. I'm guessing at most its risen to 50 AA's scoring 170+.

Why cant it be true??? You really think it would be national news, let be serious here.

He used to work for LSAC, I think he would know, besides, is it all that unreasonable? I dont think so

He uses numbers based on all 4 tests so its still not hard to believe about 50-60 black applicants per cycle have 170+. Undoubtedly many of the blacks scoring 170+ in June/Feb. are applying for the next cycle.

[Havaianas]

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html


This is crazy. I hate being on the bad side of a statistic. Now I want to get above a 170 just to be one of the 30 - 50 AA who do so.

[r2b2ct]

Are there any recent studies about this? The JBHE article is clear but it is a few years old...

It's probably true that it hasn't changed drastically, but it would be nice to see an update.