Why Do Black Applicants Have Such A Huge Boost? Forum

[20121109]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

Though I agree that the question is valid, I actually think this is exactly why these threads turn out to be a disaster. People are far more likely to be overt bigots in these discussions, simply because they can hide behind the luxury of anonymity. When in person, people are probably going to be more sensitive to others. Not that it matters really...these threads never end well.

[Rowinguy2009]

First 2nd page spot. Enjoy my abs, they're not controversial, but they are a situation.

Oh snap

[Dr. Review]

In education, there is something called an 'achievement gap' that teachers are trying to close. Essentially, slavery and the ensuing civil rights issues, caused a hole that the majority of African Americans, and other black Americans, either cannot or will not dig them selves out of. For the majority of black teens, it is not culturally acceptable to do well in school. This is not exclusive to black people, but it is much more predominant. At this point, there are fewer black people in college than white, and some other races, and obviously it follows that even fewer go to professional school.

Are there black people who do well in school? Yes. Are there black people who go to college and professional schools and do well? Yes. Are there a lot of them? Yes. Are there as many as there should be? This is more or less up for debate, but I would say no.

Law suits aside, schools want to encourage black students to have greater aspirations, thereby closing this achievement gap.

From there, schools like Mich State started taking things too far, in some instances giving a black student with a 1000 SAT score a better chance than a white student with a 1600.

But I digress.

[Rowinguy2009]

In education, there is something called an 'achievement gap' that teachers are trying to close. Essentially, slavery and the ensuing civil rights issues, caused a hole that the majority of African Americans, and other black Americans, either cannot or will not dig them selves out of. For the majority of black teens, it is not culturally acceptable to do well in school. This is not exclusive to black people, but it is much more predominant. At this point, there are fewer black people in college than white, and some other races, and obviously it follows that even fewer go to professional school.

Are there black people who do well in school? Yes. Are there black people who go to college and professional schools and do well? Yes. Are there a lot of them? Yes. Are there as many as there should be? This is more or less up for debate, but I would say no.

Law suits aside, schools want to encourage black students to have greater aspirations, thereby closing this achievement gap.

From there, schools like Mich State started taking things too far, in some instances giving a black student with a 1000 SAT score a better chance than a white student with a 1600.

But I digress.

All joking aside, probably one of the most intelligent affirmative action posts I have ever seen on this board. This is your answer, end discussion.

[scionb4]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

Though I agree that the question is valid, I actually think this is exactly why these threads turn out to be a disaster. People are far more likely to be overt bigots in these discussions, simply because they can hide behind the luxury of anonymity. When in person, people are probably going to be more sensitive to others. Not that it matters really...these threads never end well.

But do you avoid talking about a subject because of sins that you anticipate happening? That gives power to the bigots. Ignoring them takes away their power.

[beef wellington]

I can answer this very clearly. Spoke with a black attorney out here in LA the other day. They said point blank firms are desperate for diversity - because clients want it, and it is still very hard to come by.

You mean the people making admissions and hiring decisions might genuinely value diversity more than a few points on the LSAT? How dare they? I demand the seat/job that was rightfully mine but was TAKEN from me by people with different values systems than my own! The INJUSTICE of it all!

[20121109]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

Though I agree that the question is valid, I actually think this is exactly why these threads turn out to be a disaster. People are far more likely to be overt bigots in these discussions, simply because they can hide behind the luxury of anonymity. When in person, people are probably going to be more sensitive to others. Not that it matters really...these threads never end well.

But do you avoid talking about a subject because of sins that you anticipate happening? That gives power to the bigots. Ignoring them takes away their power.

Nothing in my post advocated the evasion of discussing the topic at hand. I just mentioned a possible reason why they always turn out to be so terrible.

[orphanarium]

Law schools use affirmative action to admit underrepresented minorities because they are trying to add different perspectives to the classroom. Their main priority is not to advance some social good - even if that's a great consequence.

Any candidate from an under privileged background adds a very unique perspective. I remember reading somewhere that less than 3% of the students at the top 150 undergrads come from families that make up the bottom 25% of incomes.

A black candidate from a privileged background also has a very unique perspective since there really aren't that many rich black people in this country. A privileged white candidate's background is not that unique. I mean ... look at who comprises the majority of basically every law school class.

P.S. The reason why law schools need to use affirmative action to achieve their goals has a lot to do with the discrimination underrepresented minorities face: defacto school segregation and the cultural biases in standardized tests to name a few.

[charlesjd]

First 2nd page spot. Enjoy my abs, they're not controversial, but they are a situation.

