Levels of Minority Representation in the T-14 Forum

[Another1]

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.

+1. It would be interesting to see the representation of TLS browsing urms in the T-14. I'd bet almost all urms that browse this forum know about the "AA boost" and still retake.

[lymenheimer]

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.

+1. It would be interesting to see the representation of TLS browsing urms in the T-14. I'd bet almost all urms that browse this forum know about the "AA boost" and still retake.

Just to be sure that comments aren't being over-generalized, we are talking about a certain percentage, and not "all". There was a thread the other day where a female AA decided against retaking (with a 150s LSAT) because she said she was happy with her outcome at a state school.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Of course, you get a LOT of people here who say they're not going to retake.

[sflyr2016]

.

[jnwa]

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.

Canadian law schools are a good example of this phenomenon. The highest median LSAT in the country is a 166 and you rarely ever see 170+ scorers. Most are clustered in the low 160s because thats all you need to get in and merit scholarships arent really a thing here. So i definitely think theres truth to the notion that people stop retaking once they feel they have a score that is sufficient for admission.

However the test score gap persists across standardized tests if i recall correctly so while it might play a role, theres obviously more to it.

[sflyr2016]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

That seems a little absolute. There are a lot of factors at play. And AA was instituted in part to address things like the standardized test gaps, which appear to have predated AA.

[jnwa]

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.

Canadian law schools are a good example of this phenomenon. The highest median LSAT in the country is a 166 and you rarely ever see 170+ scorers. Most are clustered in the low 160s because thats all you need to get in and merit scholarships arent really a thing here. So i definitely think theres truth to the notion that people stop retaking once they feel they have a score that is sufficient for admission.

However the test score gap persists across standardized tests if i recall correctly so while it might play a role, theres obviously more to it.

Don't see why this wouldn't apply across the board. Either it is true that an AA boost disincentivizes having to score high, or it doesn't. And if it does, then it either contributes to the gap, or it doesn't.

The standardized test gap begins to appear before kindergarten and persists until adulthood. http://www.brookings.edu/research/artic ... ion-jencks

I dont think the kids are accurately gauging their chances at getting into baby Princeton.

[sflyr2016]

.

[ih8makingscreennames]

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.

Canadian law schools are a good example of this phenomenon. The highest median LSAT in the country is a 166 and you rarely ever see 170+ scorers. Most are clustered in the low 160s because thats all you need to get in and merit scholarships arent really a thing here. So i definitely think theres truth to the notion that people stop retaking once they feel they have a score that is sufficient for admission.

However the test score gap persists across standardized tests if i recall correctly so while it might play a role, theres obviously more to it.

Don't see why this wouldn't apply across the board. Either it is true that an AA boost disincentivizes having to score high, or it doesn't. And if it does, then it either contributes to the gap, or it doesn't.

The standardized test gap begins to appear before kindergarten and persists until adulthood. http://www.brookings.edu/research/artic ... ion-jencks

I dont think the kids are accurately gauging their chances at getting into baby Princeton.

You've got to control for some factors. It's probably better to gauge law students, and perhaps high school grads, as these are groups who do pursue a higher education. Of them, the question is, how many among different ethnic groups are qualified for admission into elite schools. Many kids don't think about college and/or pursue it later in life at all. So, not totally relevant to point out that poor black and Hispanic kids don't read and write as well as white kids do.

It is totally relevant if their lack of ability corresponds to larger systematic measures that might be more than a lil bit racist. If you can't read and write, you're not gonna like school very much and you aren't going to pursue an education. Part of the reason why I continued to go to school was because it was fun.

[Another1]

[/b]

You've got to control for some factors. It's probably better to gauge law students, and perhaps high school grads, as these are groups who do pursue a higher education. Of them, the question is, how many among different ethnic groups are qualified for admission into elite schools. Many kids don't think about college and/or pursue it later in life at all. So, not totally relevant to point out that poor black and Hispanic kids don't read and write as well as white kids do.

The article stated that children of affluent African-American families still score lower. It's not just poor black and Hispanic kids not being able to read and write as well as white kids do, minority kids are scoring lower than their white-counterparts of similar socio-economic standing as well. It's also unlikely that those kids "settle" as you think older black and Hispanic students do. Very relevant.

[YCDAACH]

-

[sflyr2016]

.

[sflyr2016]

.

