Top Law Schools

Since the Supreme Court is about to ding AA (or so some law schools are fearing), is there a likelihood that the AfA cycle this yr will be stronger than in the past? Title VI is strictly coextensive with the 14th Amendment -> the rule of Fisher v. Texas will apply to all universities.

The ostensible justification for URM diversity is that they want to have a critical mass in each CLASS. But the fear of total demise of URM consideration, do we know whether this will mean a larger-than-normal URM boost this year?

Of course not. What do you think they'll do, put the extras in the freezer until they're ready to be used?

vanwinkle wrote:Of course not. What do you think they'll do, put the extras in the freezer until they're ready to be used?

Well, they could offer admission with deferral...

nigerian22 wrote:Since the Supreme Court is about to ding AA (or so some law schools are fearing), is there a likelihood that the AfA cycle this yr will be stronger than in the past? Title VI is strictly coextensive with the 14th Amendment -> the rule of Fisher v. Texas will apply to all universities.

The ostensible justification for URM diversity is that they want to have a critical mass in each CLASS. But the fear of total demise of URM consideration, do we know whether this will mean a larger-than-normal URM boost this year?

Really, now? Even private law schools?

More than likely it will impact all schools. The vast majority of law school financing is from the federal government and as such they will surely mandate adherence to federal law for any schools using federal loans, which is everybody. Look at the % of African American students at the schools in California, Washington, and Michigan. While they have recovered a little they are still significantly below where they were prior to those states outlawing affirmative action.

BlaqBella wrote:Really, now? Even private law schools?

Any college that receives financial assistance from the government, directly or indirectly, is subject to Title VI. Schools that accept Federally-backed student loan money from students are considered indirectly accepting federal funds and thus bound by the law. So, basically, any private law school that takes GradPLUS loans (which is all of them) have to follow this law.

See here: http://www.justice.gov/crt/grants_statu ... php#Direct

Some friends and I had a conversation about this issue recently. There was that short term excitement for those of us thinking that this could mean an even more significant boost to our apps and then the realization of how potentially devastating this could be for future applicants set in. sigh. If AA was gutted how would schools get around it like many claim they would be able to?

astrodoggy wrote:Some friends and I had a conversation about this issue recently. There was that short term excitement for those of us thinking that this could mean an even more significant boost to our apps and then the realization of how potentially devastating this could be for future applicants set in. sigh. If AA was gutted how would schools get around it like many claim they would be able to?

DS statements.

Do URMs get any sort of GPA boost? or is it just the LSAT? either way, how many GPA points & LSAT points? say for Mexican American and African American men?

The Michigan Law case from 2003 showed an average of 1.0 GPA point/12.5 LSAT points/a combination thereof to equal that whole, e.g., maybe 0.3 GPA points and 8.75 LSAT points. Is it still that high for the T14 schools?

Thanks

nigerian22 wrote:Do URMs get any sort of GPA boost? or is it just the LSAT? either way, how many GPA points & LSAT points? say for Mexican American and African American men?

It doesnt work like that. There are no set amount of points.

Think of it this way, URMs with high LSAT scores are more rare than URMs with high GPAs. Schools will take a URM with a GPA below their typical floor if their LSAT is at or above the median. So in that sense, there is a GPA bump.

The prelaw advisor at an Ivy undergrad told my friend that as an African American guy if you've got 3.3/+ and LSAT 160/+, a T6 JD admission is yours to lose. Obviously apply early, highlight your softs and have great recs. This advisor suggested that the 160 is the informal cut-off (but is flexible if the softs are strong enough) and the GPA floor of 3.3 can also be moved around if you had a very tough undergrad (top uni for a black candidate is BIG / sciencey major may also do).

Do you agree?

astrodoggy wrote:Some friends and I had a conversation about this issue recently. There was that short term excitement for those of us thinking that this could mean an even more significant boost to our apps and then the realization of how potentially devastating this could be for future applicants set in. sigh. If AA was gutted how would schools get around it like many claim they would be able to?

UC Law Schools have been getting around this for years.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... %281996%29

They have "gotten around" it (and not really U Wash for example has < 2% African Americans) because except in three states, Michigan, California, and Washington where post Grutter they undertook to make affirmative action illegal, race as a factor in admissions was the law of the land. If the Supreme Court deems race consideration unconstitutional law schools will drop it like radioactive waste. They will obey the law. Why would schools risk the wrath of the selective enforcement Justice Department? Times change and so do priorities. Even Sandra Day O'Connor wanted a limit. Looks like it will end at 10 years and not the 25 she suggested.

