Top Law Schools

I have a simple question. How the **** does a white male get a full scholarship? Christ... See 175 and 3.9 GPAs getting half scholarships if they are white males and 150's with 3.3 GPAs getting full scholarships to the same schools if they are anything but white males.

Shit is redonkulous.

Yep, it Sucks to be a white male. Especially if you're anglo-saxon and protestant. Land of the free my ass.

Wow.

Also, IBTL.

Supply and Demand, brother.

IBTInevitableAffirmativeActionLock

there's a thread for these sorts of posts.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... ive+action

Gecko of Doom wrote:Wow.

Also, IBTL.

I've never been PC. But this shit really is out of control. Applicants who are 100 times more qualified than other applicants should not get less money because of skin color. That shit is racist. Racism doesn't solve racism.

flcath wrote:Supply and Demand, brother.

lol I'm not sure what you mean by this... I'm assuming that you mean that schools feel they need to offer more to URM's to get their numbers up. You're probably right, but fuck the laws/guidelines that make schools have to do that.

givemea170 wrote:I've never been PC. But this shit really is out of control. Applicants who are 100 times more qualified than other applicants should not get less money because of skin color. That shit is racist. Racism doesn't solve racism.

Write to your congressman.

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:Supply and Demand, brother.

lol I'm not sure what you mean by this... I'm assuming that you mean that schools feel they need to offer more to URM's to get their numbers up. You're probably right, but fuck the laws/guidelines that make schools have to do that.

Fewer than 30 blacks per year make above a 170. Competition for these applicants is intense.

Whites have a mean LSAT score of a 152, while blacks' is a 141. (See source above.) I'd say 9 points is about what the AA advantage usually comes out to.

Plus bro, if we didn't have AA we'd have embarrassingly few doctors/lawyers in our society.

Hopefully one day it won't be needed anymore.

IBTL

ETA: IBTB for AA raging

flcath wrote:Plus bro, if we didn't have AA we'd have embarrassingly few doctors/lawyers in our society.

Hopefully one day it won't be needed anymore.

If anything, it should be based on SOCIOECONOMIC status only.

You're telling me that a black male that grows up in a rich family in a good town is more disadvantaged than a white male who grows up in some hick town in the south living in a double wide?

It is a severely flawed system, at best.

What valid and novel points.

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:Plus bro, if we didn't have AA we'd have embarrassingly few doctors/lawyers in our society.

Hopefully one day it won't be needed anymore.

If anything, it should be based on SOCIOECONOMIC status only.

You're telling me that a black male that grows up in a rich family in a good town is more disadvantaged than a white male who grows up in some hick town in the south living in a double wide?

It is a severely flawed system, at best.

You're still thinking of it as a meritocracy (hardships of being black = bump based on merit). It's not about that.

It's about not having a society run entirely by whites. This is especially important in the legal industry, since blacks (not being funny here) are so often are on the "business end" of the criminal justice system.

flcath wrote:

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:Plus bro, if we didn't have AA we'd have embarrassingly few doctors/lawyers in our society.

Hopefully one day it won't be needed anymore.

If anything, it should be based on SOCIOECONOMIC status only.

You're telling me that a black male that grows up in a rich family in a good town is more disadvantaged than a white male who grows up in some hick town in the south living in a double wide?

It is a severely flawed system, at best.

You're still thinking of it as a meritocracy (hardships of being black = bump based on merit). It's not about that.

It's about not having a society run entirely by whites. This is especially important in the legal industry, since blacks (not being funny here) are so often are on the "business end" of the criminal justice system.

I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:You're still thinking of it as a meritocracy (hardships of being black = bump based on merit). It's not about that.

It's about not having a society run entirely by whites. This is especially important in the legal industry, since blacks (not being funny here) are so often are on the "business end" of the criminal justice system.

