Levels of Minority Representation in the T-14 Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

I have some more thoughts:

I think that the reference statistic being general population proportion is less than ideal. A better reference statistic would be proportion of college graduates, because only college graduates are eligible to go to law school. Using the general population statistic penalizes law schools for not selecting ineligible students who fell out of the pool much further upstream. A quick google tells me that 10.3% of bachelor's degrees went to black folks in 2009-2010 and 8.8% went to Hispanics. So in light of that, the problem is slightly less bad and shows that Harvard and Columbia at least are close to having a representative proportion of AAs in their classes and some schools have an overrepresentation of Hispanics against that statistic. So, alas I don't think I'll need to join Harvard's staff.

-- fliptrip

Let's do that by degrees. I'd be interested to see what each group, on average, majored in. If 90% the 10.3% of blacks with bachelor's degrees studied engineering, and most engineers do not enter law, then it would explain why many of those grads to go to law school; conversely, if 90% obtained degrees in the humanities and people with those sorts of degrees tend not to go into or perform well in law school, then that would be telling as well. And if the sorts of degrees whites get are different than those that blacks and Hispanics get, and also different from those Asians get, then it may explain why some groups go into and/or perform better in some fields than others. None of this, by the way, needs to be explained by "systematic racism" -- surely a term that nobody really understands -- as there are other, non-racist explanations.

I'd like to see which degrees are most common in law school, and which lend themselves to performing well in law school. Then I'd like to see how this breaks down by group. If 50% of Hispanics are studying and obtaining degrees that, on average, do no tend to go into law, then that would be yet another factor that would get you closer to the %s you seem to be upset about.

Except that even if you do this, people don't choose specific majors in a vacuum. There isn't any reason why different racial groups should be disproportionately represented in different majors (especially controlling for income).

That is an absurd statement. There are an infinite amount of reasons why certain groups should and do choose certain degrees more or less than others. Are you suggesting that all white, black, and Hispanics should have the same interests? I would guess that few Hispanics major in African American Studies.Your suggestion, to me, is bigoted--it supposes all people should do as whites (or some other dominant group) do. Asians seem to go into engineering more than whites do, and that's not a bad thing. Woman go into teaching more, and that's not a bad thing. Heck black football players tend to want to play corner-back more than they do kickers, and that's not a bad thing. (Tripflip's suggestion that they aren't allowed to kick the ball at a young age is ridiculous and question-begging: why aren't they allowed to?) As they say: different stroked for different folks. Some groups are just less interested in law than others, and that's okay.

Again, though, explain to me why groups that have historically been discriminated against and flat shutout of certain professions are ending up underrepresented in those professions - and positions of power in the US - simply because of personal preference. Only whites want to make money/run the country?

I'm not saying all groups should do as whites do, I'm saying all groups should be able to do anything they want, and I'm suspicious of any explanation for why non-whites are underrepresented in positions of power that relies on "they just don't want those jobs."

(As Fliptrip pointed out, these things - culture and historical discrimination- are intertwined, and I can understand some reasons why some groups are more likely to enter some fields than others. For instance, when I was going into academia, there was a concern that high-performing AA students weren't going into academia because it didn't pay well or offer a lot of ways to directly contribute to their communities - so they were more likely to get an MBA or a JD than a PhD. But I don't think saying "different groups just have different interests and that's okay" is at all a helpful way to approach the issue.)

[sflyr2016]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Pretty sure that's exactly what people have been discussing, you just don't agree with what others are saying.

[sflyr2016]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Okay, I quit.

[Iam3hunna]

Okay, I quit.

+180

[sflyr2016]

.

[fliptrip]

Here's that data you're looking for:

Sources:

http://younginvincibles.org/wp-content/ ... _FINAL.pdf
http://www.potsdam.edu/academics/AAS/Ph ... Majors.pdf



Can't argue there's a lack of interest when black students are overrepresented (slightly, but regardless, FAR from underrepresented) in so many of the common law school majors.

[fliptrip]

Really didn't think the issue of systemic racism had to be proved in 2016. lol.

oh. wow. you're right, let's all just assume things are true because others say it is. or let's stick try to stick to the point: what does the small amount of blacks and Hispanics at t14 law schools mean? Why are there so few minority students attending these schools? And why is it that those who do are too often under-qualified with respect to LSAT and GPA and often do very poorly at the schools they're admitted into? Is it "systemic racism"? Or something else?

What is it Joe, since you find other explanations so dissatisfying?

[Another1]

Really didn't think the issue of systemic racism had to be proved in 2016. lol.

oh. wow. you're right, let's all just assume things are true because others say it is. or let's stick try to stick to the point: what does the small amount of blacks and Hispanics at t14 law schools mean? Why are there so few minority students attending these schools? And why is it that those who do are too often under-qualified with respect to LSAT and GPA and often do very poorly at the schools they're admitted into? Is it "systemic racism"? Or something else?

Maybe we should go your route and be blind to our surroundings. I don't believe systemic racism is a thing because some scholar told me it was, I see the inequalities in my community.

[sflyr2016]

.

[fliptrip]

And more statistics to refute this notion that black students are less interested in law school: Over the past 3 years, ratio of black applicants to law school to total bachelor's degrees awarded to black students was 5.3%, where as the same percentage for whites was 3.3%. This is not an issue of lack of interest.

Let's keep going, and I'm sorry I didn't find this sooner...in 2014 black students were 15% of the law school applicant pool (overrepresented), yet were just 8.7% of matriculants. To keep beating this pummeled expired horse, it is not about lack of interest.

[unholycow]

removed

[sflyr2016]

.

[DCESQ]

OP: I wonder if you have the numbers comparing the % of the respective URM's to the total of high school graduation rates and UG graduation rates? Those numbers would be more accurate IMO (not attacking, just genuinely curious).

