Top Law Schools

"There is an overall tendency for test scores and undergraduate grades to over-predict law school performance for nonwhite law school students. The over-prediction was greater when LSAT score was used alone than when it was used in combination with UGPA. And, when used in combination, the two predictors tended to over-predict for nonwhite students with higher predicted LGPAs to a greater extent than it over-predicted for those with lower predicted LGPAs."

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Resea ... -99-05.pdf


(1) I actually support AA; I just cringe when I hear the disingenuous argument about the LSAT being unfair to minorities. Interesting that it actually over-estimates their performance.

(2) Knowing the strong general trend between LSAT and law school grades (contained both in this study and in other studies not related to race), I've gotta ask: when a school with an LSAT IQR of 167-171 regularly admits URMs with 159s, how do the minorities end up faring?

(3) Maybe we should get rid of blind grading, so that professors can be allowed to apply AA directly where it matters most. URMs need to be given a fighting chance.

(4) Do we owe Stephanie Grace an apology? Reparations?

IBTL.

Minorities do worse on the LSAT even when SES is accounted for. They're not really sure why despite trying to correct for it. At least that's what I took away from Alex Johnson's lecture on it.

Also, URM's specifically are often a small group of lower LSAT takers (relatively) compared to the vast majority of the class. It seems like they are predicted to do poorly already and I don't see how they are being overpredicted.

bk187 wrote:Minorities do worse on the LSAT even when SES is accounted for. They're not really sure why despite trying to correct for it. At least that's what I took away from Alex Johnson's lecture on it.

Also, URM's specifically are often a small group of lower LSAT takers (relatively) compared to the vast majority of the class. It seems like they are predicted to do poorly already and I don't see how they are being overpredicted.

If you look at the data, it seems like they are predicted (based on their LSATs and UGPAs) to be more or less towards the bottom of the class. Instead, they sit solidly at the bottom of the class.

What exactly is your point?

flcath wrote:"There is an overall tendency for test scores and undergraduate grades to over-predict law school performance for nonwhite law school students. The over-prediction was greater when LSAT score was used alone than when it was used in combination with UGPA. And, when used in combination, the two predictors tended to over-predict for nonwhite students with higher predicted LGPAs to a greater extent than it over-predicted for those with lower predicted LGPAs."

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Resea ... -99-05.pdf


(1) I actually support AA; I just cringe when I hear the disingenuous argument about the LSAT being unfair to minorities. Interesting that it actually over-estimates their performance.

(2) Knowing the strong general trend between LSAT and law school grades (contained both in this study and in other studies not related to race), I've gotta ask: when a school with an LSAT IQR of 167-171 regularly admits URMs with 159s, how do the minorities end up faring?

(3) Maybe we should get rid of blind grading, so that professors can be allowed to apply AA directly where it matters most. URMs need to be given a fighting chance.

(4) Do we owe Stephanie Grace an apology? Reparations?

Seriously?

ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

LAWLAW09 wrote:ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

flcath wrote:(3) Maybe we should get rid of blind grading, so that professors can be allowed to apply AA directly where it matters most. URMs need to be given a fighting chance.

LAWLAW09 wrote:ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

I brought up the idea of abolishing blind grading, which as a policy is systemically unfair to URMs.

flcath wrote:

LAWLAW09 wrote:ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

I brought up the idea of abolishing blind grading, which as a policy is systemically unfair to URMs.

notsureifserious.jpg

sophicad wrote:

flcath wrote:"There is an overall tendency for test scores and undergraduate grades to over-predict law school performance for nonwhite law school students. The over-prediction was greater when LSAT score was used alone than when it was used in combination with UGPA. And, when used in combination, the two predictors tended to over-predict for nonwhite students with higher predicted LGPAs to a greater extent than it over-predicted for those with lower predicted LGPAs."

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Resea ... -99-05.pdf


(1) I actually support AA; I just cringe when I hear the disingenuous argument about the LSAT being unfair to minorities. Interesting that it actually over-estimates their performance.