Oh snap

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[scionb4]

Nothing in my post advocated the evasion of discussing the topic at hand. I just mentioned a possible reason why they always turn out to be so terrible.[/quote]







Well, if we want to avoid them turning out terrible, let's just completely ignore the biggots when they post. Then the people with legitimate opinions can continue their discussion while the bigots yell out BS from the back of the room, but no one is listening.

[20121109]

Nothing in my post advocated the evasion of discussing the topic at hand. I just mentioned a possible reason why they always turn out to be so terrible.

Well, if we want to avoid them turning out terrible, let's just completely ignore the biggots when they post. Then the people with legitimate opinions can continue their discussion while the bigots yell out BS from the back of the room, but no one is listening.[/quote]

In an ideal world, yes, of course. But completely ignoring bigots is easier said than done. Usually when one is overtly prejudiced, it garners a response from at least one person thereby encouraging the troll.

I agree with you. What you said would be the best way to do it...I just don't see it happening.

[Reinhardt]

The answer is here:
http://web3.cc.utexas.edu/law/academics ... rpaper.pdf

[reasonabledoubt]

Has anyone asked the question: How do we know and quantify that being black DOES in fact offer a "huge boost" in admissions?

The way I see it is diversity is essential - lets say there's 100 spots in a Law School. 70 might be white and 30 might be under represented, relative to both their numbers within the overall population as well (and perhaps especially) as within higher education. The 70 white candidates will be the best (as deemed by the adcomms) candidates for those spots and the 30 URM's (as deemed by the adcomms) will be the best for the remaining spots.

Why should URM's be compared alongside non-URM's when it comes to fullfulling a diversity agenda? I argue they shouldn't. I don't think it's controversial or wrong at all for URM's to be considered relative to other URM applicants and non's to non's.

Schools need to attract a diverse student body - that's the goal - it's being satisfied (thankfully) well the way things are. Any non-URM who is pissed off because of this should just focus on being more competitive relative to the non-URM pool of applicants.

Again, diversity is the goal and this achieves it. What if schools decided the people who bench pressed the most will get into law schools because it makes sense to have physically strong lawyers. (looks good, presents an heir of strenth, etc)
There might be only a few women in a law school class of a few hundred. To fix this, we would alot a certain number of spaces for women and judge them relative to each other. It's likely that most of them will still bench press far less than the men, but it won't matter because they aren't being considered relative to the entire group, only theirs. I hope the metaphor makes this all seem reasonable because I think it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with URM policies/practices. We need diversity; don't forget Mr. Hittler's eugenics ideas and how those turned out. Continue on with diversity agendas!

[Joga Bonito]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

I don't think I will be having a TLS style AA debate in class or one day in a court room. I'm fine dicussing these issues with INFORMED people who actually care about the issue and the people invovled and aren't just soap boxing because some black guy took their spot at Michigan law school and now they've decided to be racist on an online forum because nobody can see them. TLS AA debates are quite different from formal AA debates by profs and I've been to some so I am familiar with them. Thanks for your concern though.

[Joga Bonito]

There are several factors that determine the boost a URM receives. I'll list them below:

1. The number of students from a given ethnicity that attain a certain LSAT score.

2. The number of spots a law school wants to fill with a students from a certain URM.

3. The general manner in which a URM group is treated in law school admissions.

Let's say you are the dean of Yale Law School. You know that almost everyone you accept will attend. Suppose you decide to admit 30 black students. But you run into a problem: you cannot find 30 qualified black students. In fact, you can only find 7 black students with LSAT scores over 170. Since racial diversity is more important than fairness, you decide to give them a boost, and in this case, a 6 point average LSAT boost is needed to admit 30 blacks.

Now let's say you are the dean of Georgetown Law School, and you know that most students you admit will not attend. So if you want to admit 30 qualified black students, you will be competing with all of the other T14's! Thus, you will have to admit black students in the low 160's, thereby granting these black applicants an even larger boost.

Blacks receive such a large boost in law school admissions because (1) there aren't a lot of high-scoring blacks and (2) law schools reserve large numbers of spots for blacks, creating a domino effect in which lower ranked schools have to give even larger boosts to enroll a critical mass of black students.

On the other hand, law schools don't seem to reserve many spots in their freshman classes for Hispanics. If they did, the Hispanic LSAT boost would be almost as large as the black LSAT boost.