Before anyone get's too excited (or depressed) on what this may mean, the Court has to figure out, first and foremost, if they have any jurisdiction at all to rule on this case:

One key question that the court will have to confront--which was barely raised in the briefs--is whether it has jurisdiction at all. In other affirmative action cases involving higher education, such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Grutter, the plaintiffs were seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. But Fisher is not; since she already has graduated from Louisiana State University she no longer has a claim for an injunction or a declaratory judgment. Her only claim is for $100 in money damages, $50 for her application fee and $50 for her housing deposit.

Moreover:

..it is questionable whether Fisher has standing to bring the claim. Her injury, a loss of money for the application and housing fee, was not caused by the University of Texas affirmative action plan. She surely would have applied anyway. In fact, in Texas v. Lesage, decided in 1999, the court expressly distinguished between an affirmative action case seeking an injunction, prospective relief, as opposed to one seeking only money damages

However:

If the court finds jurisdiction and reaches the merits, the question will be whether a majority of justices wish to revisit Grutter. But within the Grutter framework, Texas has a strong argument: it is doing exactly what the Supreme Court prescribed, using race as one factor among many in admissions decisions.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... versities/


...we shall see how this all plays out in the coming days.

BlaqBella wrote:

ABA Journal wrote:If the court finds jurisdiction and reaches the merits, the question will be whether a majority of justices wish to revisit Grutter. But within the Grutter framework, Texas has a strong argument: it is doing exactly what the Supreme Court prescribed, using race as one factor among many in admissions decisions.

Texas' "strong argument" there won't mean shit if SCOTUS wants to revisit Grutter anyway.

That said, I don't think they do. The fact that Roberts said (in dicta, but still said nonetheless) in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 that Grutter was still valid, despite his narrowing of it, suggests those who want to overturn it don't have enough votes to completely throw it out. If it hadn't been for the just-ended term, I'd wonder from the way the Court was headed if they might now. However, I think between the Obamacare and Arizona decisions, it's clear that Roberts doesn't want to leave a legacy of partisan decisions and may have soured on the extremism the other conservatives can demonstrate. I think he'd want to make sure the holding was narrow and about upholding precedent, but I'd expect him to uphold Grutter at this point, giving those upholding it a majority.

Since the 5th Circuit affirmed Grutter in the Fisher v Texas case, as I understand it, what would be the rationale for SCOTUS even hearing the appeal if not to overturn?

michlaw wrote:Since the 5th Circuit affirmed Grutter, as I understand it, what would be the rationale for SCOTUS even hearing the case if not to overturn? What is there to gain in reaffirming settled law? Why bother taking it up but to abolish affirmative action? The time to talk about it is now. Clearly it was proven in Obama care that the justices (at least Roberts) can be made to cave to pressure. President Obama should be speaking out on this, particularly as the first and best example of why affirmative action works.

So hold on one minute: you are assuming that Obama was admitted to HLS on the basis of race and not merit? Further, you are assuming that he identified himself as black male (or mixed male) when he applied and the fact that we have a President that presumably used AA to get ahead now somehow means all applicants, regardless of race have an equal chance to "make it" ?

I see a gaping hole in your reasoning and its downright presumptuous on your part.

BlaqBella wrote:

michlaw wrote:Since the 5th Circuit affirmed Grutter, as I understand it, what would be the rationale for SCOTUS even hearing the case if not to overturn? What is there to gain in reaffirming settled law? Why bother taking it up but to abolish affirmative action? The time to talk about it is now. Clearly it was proven in Obama care that the justices (at least Roberts) can be made to cave to pressure. President Obama should be speaking out on this, particularly as the first and best example of why affirmative action works.

So hold on one minute: you are assuming that Obama was admitted to HLS on the basis of race and not merit? Further, you are assuming that he identified himself as black male (or mixed male) when he applied and the fact that we have a President that presumably used AA to get ahead now somehow means all applicants, regardless of race have an equal chance to "make it" ?

I see a gaping hole in your reasoning and its downright presumptuous on your part.

Are you for real?

Indeed, Obama himself suggested in a 1990 letter that he probably was a beneficiary of affirmative action. Obama wrote in the Harvard Law Record, “As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative-action programs during my career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative-action program when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.”

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/ ... tion/29379

michlaw wrote:Since the 5th Circuit affirmed Grutter in the Fisher v Texas case, as I understand it, what would be the rationale for SCOTUS even hearing the appeal if not to overturn?