(2) Knowing the strong general trend between LSAT and law school grades (contained both in this study and in other studies not related to race), I've gotta ask: when a school with an LSAT IQR of 167-171 regularly admits URMs with 159s, how do the minorities end up faring?

(3) Maybe we should get rid of blind grading, so that professors can be allowed to apply AA directly where it matters most. URMs need to be given a fighting chance.

(4) Do we owe Stephanie Grace an apology? Reparations?

Seriously?

I mean, I guess between the AA in admissions and the AA in hiring, the issue is covered to as great an extent as it can be (without larger societal changes), but there's still no reason not to apply it to grades as well.

you are suggesting we give them AA in actual exam performance too? where do you draw the line? in admissions you can say stuff like they add diversity or weren't given opportunities, but they are on a level playing field when they get into law school for the most part.

i really hope there is minimal AA in med school because i would not like an URM who had shitty grades doing my heart surgery.

flcath wrote:

LAWLAW09 wrote:ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

I brought up the idea of abolishing blind grading, which as a policy is systemically unfair to URMs.

Yeah, but then their "inflated" GPA would be looked at unfavorably among employers.

flcath wrote:

LAWLAW09 wrote:ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

I brought up the idea of abolishing blind grading, which as a policy is systemically unfair to URMs.

Who's "we"?


"Maybe we should change the world."


Can you find an expressed commitment in there? I can't.

$1.99 wrote:you are suggesting we give them AA in actual exam performance too? where do you draw the line? in admissions you can say stuff like they add diversity or weren't given opportunities, but they are on a level playing field when they get into law school for the most part.

i really hope there is minimal AA in med school because i would not like an URM who had shitty grades doing my heart surgery.

And I'll ask you: where do we draw the line with YOUR thinking? I don't want a such a person operating on me either... or defending me against a murder charge... or managing my life savings... or working for my small business in which I've invested everything...

The idea is that one day AA won't be necessary.

flcath wrote:

$1.99 wrote:you are suggesting we give them AA in actual exam performance too? where do you draw the line? in admissions you can say stuff like they add diversity or weren't given opportunities, but they are on a level playing field when they get into law school for the most part.

i really hope there is minimal AA in med school because i would not like an URM who had shitty grades doing my heart surgery.

And I'll ask you: where do we draw the line with YOUR thinking? I don't want a such a person operating on me either... or defending me against a murder charge... or managing my life savings... or working for my small business in which I've invested everything...

The idea is that one day AA won't be necessary.

That doesn't help your argument.

The LSAT does not over-estimate their performance. There is obviously a third variable at work here. I'll let you figure out what it is.

LAWLAW09 wrote:

flcath wrote:

LAWLAW09 wrote:ITT: White person cringes. No commitment to do anything about anything is expressed. Nothing changes.

I brought up the idea of abolishing blind grading, which as a policy is systemically unfair to URMs.

LAWLAW09 wrote:Who's "we"?

White people? Society? Future leaders? Idk, dude, do you go to law school? This type of discussion is not unusual.

LAWLAW09 wrote:"Maybe we should change the world."

AA is changing the world, slowly. This is another opportunity.

LAWLAW09 wrote:Can you find an expressed commitment in there? I can't.

I volunteered at a Food Bank over break. Like 45 hours.

Is this the type of direct action you're looking for?

Would you like me to pitch in by befriending a URM in my class and switching exam numbers with him before our Civ Pro final?

cartercl wrote:The LSAT does not over-estimate their performance. There is obviously a third variable at work here. I'll let you figure out what it is.

Can you just tell me? It appears the LSAC doesn't know either, so I don't feel that dumb.

flcath wrote:

$1.99 wrote:you are suggesting we give them AA in actual exam performance too? where do you draw the line? in admissions you can say stuff like they add diversity or weren't given opportunities, but they are on a level playing field when they get into law school for the most part.

i really hope there is minimal AA in med school because i would not like an URM who had shitty grades doing my heart surgery.