[Another1]

[/b]

You've got to control for some factors. It's probably better to gauge law students, and perhaps high school grads, as these are groups who do pursue a higher education. Of them, the question is, how many among different ethnic groups are qualified for admission into elite schools. Many kids don't think about college and/or pursue it later in life at all. So, not totally relevant to point out that poor black and Hispanic kids don't read and write as well as white kids do.

The article stated that children of affluent African-American families still score lower. It's not just poor black and Hispanic kids not being able to read and write as well as white kids do, minority kids are scoring lower than their white-counterparts of similar socio-economic standing as well. It's also unlikely that those kids "settle" as you think older black and Hispanic students do. Very relevant.

Which, again, may be explained by cultural preference in which blacks and Hispanics may not educate their kids or place such an emphasis on education or entering certain professions as other groups do, such as, Jews and Asians do. So, if it's not the money that causes the gap, then it cannot be the "systematic racism," right? Because if the system's keeping you poor, or, better yet, if those who beat the system and become affluent still cannot score as highly and thus not place as highly into elite law (and other) schools as whites do, then we just got removed the most commonly used explanation -- an appeal to some sort of systemic reality that keep blacks and Hispanics poor and thus away from better-paying professions.

It may all just be a matter of cultural differences. Again, as a first-gen Hispanic, I can tell you that my Hispanic upbringing did not emphasize education nor obtaining a certain professional status as much as, say, my Jewish friends' families did. It is this that probably explains those gaps and those disparities, not some esoteric oppressive "systemic" machine that's designed to keep only blacks and Hispanics -- but not Jews, Asians, or even certain Hispanics or blacks like say Cubans and Caribbean blacks (who do much better than their counterparts) -- down.

Anyway, I am done for now. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

1. Racism doesn't solely encompass socio-economic standing.
2. There are certain privileges to being a minority that immigrated from another country, like not dealing with the constructs of U.S racism for generations. As I said before, many minorities who are able to immigrate to the U.S already come from privilege. Jews, Asians, and wealthy Cubans are some of those types of minorities. Caribbean blacks aren't as well off as you think.

[A. Nony Mouse]

[/b]

You've got to control for some factors. It's probably better to gauge law students, and perhaps high school grads, as these are groups who do pursue a higher education. Of them, the question is, how many among different ethnic groups are qualified for admission into elite schools. Many kids don't think about college and/or pursue it later in life at all. So, not totally relevant to point out that poor black and Hispanic kids don't read and write as well as white kids do.

The article stated that children of affluent African-American families still score lower. It's not just poor black and Hispanic kids not being able to read and write as well as white kids do, minority kids are scoring lower than their white-counterparts of similar socio-economic standing as well. It's also unlikely that those kids "settle" as you think older black and Hispanic students do. Very relevant.

Which, again, may be explained by cultural preference in which blacks and Hispanics may not educate their kids or place such an emphasis on education or entering certain professions as other groups, such as, Jews and Asians do. So, if it's not the money that causes the gap, then it cannot be the "systematic racism," right? Because if the system's keeping you poor, or, better yet, if those who beat the system and become affluent still cannot score as highly and thus not place as highly into elite law (and other) schools as whites do, then we just got removed the most commonly used explanation -- an appeal to some sort of systemic reality that keep blacks and Hispanics poor and thus away from better-paying professions.

It may all just be a matter of cultural differences. Again, as a first-gen Hispanic, I can tell you that my Hispanic upbringing did not emphasize education nor obtaining a certain professional status as much as, say, my Jewish friends' families did. It is this that probably explains those gaps and those disparities, not some esoteric oppressive "systemic" machine that's designed to keep only blacks and Hispanics -- but not Jews, Asians, or even certain Hispanics or blacks like say Cubans and Caribbean blacks (who do much better than their counterparts) -- down.

Anyway, I am done for now. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

This is a really simplistic view of race, racism, and culture. Where do you think culture comes from? How is it kept separate from racial inequalities in a given society? Take soul food. It's big part of AA culture. But it also comes from when blacks were slaves and were limited in what foods they were allowed. And as already noted, being poor (or not) isn't the only outcome/evidence of systemic racism.

[MixtapeFellThrough]

Which, again, may be explained by cultural preference in which blacks and Hispanics may not educate their kids or place such an emphasis on education or entering certain professions as other groups, such as, Jews and Asians do. So, if it's not the money that causes the gap, then it cannot be the "systematic racism," right? Because if the system's keeping you poor, or, better yet, if those who beat the system and become affluent still cannot score as highly and thus not place as highly into elite law (and other) schools as whites do, then we just got removed the most commonly used explanation -- an appeal to some sort of systemic reality that keep blacks and Hispanics poor and thus away from better-paying professions.

