LSAT correlates to success in law school Forum

[carlkenneth]

Correction:

I am tired of the kenyans/ethopians always winning the marathon. They have an unfair advantage in that their societies, historically, have not permitted Americans to purchase running shoes, made it illegal for Americans to compete with kenyans/ethiopians in the same racing venue, amputated the legs of those Americans that showed promise in the sport, and their cultures have valued endurance running more than americans have. in light if this, i think that we should give the americans in the marathon a twenty minute head start this year. that seems to make sense.

[Kohinoor]

I am tired of the kenyans/ethopians always winning the marathon. they have an unfair advantage in that their cultures, historically, have always valued endurance running more than americans have. in light if this, i think that we should give the americans in the marathon a twenty minute head start this year. that seems to make sense.

Hey, this is kind of like the affirmative action debate but retarded!

its a fine analogy.

It manages to mangle both the policy reasons behind affirmative action and the historical underpinnings of your purported policy.

[imisscollege]

I am tired of the kenyans/ethopians always winning the marathon. they have an unfair advantage in that their cultures, historically, have always valued endurance running more than americans have. in light if this, i think that we should give the americans in the marathon a twenty minute head start this year. that seems to make sense.

Hey, this is kind of like the affirmative action debate but retarded!

its a fine analogy.

It manages to mangle both the policy reasons behind affirmative action and the historical underpinnings of your purported policy.

nice use of the word "purported"

[phoenix323]

I am tired of the kenyans/ethopians always winning the marathon. they have an unfair advantage in that their cultures, historically, have always valued endurance running more than americans have. in light if this, i think that we should give the americans in the marathon a twenty minute head start this year. that seems to make sense.

Hey, this is kind of like the affirmative action debate but retarded!

+ 1,000,000

/bad analogy

[JustDude]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

[klussy]

Why do people hate seeing minorities in college and advanced degrees programs? If you were to listen to these Affirmative Action detractors, you'd think AA was some sort of Bolshevik plot.

blatant anti-MTal trolling

[Joga Bonito]

I am tired of the kenyans/ethopians always winning the marathon. they have an unfair advantage in that their cultures, historically, have always valued endurance running more than americans have. in light if this, i think that we should give the americans in the marathon a twenty minute head start this year. that seems to make sense.

Hey, this is kind of like the affirmative action debate but retarded!

its a fine analogy.

No its not. The analogy about running in a competitive marathon is more like actual performance in law school, so the application of that analogy would be most minorities finish in the bottom of their class so let’s boost their grades or add points to their test grade, of course this does not happen. (One could say that that’s what happens with lsat's in AA admissions but that’s not really true) If you try to say the lsat meets that standard for running a race then you would be wrong because it doesn’t. It may be the best predictor of law school performance (how someone will run the actual race) but it’s nothing near perfect besides plenty of people (not most but enough) White and Black go into law school with low lsat’s/gpa’s compared to the rest of the class (what would be qualifying times in your analogy-of course it’s not that similar) but finish at the top of the class (win the race), this scenario hardly ever happens in track and field.

Also the point of AA is not because people are tired of white Americans always going to law school. The reason is historical and for diversity purposes (not even going there). Its more similar to allowing people of different countries to have people run in 100m in the Olympics even though we know the guy from Russia is probably gonna get smoked by the American and would probably get smoked by the other Americans who didn’t qualify to run in the finals for their country because you can only have one. Although that analogy is still really different from AA and law school but more similar than what you said.

Plus if you want to use the race analogy in that way, why let any non-Kenyans/Ethiopians or Africans run at all. If they’re so dominant I'm sure that the runners-up to the top squad for those countries could still beat or compete with the runners for America, but they don't get in because you have to have reps from different countries (proportional representation-similar but by not the same logic of AA), even if that means some better runners from highly competitive countries (Kenya for ex.) don't get to run. But no one bitches (I’m sure somebody does but in general there’s a reason why you don’t hear people bitching about this, because law school and running marathons differ in nature and importance and a lot of other things)

Also the entire purpose and context of law school makes that analogy bad, at least as soon as you move beyond the shallow similarities. There are a lot of other reasons why it’s a bad analogy but this post is too long.