Look at the Voting Rights Act cases. They have taken a few, and keep upholding the preclearance provision (though they are obviously getting closer and closer to finally striking it down).

I'm sure schools will still find a way to use race as a factor, so I wouldn't worry too much. I mean, the system that the court explicitly approved of essentially condones the use of race so long as its done in a vague, hazy, and veiled way (as opposed to just being honest and explicit regarding how much weight it will be given). So I'm sure they will find hazy and vague ways to work it in, even if AA is struck down.

IAFG wrote:

BlaqBella wrote:

michlaw wrote:Since the 5th Circuit affirmed Grutter, as I understand it, what would be the rationale for SCOTUS even hearing the case if not to overturn? What is there to gain in reaffirming settled law? Why bother taking it up but to abolish affirmative action? The time to talk about it is now. Clearly it was proven in Obama care that the justices (at least Roberts) can be made to cave to pressure. President Obama should be speaking out on this, particularly as the first and best example of why affirmative action works.

So hold on one minute: you are assuming that Obama was admitted to HLS on the basis of race and not merit? Further, you are assuming that he identified himself as black male (or mixed male) when he applied and the fact that we have a President that presumably used AA to get ahead now somehow means all applicants, regardless of race have an equal chance to "make it" ?

I see a gaping hole in your reasoning and its downright presumptuous on your part.

Are you for real?

Indeed, Obama himself suggested in a 1990 letter that he probably was a beneficiary of affirmative action. Obama wrote in the Harvard Law Record, “As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative-action programs during my career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative-action program when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.”

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/ ... tion/29379

I see the words "suggested" and "probably" which leaves room for interpretation (nothing can be inferred here).

Moreover, he admits "undoubtedly" to being the recipient of AA is it applies to his career, not necessarily his admission into HLS, which is what we are addressing in this thread: AA as it applies to admittance into higher education.

My stance still stands: michlaw is making unfounded insinuations on how our President was admitted into HLS.

Wormfather wrote:I wonder what the effect of eliminating race across the board would be in LS admit rates. What, 100 AAs in the top ten?

Aren't there less than that as it stands now?

That number will be probably cut in half.

BlaqBella wrote: I see the words "suggested" and "probably" which leaves room for interpretation (nothing can be inferred here).

Moreover, he admits "undoubtedly" to being the recipient of AA is it applies to his career, not necessarily his admission into HLS, which is what we are addressing in this thread: AA as it applies to admittance into higher education.

My stance still stands: michlaw is making unfounded insinuations on how our President was admitted into HLS.

That's not what michlaw said (that the AA was related specifically to admissions), your point certainly does not still stand and you sound like an idiot ITT.

Mind you, I've sounded like an idiot on TLS once today already, it happens to the best of us, but your defensiveness is misplaced and frankly, ridicuolous.

IAFG wrote:

BlaqBella wrote: I see the words "suggested" and "probably" which leaves room for interpretation (nothing can be inferred here).

Moreover, he admits "undoubtedly" to being the recipient of AA is it applies to his career, not necessarily his admission into HLS, which is what we are addressing in this thread: AA as it applies to admittance into higher education.

My stance still stands: michlaw is making unfounded insinuations on how our President was admitted into HLS.

That's not what michlaw said (that the AA was related specifically to admissions), your point certainly does not still stand and you sound like an idiot ITT.

Mind you, I've sounded like an idiot on TLS once today already, it happens to the best of us, but your defensiveness is misplaced and frankly, ridicuolous.

michlaw wrote:President Obama should be speaking out on this, particularly as the first and best example of why affirmative action works.

Before we go about being adults by saying people sound like idiots , why don't we ask michlaw exactly what he or she meant by the above statement and why he or she subsequently deleted that comment from his or her post.

Mich, care to elaborate? Thanks!

Why would it be considered a insult to President Obama if he was the beneficiary of diversity consideration in his college career? Is there some suggestion going on here that anyone who benefits from diversity is somehow inferior? As the first black president I feel he should stand up for Grutter. What's the problem with that? I think it is true that he was very outspoken while at HLS about the lack of diversity among the faculty. Where is that spirit now? Did he have the grade only horsepower to get from Occidental to Columbia and on to Harvard Law? We will never know. That was not my point. Furthermore it is the nature of this forum for people to freely talk about their gpa and lsat. If I poster asks for opinions on where to apply the numbers are always the first question. I have no idea why the President will not release his grades.