[newyorker88]

There are several factors that determine the boost a URM receives. I'll list them below:

1. The number of students from a given ethnicity that attain a certain LSAT score.

2. The number of spots a law school wants to fill with a students from a certain URM.

3. The general manner in which a URM group is treated in law school admissions.

Let's say you are the dean of Yale Law School. You know that almost everyone you accept will attend. Suppose you decide to admit 30 black students. But you run into a problem: you cannot find 30 qualified black students. In fact, you can only find 7 black students with LSAT scores over 170. Since racial diversity is more important than fairness, you decide to give them a boost, and in this case, a 6 point average LSAT boost is needed to admit 30 blacks.

Now let's say you are the dean of Georgetown Law School, and you know that most students you admit will not attend. So if you want to admit 30 qualified black students, you will be competing with all of the other T14's! Thus, you will have to admit black students in the low 160's, thereby granting these black applicants an even larger boost.

Blacks receive such a large boost in law school admissions because (1) there aren't a lot of high-scoring blacks and (2) law schools reserve large numbers of spots for blacks, creating a domino effect in which lower ranked schools have to give even larger boosts to enroll a critical mass of black students.

On the other hand, law schools don't seem to reserve many spots in their freshman classes for Hispanics. If they did, the Hispanic LSAT boost would be almost as large as the black LSAT boost.

+10000

[vanwinkle]

There are several factors that determine the boost a URM receives. I'll list them below:

1. The number of students from a given ethnicity that attain a certain LSAT score.

2. The number of spots a law school wants to fill with a students from a certain URM.

3. The general manner in which a URM group is treated in law school admissions.

Let's say you are the dean of Yale Law School. You know that almost everyone you accept will attend. Suppose you decide to admit 30 black students. But you run into a problem: you cannot find 30 qualified black students. In fact, you can only find 7 black students with LSAT scores over 170. Since racial diversity is more important than fairness, you decide to give them a boost, and in this case, a 6 point average LSAT boost is needed to admit 30 blacks.

Now let's say you are the dean of Georgetown Law School, and you know that most students you admit will not attend. So if you want to admit 30 qualified black students, you will be competing with all of the other T14's! Thus, you will have to admit black students in the low 160's, thereby granting these black applicants an even larger boost.

Blacks receive such a large boost in law school admissions because (1) there aren't a lot of high-scoring blacks and (2) law schools reserve large numbers of spots for blacks, creating a domino effect in which lower ranked schools have to give even larger boosts to enroll a critical mass of black students.

On the other hand, law schools don't seem to reserve many spots in their freshman classes for Hispanics. If they did, the Hispanic LSAT boost would be almost as large as the black LSAT boost.

Wow. I guess you have too much fail to contain in one thread, you have to start spreading it in others too, huh?

[ochrymb]

Stupid thread...affirmative action is the downfall of this country.

[charlesjd]

Has anyone asked the question: How do we know and quantify that being black DOES in fact offer a "huge boost" in admissions?

The way I see it is diversity is essential - lets say there's 100 spots in a Law School. 70 might be white and 30 might be under represented, relative to both their numbers within the overall population as well (and perhaps especially) as within higher education. The 70 white candidates will be the best (as deemed by the adcomms) candidates for those spots and the 30 URM's (as deemed by the adcomms) will be the best for the remaining spots.

Why should URM's be compared alongside non-URM's when it comes to fullfulling a diversity agenda? I argue they shouldn't. I don't think it's controversial or wrong at all for URM's to be considered relative to other URM applicants and non's to non's.

Schools need to attract a diverse student body - that's the goal - it's being satisfied (thankfully) well the way things are. Any non-URM who is pissed off because of this should just focus on being more competitive relative to the non-URM pool of applicants.

Again, diversity is the goal and this achieves it. What if schools decided the people who bench pressed the most will get into law schools because it makes sense to have physically strong lawyers. (looks good, presents an heir of strenth, etc)
There might be only a few women in a law school class of a few hundred. To fix this, we would alot a certain number of spaces for women and judge them relative to each other. It's likely that most of them will still bench press far less than the men, but it won't matter because they aren't being considered relative to the entire group, only theirs. I hope the metaphor makes this all seem reasonable because I think it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with URM policies/practices. We need diversity; don't forget Mr. Hittler's eugenics ideas and how those turned out. Continue on with diversity agendas!

The situation comes through once again!!!!!! Brilliant!

