. Forum

[things fall apart]

Anyone ever thought that the players not the system needs adjusting?

I fail to see how this thread wont inevitably end up with these ingenious responses.

[delusional]

.

It was indeed a very interesting lecture - thanks for posting. I had a few questions. If he begins with the assumption that innate intelligence is not race-related, and he (and LSAC) want to find solutions, then instead of removing questions that Black people do better on proportionally, as LSAC apparently does, they should be trying to create more of them. The reason they can't do that is presumably because that would change the resultant data across other demographics. So how do they ever propose to possibly find a solution?

Also, I don't understand how to break down the constantly cited correlation between LSAT score and LS performance. He breaks it down by quartiles - in a class with four scores and four levels, the top scoring group will have about half in the top level, an additional 25% in the second level, etc. That means 75% of people above the 75th percentile will be above median, with half of the above 75% in the top 25%. That sounds like a pretty strong correlation. How does it break down to the .16 correlation number he cites?

Also, if the correlation and the effects he cites are accurate, it would be awe inspiring to see in a school that admitted truly disparate LSAT scores. It also makes attending a school below the 25th in LSAT very frightening, especially as a URM, where LSAT can be significantly lower. (Although if later employers also give a URM boost, that would probably make up for it.)

In an aside, he discusses cost per student. He say that Yale spends $150,000 per student, Harvard $100,000. How exactly do they do that? Gold plated professors?

[rundoxierun]

It was indeed a very interesting lecture - thanks for posting. I had a few questions. If he begins with the assumption that innate intelligence is not race-related, and he (and LSAC) want to find solutions, then instead of removing questions that Black people do better on proportionally, as LSAC apparently does, they should be trying to create more of them. The reason they can't do that is presumably because that would change the resultant data across other demographics. So how do they ever propose to possibly find a solution?

Also, I don't understand how to break down the constantly cited correlation between LSAT score and LS performance. He breaks it down by quartiles - in a class with four scores and four levels, the top scoring group will have about half in the top level, an additional 25% in the second level, etc. That means 75% of people above the 75th percentile will be above median, with half of the above 75% in the top 25%. That sounds like a pretty strong correlation. How does it break down to the .16 correlation number he cites?

Also, if the correlation and the effects he cites are accurate, it would be awe inspiring to see in a school that admitted truly disparate LSAT scores. It also makes attending a school below the 25th in LSAT very frightening, especially as a URM, where LSAT can be significantly lower. (Although if later employers also give a URM boost, that would probably make up for it.)

In an aside, he discusses cost per student. He say that Yale spends $150,000 per student, Harvard $100,000. How exactly do they do that? Gold plated professors?

I dont think anyone in their right mind thinks the LSAT is somehow biased. Its just that AAs/URMs as a whole test low on ALL standardized, have lower levels of educational attainment, lower socioecon status, different perception of/by society, etc. Nothing is wrong with the test.. its just the result of a long line of other problems building up over a lifetime.

[delusional]

It was indeed a very interesting lecture - thanks for posting. I had a few questions. If he begins with the assumption that innate intelligence is not race-related, and he (and LSAC) want to find solutions, then instead of removing questions that Black people do better on proportionally, as LSAC apparently does, they should be trying to create more of them. The reason they can't do that is presumably because that would change the resultant data across other demographics. So how do they ever propose to possibly find a solution?

Also, I don't understand how to break down the constantly cited correlation between LSAT score and LS performance. He breaks it down by quartiles - in a class with four scores and four levels, the top scoring group will have about half in the top level, an additional 25% in the second level, etc. That means 75% of people above the 75th percentile will be above median, with half of the above 75% in the top 25%. That sounds like a pretty strong correlation. How does it break down to the .16 correlation number he cites?

Also, if the correlation and the effects he cites are accurate, it would be awe inspiring to see in a school that admitted truly disparate LSAT scores. It also makes attending a school below the 25th in LSAT very frightening, especially as a URM, where LSAT can be significantly lower. (Although if later employers also give a URM boost, that would probably make up for it.)

In an aside, he discusses cost per student. He say that Yale spends $150,000 per student, Harvard $100,000. How exactly do they do that? Gold plated professors?

I dont think anyone in their right mind thinks the LSAT is somehow biased. Its just that AAs/URMs as a whole test low on ALL standardized, have lower levels of educational attainment, lower socioecon status, different perception of/by society, etc. Nothing is wrong with the test.. its just the result of a long line of other problems building up over a lifetime.

Yes, but if you watch the video, he does mention that they generally work toward solutions and have achieved limited success. He seems to rule out a solution as simplistic as pure discrimination. Meanwhile, they have had experimental questions that Black people have done better on. So here's an idea - figure out why, and make some progress. but they can't do that - their hands are tied by the nature of the test until now, so they essentially have to admit that any solution will have to come from society, when it's not even clear that society is the problem.