I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

We do give AA to white basketball players. They are more marketable, memorable (since they stick out), and appeal to a white suburban demographic that has a lot of disposable income.

givemea170 wrote: I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

Give an example of a black dominated industry that whites aspire to be a part of where there's more than a 0.0000001% chance of any given individual becoming a part of it, and I'll concede.

flcath wrote:

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:You're still thinking of it as a meritocracy (hardships of being black = bump based on merit). It's not about that.

It's about not having a society run entirely by whites. This is especially important in the legal industry, since blacks (not being funny here) are so often are on the "business end" of the criminal justice system.

I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

We do give AA to white basketball players. They are more marketable, memorable (since they stick out), and appeal to a white suburban demographic that has a lot of disposable income.

We do? Examples? Outside of Steve Nash I can't really think of a big name white basketball player. And he is obviously good enough to be on the team on his own merit considering he is a perennial all star.

NYC Law wrote:

givemea170 wrote: I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

Give an example of a black dominated industry that whites aspire to be a part of where there's more than a 0.0000001% chance of any given individual becoming a part of it, and I'll concede.

I shouldn't have to prove anything like that. 175 > 150 by too wide of a margin to have that kind of scholarship money discrepancy.

To base more on skin color than LSAT/GPA is sad, to me. If you disagree, fine... but that 175 LSAT guy is most likely going to become a better lawyer... There is a big difference between scoring in the 99th percentile and scoring in the 50th percentile.

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:

givemea170 wrote:

flcath wrote:You're still thinking of it as a meritocracy (hardships of being black = bump based on merit). It's not about that.

It's about not having a society run entirely by whites. This is especially important in the legal industry, since blacks (not being funny here) are so often are on the "business end" of the criminal justice system.

I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

We do give AA to white basketball players. They are more marketable, memorable (since they stick out), and appeal to a white suburban demographic that has a lot of disposable income.

We do? Examples? Outside of Steve Nash I can't really think of a big name white basketball player. And he is obviously good enough to be on the team on his own merit considering he is a perennial all star.

There's Jason Kidd (who I guess is bi-racial, but whatevs). More importantly, look at how the NFL brands its QBs.

NYC Law wrote:

givemea170 wrote: I'll never accept that kind of logic. Blacks run the NBA now, should we force teams to carry a certain number of white players that suck to keep things even? There is too wide of a discrepancy between 175 and 150 to just ignore and claim the difference in points is due to being held back due to skin color.

Give an example of a black dominated industry that whites aspire to be a part of where there's more than a 0.0000001% chance of any given individual becoming a part of it, and I'll concede.

.

givemea170 wrote: We do? Examples? Outside of Steve Nash I can't really think of a big name white basketball player. And he is obviously good enough to be on the team on his own merit considering he is a perennial all star.

Nowitzki, Ginobli, Pau Gasol?

Darko was the second overall pick in the 2003 draft.

The sad reality is that black QBs usually struggle because most black QBs are running QBs and running QBs just do not pan out in the NFL unless they are named Michael Vick...

It has nothing to do with skin color, its just that black QBs rely on running too much in high school/college and then they get to the NFL and realize they can't run and are forced to pass, something they aren't as used to doing as someone like Peyton Manning who is slow as hell and has been a pocket passer since he was 10 years old.

If there ever came along a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady like QB that had black skin, he'd probably be the biggest name in the NFL.

Blessedassurance wrote:

givemea170 wrote: We do? Examples? Outside of Steve Nash I can't really think of a big name white basketball player. And he is obviously good enough to be on the team on his own merit considering he is a perennial all star.

Nowitzki, Ginobli, Pau Gasol?

Darko was the second overall pick in the 2003 draft.

Well, getting into that point, I'd say African Americans were more marketable than Europeans... Proof is kind of in the 250,000,000 shoe deal Derrick Rose just signed. The most marketable players in the NBA are all black. We seem to be jumping topics too much now. I'm buzzed anyway.

givemea170 wrote:If there ever came along a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady like QB that had black skin, he'd probably be the biggest name in the NFL.

I think a statement really, really close to this (that specifically related to Donovan McNabb) was what got Rush Limbaugh fired from commentating.