[logicman86]

If the LSAT correlates to the success an applicant will have in law school and, as can be seen by looking at nearly any chart on LSN, URMs are often admitted with a far lower LSAT score than other applicants, does this not result in URMs being placed in an environment where they will have a lot of difficulty succeeding and be seriously disadvantaged?

URMs as a group do as well as their LSAT would predict. But success over their career doesn't seem to be harmed at all because firms will hire for diversity and when in the firm they don't under perform.

Key is that LSAT is a "good predictor" of how well one does in law school, not of one's career success as an attorney.
Also.. i don't see how you actually care about the answer to your question. If you are not URM, then why would you care if a section of your class is at a disadvantage. it makes things advantageous for you. And if, in fact, they are not disadvantaged, then I guess you have to work hard. Which is what you should have been planning to do anyway.

Opinion time: as a URM, I would argue that URMs are placed into an environment where they may have a lot of difficulty succeeding and be seriously disadvantaged the day they come out of the womb.

The LSAT is clearly as close as they can come to predicting success in law school which can be largely reflective of one's success in law. Does a 180 mean you're going to be Barack Obama? No. A co-worker of mine scored a 180, is a Fordham Law graduate and teaches the LSAT for a living because he cannot find a good job with a firm. Conversely, I know somebody who scored a 155 and is a highly respected matrimonial attorney.

But if you cannot learn how to identify and pick apart assumptions, think deductively and fold under test pressure, clearly you aren't going to be as good of a bet as someone who can do all of these aforementioned things quite astutely.

[logicman86]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

Agreed!

URM is ridiculous, because with all due honesty, racism is not an issue in universities anymore (at least the ones I am familiar with). So URM does not protect minorities from being discriminated against, because they don't have to worry about such discrimination in an academic setting.

So the only possible explanation for URM in law schools is that URM are more likely to come from a poor background, and have succeeded despite not having the same opportunities of their caucasian counterparts.

But this argument is just untrue. The socioeconomic division is not a major influence today, and statistics indicate that most URM who attend law school had socioeconomic backgrounds similar to their non-URM counterparts. Should an African American applicant who grew up in a million dollar home, and went to a private prep high school have an enormous advantage over a white applicant who worked two jobs through high school to get out of the projects?

The answer is no. The only way for URM to be a fair system is to set it up in accordance with the applicant's socioeconomic background. If your household made 20k a year then you have an advantage over an applicant whose household made 300k a year regardless of race. However, the moment we do this is the moment we govern our school systems with a socialist philosophy.

So just get rid of URM!

^ Coming from someone who qualifies as a URM, but will probably not be utilizing this status in my law school applications.

[vanwinkle]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

Agreed!

URM is ridiculous, because with all due honesty, racism is not an issue in universities anymore (at least the ones I am familiar with). So URM does not protect minorities from being discriminated against, because they don't have to worry about such discrimination in an academic setting.

So the only possible explanation for URM in law schools is that URM are more likely to come from a poor background, and have succeeded despite not having the same opportunities of their caucasian counterparts.

But this argument is just untrue. The socioeconomic division is not a major influence today, and statistics indicate that most URM who attend law school had socioeconomic backgrounds similar to their non-URM counterparts. Should an African American applicant who grew up in a million dollar home, and went to a private prep high school have an enormous advantage over a white applicant who worked two jobs through high school to get out of the projects?

The answer is no. The only way for URM to be a fair system is to set it up in accordance with the applicant's socioeconomic background. If your household made 20k a year then you have an advantage over an applicant whose household made 300k a year regardless of race. However, the moment we do this is the moment we govern our school systems with a socialist philosophy.

So just get rid of URM!

^ Coming from someone who qualifies as a URM, but will probably not be utilizing this status in my law school applications.

It is painfully obvious how you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Jules Winnfield]

Goodness gracious with these AA debates!