[LAWLAW09]

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Myth-Ethni ... 080704153X

[delusional]

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Myth-Ethni ... 080704153X

I am aware that I did not personally discover this issue.

[tttlllsss]

I've heard an argument on here that blacks do poorly on the LSAT because they are so accustomed to Ebonics that they stumble with the nuances of proper English on the test. After all, the LSAT requires high understanding of proper English for most of its questions.

I think this argument is fair, and perhaps gracious, because it explains blacks' inferior performance with cultural factors rather than arguing that blacks naturally cannot handle the reasoning needed for the LSAT.

So, even if blacks have a language disadvantage with the LSAT, I say, so what? How many accommodations should we make in the name of 'diversity'? Where do we draw the line between promoting accomplishment and giving hand-outs?

[firemed]

Unfortunately, most people believe through just enough hard work everyone can make above a 160. Obviously, this is not the case.

True, some people were just born too dumb to achieve that high of a score.

Are you trying to inflame anti-semitism? Shut up already.

[kk19131]

I honestly believe that we do misapply to law schools that are well out of our range.

[firemed]

I honestly believe that we do misapply to law schools that are well out of our range.

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion above.

[firemed]

I've heard an argument on here that blacks do poorly on the LSAT because they are so accustomed to Ebonics that they stumble with the nuances of proper English on the test. After all, the LSAT requires high understanding of proper English for most of its questions.

I think this argument is fair, and perhaps gracious, because it explains blacks' inferior performance with cultural factors rather than arguing that blacks naturally cannot handle the reasoning needed for the LSAT.

So, even if blacks have a language disadvantage with the LSAT, I say, so what? How many accommodations should we make in the name of 'diversity'? Where do we draw the line between promoting accomplishment and giving hand-outs?

So we won't accommodate them and hope that white and asian lawyers with no experience with the cultural and socioeconomic factors that make up being a black person in our country will be able to serve the 14% of the population that is black.

Stupidest idea I have heard yet.

[kk19131]

I honestly believe that we do misapply to law schools that are well out of our range.

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion above.

Did you actually watch the video before you started running your mouth?

[firemed]

I honestly believe that we do misapply to law schools that are well out of our range.

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion above.

Did you actually watch the video before you started running your mouth?

I've been watching it. Not done. But I still don't see how what you said applies to the conversation between TLS members above. Feel free to enlighten me.

[kk19131]

I honestly believe that we do misapply to law schools that are well out of our range.

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion above.

Did you actually watch the video before you started running your mouth?

I've been watching it. Not done. But I still don't see how what you said applies to the conversation between TLS members above. Feel free to enlighten me.

The title of this thread is "African-Americans, Law Schools and the LSAT". I believe that my comment was germane to this topic.

If you don't find it relevant, then you are free to ignore it.

At any rate, I don't think the LSAT is biased (racially). However, it definitely does favor those with the money and time to put into studying: The LSAT can be learned.

Again, I think black students misapply to schools we have no business applying to. This is why, I think, we often end up at the bottom of the classes in certain law schools

[firemed]

The title of this thread is "African-Americans, Law Schools and the LSAT". I believe that my comment was germane to this topic.

If you don't find it relevant, then you are free to ignore it.

At any rate, I don't think the LSAT is biased (racially). However, it definitely does favor those with the money and time to put into studying: The LSAT can be learned.

Again, I think black students misapply to schools we have no business applying to. This is why, I think, we often end up at the bottom of the classes in certain law schools

Slightly tangential, but I now see how it applies. I have no real knowledge, however, of this area of the discussion, and so will stay out of it.

[joebloe]

I've heard an argument on here that blacks do poorly on the LSAT because they are so accustomed to Ebonics that they stumble with the nuances of proper English on the test. After all, the LSAT requires high understanding of proper English for most of its questions.

I think this argument is fair, and perhaps gracious, because it explains blacks' inferior performance with cultural factors rather than arguing that blacks naturally cannot handle the reasoning needed for the LSAT.

So, even if blacks have a language disadvantage with the LSAT, I say, so what? How many accommodations should we make in the name of 'diversity'? Where do we draw the line between promoting accomplishment and giving hand-outs?

If this were true, one would expect a similar pattern among multilingual individuals, and an absence of the pattern among blacks in the highest socioeconomic strata. No, it's much more complex than this.

[vanwinkle]

No AA debates in the on-topic forums. If you want to discuss the politics of race and class in America you can start a thread in the Lounge.

Also, this is like the sixth time we've had this exact thread started about this exact video.