[reasonabledoubt]

There are several factors that determine the boost a URM receives. I'll list them below:

1. The number of students from a given ethnicity that attain a certain LSAT score.

2. The number of spots a law school wants to fill with a students from a certain URM.

3. The general manner in which a URM group is treated in law school admissions.

Let's say you are the dean of Yale Law School. You know that almost everyone you accept will attend. Suppose you decide to admit 30 black students. But you run into a problem: you cannot find 30 qualified black students. In fact, you can only find 7 black students with LSAT scores over 170. Since racial diversity is more important than fairness, you decide to give them a boost, and in this case, a 6 point average LSAT boost is needed to admit 30 blacks.

Now let's say you are the dean of Georgetown Law School, and you know that most students you admit will not attend. So if you want to admit 30 qualified black students, you will be competing with all of the other T14's! Thus, you will have to admit black students in the low 160's, thereby granting these black applicants an even larger boost.

Blacks receive such a large boost in law school admissions because (1) there aren't a lot of high-scoring blacks and (2) law schools reserve large numbers of spots for blacks, creating a domino effect in which lower ranked schools have to give even larger boosts to enroll a critical mass of black students.

On the other hand, law schools don't seem to reserve many spots in their freshman classes for Hispanics. If they did, the Hispanic LSAT boost would be almost as large as the black LSAT boost.

+10000

+some more - this was a more organized version of what I was trying to say as well.

Also, great tar. I think everyone on TLS should have a Jersey-Tar that echos their personality the closest.

[vanwinkle]

Stupid thread...affirmative action is the downfall of this country.

Stupid posters are the downfall of this forum.

[scionb4]

Why Why....Why have you done this.

Why do you want to go to law school if you are afraid to talk about hot-button issues like affirmative action. If you become a lawyer, you will have to discuss uncomfortable subjects. This is good practice for you, because on an internet thread no one knows who you really are. If you can't discuss an issue like this one when no one can see your face, what're you going to do when a professor calls you out socratic style on an issue that you aren't comfortable discussing, or you get a case that is morally ambiguous? Just deal with it. The OP asked a valid question.

I don't think I will be having a TLS style AA debate in class or one day in a court room. I'm fine dicussing these issues with INFORMED people who actually care about the issue and the people invovled and aren't just soap boxing because some black guy took their spot at Michigan law school and now they've decided to be racist on an online forum because nobody can see them. TLS AA debates are quite different from formal AA debates by profs and I've been to some so I am familiar with them. Thanks for your concern though.

"Informed" people? The people on this website will end up being your classmates, bigots included. The fact that there are biggots on this law school perspective student website should cue you into the fact that there will be bigots wherever you go to law school.

[20121109]

Has anyone asked the question: How do we know and quantify that being black DOES in fact offer a "huge boost" in admissions?

The way I see it is diversity is essential - lets say there's 100 spots in a Law School. 70 might be white and 30 might be under represented, relative to both their numbers within the overall population as well (and perhaps especially) as within higher education. The 70 white candidates will be the best (as deemed by the adcomms) candidates for those spots and the 30 URM's (as deemed by the adcomms) will be the best for the remaining spots.

Why should URM's be compared alongside non-URM's when it comes to fullfulling a diversity agenda? I argue they shouldn't. I don't think it's controversial or wrong at all for URM's to be considered relative to other URM applicants and non's to non's.

Schools need to attract a diverse student body - that's the goal - it's being satisfied (thankfully) well the way things are. Any non-URM who is pissed off because of this should just focus on being more competitive relative to the non-URM pool of applicants.

Again, diversity is the goal and this achieves it. What if schools decided the people who bench pressed the most will get into law schools because it makes sense to have physically strong lawyers. (looks good, presents an heir of strenth, etc)
There might be only a few women in a law school class of a few hundred. To fix this, we would alot a certain number of spaces for women and judge them relative to each other. It's likely that most of them will still bench press far less than the men, but it won't matter because they aren't being considered relative to the entire group, only theirs. I hope the metaphor makes this all seem reasonable because I think it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with URM policies/practices. We need diversity; don't forget Mr. Hittler's eugenics ideas and how those turned out. Continue on with diversity agendas!

+1

It really does seem like the URMs compete against each other for a set amount of spots. A school would take the best URMs in the applicant pool, and the best non-URMs in the pool. It just happens to be the case that the best URM applicant would not have as competitive numbers/credentials as the best non-URM applicant.

[newyorker88]

For the majority of black teens, it is not culturally acceptable to do well in school.

I think this is extremely overexaggerated by the media and a distraction from much larger issues such as the deplorable condition of most inner city schools,single parent households (70%), and issues like poverty and drugs in the AA community that are a tremendous impediment to educational success.

[Kohinoor]

Take it outside. No AA discussions in the URM forum.