Whether some people like it or not, AA is employed by schools when considering URM applicants. if you can't appreciate that, then don't apply to the schools that seemingly give URMs a "free pass" at the expense of non-URM applicants.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

Agreed!

URM is ridiculous, because with all due honesty, racism is not an issue in universities anymore (at least the ones I am familiar with). So URM does not protect minorities from being discriminated against, because they don't have to worry about such discrimination in an academic setting.

So the only possible explanation for URM in law schools is that URM are more likely to come from a poor background, and have succeeded despite not having the same opportunities of their caucasian counterparts.

But this argument is just untrue. The socioeconomic division is not a major influence today, and statistics indicate that most URM who attend law school had socioeconomic backgrounds similar to their non-URM counterparts. Should an African American applicant who grew up in a million dollar home, and went to a private prep high school have an enormous advantage over a white applicant who worked two jobs through high school to get out of the projects?

The answer is no. The only way for URM to be a fair system is to set it up in accordance with the applicant's socioeconomic background. If your household made 20k a year then you have an advantage over an applicant whose household made 300k a year regardless of race. However, the moment we do this is the moment we govern our school systems with a socialist philosophy.

So just get rid of URM!

^ Coming from someone who qualifies as a URM, but will probably not be utilizing this status in my law school applications.

It is painfully obvious how you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

+1

persuasive arguments can be made by people on both sides of this issue, but i find it absolutely insufferable when people write long diatribes despite knowing very little about what is going on.

[Jules Winnfield]

this is going to be another "URM performance in LS"...congrats, OP!

[fl0w]

...lengthy stream of verbal diarrhea...

--ImageRemoved--

[phoenix323]

Opponents of AA are usually not against system. They are against role that they are playing in this system. Most of them think "o, if I were URM, I would get into ***** school with this LSAT". Lets say school practices AA and admits average 175 LSAT for Non URM and 170 for URM. If you are a non-URM and have 170 you are out regardless whether school has AA policy or not.

Also, during one of the AA related Law Suits Non URMs at, I believe, UoMichigan said that they would prefer a more diverse class. So schools like it and admitted students too.


Those AA opponents complain about rules at the party to which they were not invited.

Agreed!

URM is ridiculous, because with all due honesty, racism is not an issue in universities anymore (at least the ones I am familiar with). So URM does not protect minorities from being discriminated against, because they don't have to worry about such discrimination in an academic setting.

So the only possible explanation for URM in law schools is that URM are more likely to come from a poor background, and have succeeded despite not having the same opportunities of their caucasian counterparts.

But this argument is just untrue. The socioeconomic division is not a major influence today, and statistics indicate that most URM who attend law school had socioeconomic backgrounds similar to their non-URM counterparts. Should an African American applicant who grew up in a million dollar home, and went to a private prep high school have an enormous advantage over a white applicant who worked two jobs through high school to get out of the projects?

The answer is no. The only way for URM to be a fair system is to set it up in accordance with the applicant's socioeconomic background. If your household made 20k a year then you have an advantage over an applicant whose household made 300k a year regardless of race. However, the moment we do this is the moment we govern our school systems with a socialist philosophy.

So just get rid of URM!

^ Coming from someone who qualifies as a URM, but will probably not be utilizing this status in my law school applications.

It is painfully obvious how you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

[09042014]

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

That isn't the part he was wrong about.

[phoenix323]

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

That isn't the part he was wrong about.

Oh he/she is definitely wrong about this. I go to a public university in a fairly liberal state, and racism exists, overtly. (Several high profile events have occurred recently.)

But, the entirety of the poster's statement is as uniformed and unenlightened as the above statement.

[imisscollege]

I am tired of the kenyans/ethopians always winning the marathon. they have an unfair advantage in that their cultures, historically, have always valued endurance running more than americans have. in light if this, i think that we should give the americans in the marathon a twenty minute head start this year. that seems to make sense.

Hey, this is kind of like the affirmative action debate but retarded!

its a fine analogy.