And I'll ask you: where do we draw the line with YOUR thinking? I don't want a such a person operating on me either... or defending me against a murder charge... or managing my life savings... or working for my small business in which I've invested everything...


The idea is that one day AA won't be necessary.

Most minorities don't want (and don't benefit from) an all White legal field. All the evidence seems to suggest that there is a lot of "over-predicting" involved in non-black applicants with high LSATs/GPAs.

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:

flcath wrote:

$1.99 wrote:you are suggesting we give them AA in actual exam performance too? where do you draw the line? in admissions you can say stuff like they add diversity or weren't given opportunities, but they are on a level playing field when they get into law school for the most part.

i really hope there is minimal AA in med school because i would not like an URM who had shitty grades doing my heart surgery.

And I'll ask you: where do we draw the line with YOUR thinking? I don't want a such a person operating on me either... or defending me against a murder charge... or managing my life savings... or working for my small business in which I've invested everything...

The idea is that one day AA won't be necessary.

That doesn't help your argument.

I know, I was just pointing out that argument by extension (presumably, since you posted here on this thread at TLS, you wanted your point to be carried over to LS) doesn't necessarily cut in your favor.

FWIW, there is less AA in med school admissions, and there are embarrassingly few URMs in the field. Also, unlike LS, the med school application process is seriously expensive (>$600, plus travel and hotel to every school to which you apply). There's very little SE diversity.

Winning an AA argument on the internet is almost pointless, but I see where flcath is coming from and I don't understand why he/she is being attacked because they aren't the leader of the ACLU and doing something about their beliefs.

If you want to fix underrepresentation of minorities in certain professions, or in income brackets, or whatever your goal is, you really need to address disparities in childhood education, that sort of thing. This is a structural problem in society, and one which is not easily solved. However, I am NOT okay with giving a student a boost in their grades just because of their URM status. That's absurd. There has to be a difference between giving someone an opportunity (admission to law school) and having them sieze that opportunity to make something of themselves (actually earning their grades and getting a good job).

What do you want? To reserve top spots on the class curve for URMs, regardless of whether they did the work? Grades are supposed to reflect ability and competence, not your racial identity

LAWLAW09 wrote:

flcath wrote:

$1.99 wrote:you are suggesting we give them AA in actual exam performance too? where do you draw the line? in admissions you can say stuff like they add diversity or weren't given opportunities, but they are on a level playing field when they get into law school for the most part.

i really hope there is minimal AA in med school because i would not like an URM who had shitty grades doing my heart surgery.

And I'll ask you: where do we draw the line with YOUR thinking? I don't want a such a person operating on me either... or defending me against a murder charge... or managing my life savings... or working for my small business in which I've invested everything...


The idea is that one day AA won't be necessary.

Most minorities don't want (and don't benefit from) an all White legal field. All the evidence seems to suggest that there is a lot of "over-predicting" involved in non-black applicants with high LSATs/GPAs.

This is it. Let's say an AA male was admitted to a law school with a 159 where the LSAT median was 171. If that person ended up with a GPA of 3.0 where the median was like 3.4-3.5, how exactly does the LSAT over-predict their performance when an LSAT of 159 at a school with a median of 171 suggests that the student should have obtained a GPA in the lower quartile?

sophicad wrote:If you want to fix underrepresentation of minorities in certain professions, or in income brackets, or whatever your goal is, you really need to address disparities in childhood education, that sort of thing. This is a structural problem in society, and one which is not easily solved. However, I am NOT okay with giving a student a boost in their grades just because of their URM status. That's absurd. There has to be a difference between giving someone an opportunity (admission to law school) and having them sieze that opportunity to make something of themselves (actually earning their grades and getting a good job).

What do you want? To reserve top spots on the class curve for URMs, regardless of whether they did the work? Grades are supposed to reflect ability and competence, not your racial identity

+1