Is there actual proof of URM boost? Forum

[MC Southstar]

OMG BAMBOO CEILING LAWL!

[jonas586]

Black partnership has little to do with Intelligence or work ethic, it has to do with predjudice plain and simple. For example. There are disproportionately few female partners, openly gay partners, etc.

Why does this automatically mean "prejudice plain and simple"?

[kalvano]

White people keeping the man down, yo.

[Oban]

The president is black, we make da decizonz now.

[Oban]

Black partnership has little to do with Intelligence or work ethic, it has to do with predjudice plain and simple. For example. There are disproportionately few female partners, openly gay partners, etc.

Why does this automatically mean "prejudice plain and simple"?

Glass celing law.

[Unemployed]

Seriously???

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/ ... AC-gru.pdf

"For the fall 2002 entering class, there were a total of 4,461 law school applicants who had both LSAT scores of 165 or above and UGPA of 3.5 or above. Of that number, a total of just 29 were black.... Only 114 were Hispanic. The numbers are consistent for preceding years."

From LSAC's amicus curiae (in support of University of Michigan)

For the fall 2002 entering class, HLS alone had 50+ African Americans.

Ergo, boost.

Doesn't account for splitters.
--ImageRemoved--

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

"In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above."

I don't care to debate the merits of preferential treatment (as you know, I'm for it), but come on... There is a significant, quantifiable boost.

[Kohinoor]

Seriously???

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/ ... AC-gru.pdf

"For the fall 2002 entering class, there were a total of 4,461 law school applicants who had both LSAT scores of 165 or above and UGPA of 3.5 or above. Of that number, a total of just 29 were black.... Only 114 were Hispanic. The numbers are consistent for preceding years."

From LSAC's amicus curiae (in support of University of Michigan)

For the fall 2002 entering class, HLS alone had 50+ African Americans.

Ergo, boost.

Doesn't account for splitters.
--ImageRemoved--

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

"In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above."

I don't care to debate the merits of preferential treatment (as you know, I'm for it), but come on... There is a significant, quantifiable boost.

High GPA splitters are people too!

[Unemployed]

Seriously???

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/ ... AC-gru.pdf

"For the fall 2002 entering class, there were a total of 4,461 law school applicants who had both LSAT scores of 165 or above and UGPA of 3.5 or above. Of that number, a total of just 29 were black.... Only 114 were Hispanic. The numbers are consistent for preceding years."

From LSAC's amicus curiae (in support of University of Michigan)

For the fall 2002 entering class, HLS alone had 50+ African Americans.

Ergo, boost.

Doesn't account for splitters.
--ImageRemoved--

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

"In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above."

I don't care to debate the merits of preferential treatment (as you know, I'm for it), but come on... There is a significant, quantifiable boost.

High GPA splitters are people too!

4.0/164- people are almost always shut out of the T14, so the two figures above, combined, capture the total number of African American applicants who are "qualified" without a boost.

In fact, both figures were provided in support of AA - since there are so few numerically "qualified" URM applicants, a boost is necessary to maintain diversity.

[vanwinkle]

God, is this thread still going?

[bahama]

Black partnership has little to do with Intelligence or work ethic, it has to do with predjudice plain and simple. For example. There are disproportionately few female partners, openly gay partners, etc.

Since it takes a long time to become a partner, the diversity of a partnership today is a reflection of the historically available diverse population and decisions about whom to interview, whom to hire, whom to promote to partner, and life decisions by individuals (such as whether to leave the practice of law or to move in house somewhere) made over the last 10, 20, 30+ years. It is not necessarily an accurate representation of conditions for law students or junior associates today or a reliable means of projecting into the future.

Of course, a lack of diverse role models and mentors may make it harder for some people to advance even today.

And it does not deny that prejudice exists, just that it is not the only factor in the diversity of law firm partners.