[fliptrip]

And more statistics to refute this notion that black students are less interested in law school: Over the past 3 years, ratio of black applicants to law school to total bachelor's degrees awarded to black students was 5.3%, where as the same percentage for whites was 3.3%. This is not an issue of lack of interest.

Let's keep going, and I'm sorry I didn't find this sooner...in 2014 black students were 15% of the applicant pool (overrepresented), yet were just 8.7% of matriculants. To keep beating this pummeled expired horse, it is not about lack of interest.

Wait up. All we have now is the number of black and Hispanic students at elite schools, not the total amount in law schools generally. It may very well be that more black students get into and attend lower-tiered schools. The question is how many qualified blacks and Hispanics apply to elite schools?

The percentage of black and Hispanics that apply to law school is not the same as how many among the total population of blacks and Hispanics go and apply to law school. So, for example, if only 8% of the total 13.5% of the black population pursue law, and if out of the something like, say, 25% (total guess) of the 1.4% of the total US Jewish population pursues law, then what you have is a case of one group preferring to enter law than the other. And after you factor for preferences, then you have to factor how many out of those who do pursue it are even qualified to attend the top schools before you simply assume it's racism, because if there aren't many who meet the qualifications then there are again other explanations for it.

The numbers you provided so far are telling, but even more telling would be finding how many among the black and Hispanic population actually pursue law and compare that to other groups.

I think we would be on track to making more progress if you'd concede the point about interest. Black people are more than sufficiently interested in law school to support higher matriculant numbers than what's currently happening. If you'd like to continue with your qualifications argument, I think there's much more fertile ground there.

[fliptrip]

OP: I wonder if you have the numbers comparing the % of the respective URM's to the total of high school graduation rates and UG graduation rates? Those numbers would be more accurate IMO (not attacking, just genuinely curious).

Accurate to what, in your estimation? That seems like just adding more noise.

[sflyr2016]

.

[sublime]

..

[DCESQ]

Accurate to what, in your estimation? That seems like just adding more noise.

To showing where the problem lies. It is most likely an upstream issue. I think (with no evidence) that the enrollment in law school or other professional schools would more reflect the population of URM's who meet the upstream qualifications. Whatever the source of the lower number of HS and UG grads is worthy of debate/evidence. I just don't think it is fair to point to the T-14 and say "Why don't your numbers reflect the population?".

[sflyr2016]

.

[Another1]

I agree. but let me say this: the point isn't that those who do apply are not interested, it's that as a group blacks and Hispanics do not pursue law at the same rate that, say, Jews do (which only make up for about 1.4% of the pop but make up a much larger % of the white pop in law schools). Anyway, any thoughts on how AA perhaps disincentives minority applicants from taking lsats more than one time due to the boost, and this may explain why, at least in part, their scores may be lower? If whites, on average, take it more than once, shouldn't that be a factor in why whites scores are on average higher? I have no idea how to get that information, but my assumption is that it must play a role.

Doubt it. Minority applicants are going to retake regardless of AA boost in order to acquire more scholarship money.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think you can make an argument that people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds with less access to info about higher/graduate education are less likely to retake the LSAT, that blacks and Hispanics may be disproportionately represented in that category, and that retakers are more likely to have higher scores overall. But I also think that directly implicates systemic racism and isn't an explanation in a vacuum.

[ih8makingscreennames]

I agree. but let me say this: the point isn't that those who do apply are not interested, it's that as a group blacks and Hispanics do not pursue law at the same rate that, say, Jews do (which only make up for about 1.4% of the pop but make up a much larger % of the white pop in law schools). Anyway, any thoughts on how AA perhaps disincentives minority applicants from taking lsats more than one time due to the boost, and this may explain why, at least in part, their scores may be lower? If whites, on average, take it more than once, shouldn't that be a factor in why whites scores are on average higher? I have no idea how to get that information, but my assumption is that it must play a role.

Doubt it. Minority applicants are going to retake regardless of AA boost in order to acquire more scholarship money.

I anecdatally was unaware of said boost and took the LSAT twice. Because I have a type A personality (and in retrospect am pleased with the outcomes), I still would have done it.

[fliptrip]

I don't have any data to back this up and I have no idea where I'd get it, but I think that for a very narrow sliver of black/brown applicants to law school, they are applying with LSAT scores that are lower than their native LSAT proficiency. At some point your most qualified and capable URM student is going to read or otherwise learn that their LSAT threshold for getting into HYS or some other desirable school is lower. It's simply human nature to stop going once you've gotten there. If your pre-law advisor, your friends, TLS (if you even make it here, I don't think there's a whole slew of black/brown folks around here), or current law students get a hold of you, you're going to figure out that if you have a 3.7+ GPA as an brown person, you don't need to get higher than a 166 ish score to have a great shot at wonderful outcomes. When you get that 166 or 167, you likely don't have much incentive to take the test again unless you have somewhat unique preferences, like you literally cannot leave NYC and you need to get NYU or Columbia for free.

But, and this is a big but for another vein of discussion that's been here...don't assume that all URM 166/167s are equal going into law school. A good number of those folks likely could have scored a lot higher on retesting. I'd be willing to bet real money that an AA 3.3/166 person coming from Princeton is not going to be at the bottom of their HLS class.

I think about myself. I'm a 3.8/170. With my current numbers taking away my URM status, here's my likely results:



I'd have to think about whether Duke with a really nice discount or NYU with less off would be worth it for me, more than likely. But, I need HYS for my goals, so I'd have to exhaust my LSAT takes to make sure I was looking at my absolute best options.

It would be very interesting to see how all of this would shake out if you were only allowed to take the LSAT one time in your entire life.