Top Law Schools

How strongly would an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the odds of non-URMS gaining admission to T14s?

ObviousAlias wrote:How strongly would an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the odds of non-URMS gaining admission to T14s?

Very, very small. See what happened in CA and MI for a case study of why things won't really change.

Depends on the scope of their decision? Maybe they strike down the practice being used in undergrad admissions only. However, I thought it only affects the admission process for public schools. So private schools might be able to use it still (11 of 14).

bdubs wrote:

ObviousAlias wrote:How strongly would an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the odds of non-URMS gaining admission to T14s?

Very, very small. See what happened in CA and MI for a case study of why things won't really change.

From CA here.

At the undergraduate level, Prop ?? in the 90's reduced URMs and increased Asian Americans and whites at the UC's.

I don't know about law school, however.

Why wouldn't an anti-affirmative action ruling affect the numbers?

The one thing I will say is that it's possible that URMs may still be given "preferences" under other criteria like SES considerations. I think that many schools may use SES as a proxy for race considerations.

law schools know how to sidestep the issue.

I don't need affirmative action...

AA is a scam anyway. Just another lazy social policy that gives half-assed consideration to the history of the groups that it's supposedly trying to serve the most. Similar to this law school URM-bump scam, all it does is give permission to people who are not oppressed in society to whine about how oppressed they think they are now.

Hey, I've got a great idea, let's start an argument about racially charged politics on the internet!

I'm not a mod but I can tell you talking about whether AA is a good thing or not will get this thread locked fast and possibly result in a ban. AFAIK there's no problem with discussing the technical implications of AA being forbidden by SCOTUS.

At my high school in California everyone seemed pretty convinced that URMs would still get a boost but they had to signal in other ways -- they faced discrimination or grew up poor or whatever. Then again, my school had virtually no minorities except Asians so even the college advisors probably didn't have much experience with URM admissions.

nickb285 wrote:Hey, I've got a great idea, let's start an argument about racially charged politics on the internet!

Thank you! Not only is going here prohibited in on-topic forums, but there's just little point in having a discussion about the merits of AA. We all kind of are where we are on it, and passionately.

As for the technical question around what the implications of a reversal will be, my expectation is that not much will change at all.

jas1503 wrote:AA is a scam anyway. Just another lazy social policy that gives half-assed consideration to the history of the groups that it's supposedly trying to serve the most. Similar to this law school URM-bump scam, all it does is give permission to people who are not oppressed in society to whine about how oppressed they think they are now.

+1000

It is immoral and unnecessary when upper-middle class African Americans claim URM boosts. It is like they are tacitly saying they are genetically stupider or have a crappier life situation than others-- both of which aren't true and lead to disgusting labels.

The diversity angle is garbage too. I've learned more from LGBT, Atheist, Southern Evangelical, and Libertarian classmates than any boost on race. There is no argument against this.

There is huge societal value to getting more indigent-type minorities into law school. But, there should be a way to differentiate.

TaipeiMort wrote:

jas1503 wrote:AA is a scam anyway. Just another lazy social policy that gives half-assed consideration to the history of the groups that it's supposedly trying to serve the most. Similar to this law school URM-bump scam, all it does is give permission to people who are not oppressed in society to whine about how oppressed they think they are now.

+1000

It is immoral and unnecessary when upper-middle class African Americans claim URM boosts. It is like they are tacitly saying they are genetically stupider or have a crappier life situation than others-- both of which aren't true and lead to disgusting labels.

The diversity angle is garbage too. I've learned more from LGBT, Atheist, Southern Evangelical, and Libertarian classmates than any boost on race. There is no argument against this.

There is huge societal value to getting more indigent-type minorities into law school. But, there should be a way to differentiate.

While I agree with the bold, the rest of this post is part of the whining that I hinted at.

This thread is pointless.

This thread just



Lock incoming 3, 2, 1...

This will end well.

El Principe wrote:I don't need affirmative action...

I'll refrain from touching on that one since this thread is soon to be locked

EDIT: What are the implications of a SCOTUS decision on African American gifs?