No its not. The analogy about running in a competitive marathon is more like actual performance in law school, so the application of that analogy would be most minorities finish in the bottom of their class so let’s boost their grades or add points to their test grade, of course this does not happen.

Hm a pretty famous UCLA law review article which I don't feel like finding but is all over these AA threads uses actual data instead of one person's based-on-nothing proves you quite wrong on this part. As a result, IMO the rest of your post goes to shit so i stopped reading.

[Joga Bonito]

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

That isn't the part he was wrong about.

If you think racism does not exist at universities anymore than you are extremely delusional and probably aren't an ethnic/racial minority and never really studied history/sociology/poli sci, your also probably a republican. Excuse my ad hominem but its true.

[09042014]

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

That isn't the part he was wrong about.

If you think racism does not exist at universities anymore than you are extremely delusional and probably aren't an ethnic/racial minority and never really studied history/sociology/poli sci, your also probably a republican. Excuse my ad hominem but its true.

White, not a republican, nor am I delusional.

Admissions favor of racial minorities, and I never saw or even heard it suggested that grading was biased against racial minorities. Universities are always looking for potential discrimination.

I can't think of a set of institutions less racist than universities.

What sort of discrimination do you think exists in universities?

[APimpNamedSlickback]

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

That isn't the part he was wrong about.

If you think racism does not exist at universities anymore than you are extremely delusional and probably aren't an ethnic/racial minority and never really studied history/sociology/poli sci, your also probably a republican. Excuse my ad hominem but its true.

White, not a republican, nor am I delusional.

Admissions favor of racial minorities, and I never saw or even heard it suggested that grading was biased against racial minorities. Universities are always looking for potential discrimination.

I can't think of a set of institutions less racist than universities.

What sort of discrimination do think exists in universities?

i agree with you here. arguments on behalf of aa should not rest on the premise that universities are racist. that does not work, to put it kindly.

that doesn't mean those arguments are wrong however. racism, both overt and implicit, within society as a whole might be just as relevant.

[09042014]

i agree with you here. arguments on behalf of aa should not rest on the premise that universities are racist. that does not work, to put it kindly.

that doesn't mean those arguments are wrong however. racism, both overt and implicit, within society as a whole might be just as relevant.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the result gap on tests and in school is the result of generations of systematic racism on our culture and the black subculture in America. I'm sure you have better insights than I.

Also saw your edit

[Joga Bonito]

+100

Racism is not an issue in universities anymore? What country do YOU live in?

That isn't the part he was wrong about.

If you think racism does not exist at universities anymore than you are extremely delusional and probably aren't an ethnic/racial minority and never really studied history/sociology/poli sci, your also probably a republican. Excuse my ad hominem but its true.

White, not a republican, nor am I delusional.

Admissions favor of racial minorities, and I never saw or even heard it suggested that grading was biased against racial minorities. Universities are always looking for potential discrimination.

I can't think of a set of institutions less racist than universities.

What sort of discrimination do you think exists in universities?

Well, I did assume you were white but I figured I included enough sterotypes, I also ment to add libertarian, your either libertarian or republican in terms of sensibilities or just kidding yourself.

So let me get this straight your saying that because of AA, universities are more racist than any other institution.
WTF! What about the American Criminal Justice System and its sentencing.

edit for addition-racism and discrimnation are not the same thing the original arguement was that racism exist on campuses, although I think discrimnation exist as well, also you can have discrimination without racism but not the other way around. I''l post a def. of racism if need be.

[RVP11]

I've never understood the AA debate re: law school admissions.

The whole point of going to a top law school is to get a job.

Legal employers want URMs. They've deemed it valuable to have minority leaders in the workplace. They dip down lower in every school's class to get URMs. If URMs didn't get a boost in admissions, employers would just be reaching further down in every law school class and further down the US News rankings. They wouldn't suddenly start hiring you, angry white person.

Employment prospects (you know...the thing that actually matters) for the average white law student would not change.

[kittenmittons]

I don't see color post-Obama.