It may all just be a matter of cultural differences. Again, as a first-gen Hispanic, I can tell you that my Hispanic upbringing did not emphasize education nor obtaining a certain professional status as much as, say, my Jewish friends' families did. It is this that probably explains those gaps and those disparities, not some esoteric oppressive "systemic" machine that's designed to keep only blacks and Hispanics -- but not Jews, Asians, or even certain Hispanics or blacks like say Cubans and Caribbean blacks (who do much better than their counterparts) -- down.

Anyway, I am done for now. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Re: the bolded part -- you keep arguing that the disparities in education and professional opportunities are a result of "cultural preferences" without realizing that these preferences don't just appear out of nowhere. Unless you can provide any sort of mechanism whatsoever for black people or Hispanics not placing an emphasis on education or certain professions and these vague "preferences" then there isn't any legitimacy to the argument you're putting forth. Your postulating from anecdotal evidence and a meaningless (when undefined) term doesn't dismiss the litany of research that does establish a link between neighborhoods, school systems, upward mobility, etc. and educational and professional growth.

Your understanding of racism is significantly outdated. Systemic racism isn't some abstract governmental entity that schemes new methods of keeping people of color down. The whole idea of systemic racism is that centuries of exclusion of people of color from pretty much society as a whole (manifesting in schools, job opportunities, civil freedoms, bodily freedom -- have you SEEN prison statistics lately?, etc.) has some bearing on the disparities we see in education, has some bearing on how people of color are viewed in society (see Harvard's IAT for one example), has some bearing on the professional opportunities and these "preferences" that you seem to think just came out of nowhere for no apparent reason. If you want to argue the degree to which bearings obtain, fine, but you simply cannot argue that "preferences" account for the disparities we see.

If you go skiing and see no black people on the mountain, yes, you could say that black people just "prefer" not to go skiing and leave it at that. Or you could ask WHY there are no black people on the mountain and learn WHY black people "prefer" not to ski. Perhaps because there aren't really places to ski near black people; perhaps because skiing is an incredibly expensive proposition; perhaps because not knowing anyone who skis leads to less impetus to want to go skiing yourself. You're doing the former. Stop.

[sflyr2016]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What do you think systemic actually means? How is skiing being expensive an environmental factor? Why do you think black people don't live near places you can ski or don't know people who ski, and how is that environmental?

[MixtapeFellThrough]

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.

[sflyr2016]

.

[MixtapeFellThrough]

Because even affluent black and Hispanic students do not score as highly on standardized test, or to use your metaphor "go skiing." There were no (domestic) systematic pressures that forced me to be born into a central-American family and in South Florida. But because I was, (if I could afford it) I am more inclined to go fishing,than skiing. That is entirely environmental; that is, I have certain interests/preferences because of the environment I was raised in. So again, the reason blacks and Hispanics are not in t14s in proportionate numbers to their general population need not be explained by appealing to "racism"; it can be that Hispanics and black families -- even well-off ones -- do not emphasize law, higher-education, etc., the way other groups -- including URMs like Asians -- do.

Why do you think this is.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yet again - if it's all because black and Hispanic families don't emphasize law/higher ed, why don't they though? Is it genetic? What about blacks/Hispanics makes them law averse?

[jnwa]

URM, slightly new TLS poster and lurker. I spent almost my entire undergraduate life thinking I would go to a regional law school. I took the LSAT in October of my senior year and I have a 3.67 gpa. It wasn't until December of my senior year that I understood the AA boost. For the 2010 entering class there were only 63 African American students who had an LSAT score of 165+ and a gpa of 3.5+. After figuring that out, I blanketed the whole T-14. I have gotten into a couple, wait listed from some, no huge scholarships yet, but I'm still waiting patiently to see how this cycle might turn out. Now that I know what position I am in I am considering retaking the LSAT and re-applying next cycle. But I also have AA friends who have LSAT's slightly lower than mine and gpa's lower than mine who got full-ride at T6's.

I think many AA's aren't fully aware of the AA boost, so they give up or settle before even really starting the process. Also AA applicants may get into a T-14 school, but the money may not be there for them if they are in the bottom percentile's for the schools they are getting into, so they may go to a lower tier school where they can get $$.

What kind of numbers are we talking for these t6 full rides? Are we sure it's not the anbryce or rtk? Afaik those aren't straight meritt scholarships. After you get accepted it's more about demonstrated commitment than having the best numbers.

[woc]

Removed.