Futuregohan14 wrote:Mojosodope wrote:
That's the difference between you and I, I want to be accepted for merit, and merit alone.
What are you, 10?
You're in the United States of America. There is no meritocracy here. Even at the most elite schools, many (some would say most) students are being admitted to at least some significant degree on the basis of factors that have little to do with their hard test scores or other tangible measures of academic merit. Others are playing off of advantages they never earned that allow them to excel in ways the less privileged cannot. The beneficiaries of all of these subjective evaluations and unearned privilege are usually not black.
You will, in all likelihood, not find yourself among the 1 in 1000 African American test takers who manages a 168 or above (nevermind 170) on the LSAT. You will still shoot for the T-14 with the respectable score you'll probably get and you'll have a shot that will, in large part, come from the fact that AAs with your score are extremely rare and demand outstrips supply. You will take your opportunity (which you will have earned by outdoing 99% of those in your demographic) and make the most of it, just as tens of thousands of legacies and children of wealth do every day (without the need to earn anything at all).
Your comfortable with getting accepted mainly because of your race.
Here we can see one more difference between the two of us. You do not seem to understand the difference between "
your" and "
you're".
I've seen this mistake in
your writing multiple times. Normally, I'd ignore such things because I don't like to play the grammar Nazi. However, you have taken it upon yourself in this thread to be a bit of a cock, so I'm going to go ahead and call you out on it.
You will want to get this little issue of yours corrected well before you try to take on the world of law, where
your ability to write (and write
well) will be crucial. Since you seem determined not to "limit yourself", I'm sure you'll have no problem striving for this extra bit of improvement whenever
you're not "stressing to get over a 170".
I understand that a 162 is 99th percentile for AA, but I don't want to limit my expectations based on my race. An 85th percentile score would simply not be sufficient for me and the standards that I have for myself.
Yes, that's quite nice. The problem, however, is that nobody else really cares about your standards. Some of us are more concerned with reality.
To apply your personal "standards" to everyone else is, at best, highly presumptuous and, at worst, downright ignorant and condescending (especially when said standards don't have any actual basis in the objective reality we deal with).
Plus even if I was comfortable with that score, I would still feel like I was leaving money on the table or I had given up the opportunity to get into H/S. A couple more correct answers and your score is above 165. Hell, even if I scored another 162 at least I would've known I gave it another try.
You would have wasted your time and gained absolutely nothing.
edit...I'm a dick, but you sell yourself short by at least not attempting again.
"Dick" sounds like a bit of an understatement. Naive, self-important, condescending prick sounds more like it.
Don't think I didn't notice your quick edit.
The test is easily learnable,
These are the kind of statements that make me question your intelligence.
Tell me, "Mojosodope". If the test is so easy to learn, why on earth do law schools bother to use it as a standard for identifying the best possible candidates for admission? Why would the legal profession rely on an exam that could easily be learned (and, thus, easily gamed to provide better results not in line with any given applicant's actual capability)?
Why does a test that is so "easily learnable" produce so many scores below 170? If the test is so easy to learn then, surely, re-takers would have no problem regularly producing massive scoring jumps and cracking that high range on the scoring scale. Why do 98% of test-takes fail to crack 170 on an "easily learnable" test, even after multiple re-takes? Why do nearly 99% of black test takers fail to crack 160 on an "easily learnable" test?
Moreover, we live in an age where test-preparation has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Millions are being made by individuals willing to provide strategies for test preparation to the masses. The LSAT itself has been subject to formal attempts to "crack" it for decades, and some of the most brilliant minds in the legal world (many themselves 170+ test-takers) have weighed in on this effort. Billions have been spent in order to acquire, develop and improve strategies for "cracking" the LSAT. Given this reality and the fact that the LSAT is an "easily learnable" test, why isn't everyone getting a 170+? Why are almost 99% of AA test takers failing to break 160? Why are only 1/1000 AAs cracking 170?
Is all of this perhaps because the test is not quite as "easily learnable" as you seem to believe?
Hopefully you have the work ethic to perform well in law school, since you seem to lack the drive to push yourself beyond what is expected of you because of your race.
Let me tell you a bit about myself.
edited by request
So, with all of that laid out, let's talk about "drive" and "pushing oneself", shall we Mojosodope? Let's consider the following few questions in reference to the points I've made above.
Question 1: Do you understand precisely how much "drive" it takes to build one's academic prowess up to the level necessary to gain entry to and start at the Division One level in one of the most physically demanding and punishing sports on the planet? Do you understand the odds of a walk-on succeeding and starting at this level, and the kind of "drive" it takes to beat such odds?
Question 2: Do you understand precisely how much "drive" it takes to do this while simultaneously building an academic pedigree strong enough to warrant entry to one of the most reputable and selective institutions of undergraduate learning in the nation?
Question 3: How much drive do you think it takes to move a dismal he outed himself by the end of my undergraduate career? How hard do you think one has to "push" themselves in order to generate such a massive improvement on their own, especially when one is also maintaining an athletic career for much of that time?
Question 4: We talked about the "expectations" associated with my race, and the notion of pushing beyond them. Tell me, Mojosodope, what are the general academic expectations tied to the AA Male demographic? Do these expectations generally include graduation with honors from an)? Do they include the attainment of an LSAT score (162) that more than 99% of those who even bother taking the test fail to get? Do they even include the obtainment of a high school degree (something that nearly 60% of Black males still fail to obtain to this day)?
Question 5: Given all of the above, why would anyone deny the existence of the "drive" necessary to succeed in a highly challenging academic environment (Law School) simply because of a refusal to re-take an exam that has already been taken twice and, objectively (given admission statistics and the years of preparation/study that indicated the unlikelihood of a significant improvement) did not need to be taken again?
You seem to have all of the answers, so I'll eagerly await your reply.
