Legacy Question Forum

[Fantasyfreak294]

So, I know that HLS says you can put down in an addendum if any close relatives have attended HLS. I know this is typically for parents (and maybe grandparents). I have 3 first cousins who have attended HLS. How much of a stretch is it to call a first cousin a close relative? Do I lose any value in the eyes of an admissions person by doing so?

[LurkerTurnedMember]

So, I know that HLS says you can put down in an addendum if any close relatives have attended HLS. I know this is typically for parents (and maybe grandparents). I have 3 first cousins who have attended HLS. How much of a stretch is it to call a first cousin a close relative? Do I lose any value in the eyes of an admissions person by doing so?

Why are you going to law school? Can't you just stay home and collect your trust fund money?

[Fantasyfreak294]

So, I know that HLS says you can put down in an addendum if any close relatives have attended HLS. I know this is typically for parents (and maybe grandparents). I have 3 first cousins who have attended HLS. How much of a stretch is it to call a first cousin a close relative? Do I lose any value in the eyes of an admissions person by doing so?

Why are you going to law school? Can't you just stay home and collect your trust fund money?

I'm not sure what you gain by being intentionally inflammatory, but I'm going to pretend your question was a real question.
1) I'd like to make a difference. I am interested in Public Interest Law.
2) My family is not wealthy.

[Alive97]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't mean to be rude to OP, and I apologize if I came off that way. A lot of top schools (even the one I went to, although not Harvard), have (I think) very low socioeconomic diversity. it's basically students who started off in private or very good schools, did insincere free internships like building benches in Africa to boost their resume, just doing what's expected and walking into the next institution built for them. In some schools, at least during undergrad when I was applying, they actually take your lack of ability to pay as a negative factor. So some schools, especially the top ones, have been shameless about taking in mostly well off applicants/students. I'd put the cousins down if they donated. If they haven't, who knows, maybe it might hurt you cause it might imply you won't donate either.

Also, take what I said with a grain of salt, cause it might not apply perfectly to Harvard. But I really hope you get in. You'll be one of the very few, if not the first HLS grad I spoke to, out of so many, that's not from a well off family.

[oliverotis]

So, I know that HLS says you can put down in an addendum if any close relatives have attended HLS. I know this is typically for parents (and maybe grandparents). I have 3 first cousins who have attended HLS. How much of a stretch is it to call a first cousin a close relative? Do I lose any value in the eyes of an admissions person by doing so?

The risk that the adcomms find this entitled is far greater than the probability (=0%) that this would provide any boost whatsoever. Even if they did donate significant amounts, it won't help you. Don't do it.

[KissMyAxe]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't mean to be rude to OP, and I apologize if I came off that way. A lot of top schools (even the one I went to, although not Harvard), have (I think) very low socioeconomic diversity. it's basically students who started off in private or very good schools, did insincere free internships like building benches in Africa to boost their resume, just doing what's expected and walking into the next institution built for them. In some schools, at least during undergrad when I was applying, they actually take your lack of ability to pay as a negative factor. So some schools, especially the top ones, have been shameless about taking in mostly well off applicants/students. I'd put the cousins down if they donated. If they haven't, who knows, maybe it might hurt you cause it might imply you won't donate either.

Also, take what I said with a grain of salt, cause it might not apply perfectly to Harvard. But I really hope you get in. You'll be one of the very few, if not the first HLS grad I spoke to, out of so many, that's not from a well off family.

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't mean to be rude to OP, and I apologize if I came off that way. A lot of top schools (even the one I went to, although not Harvard), have (I think) very low socioeconomic diversity. it's basically students who started off in private or very good schools, did insincere free internships like building benches in Africa to boost their resume, just doing what's expected and walking into the next institution built for them. In some schools, at least during undergrad when I was applying, they actually take your lack of ability to pay as a negative factor. So some schools, especially the top ones, have been shameless about taking in mostly well off applicants/students. I'd put the cousins down if they donated. If they haven't, who knows, maybe it might hurt you cause it might imply you won't donate either.

Also, take what I said with a grain of salt, cause it might not apply perfectly to Harvard. But I really hope you get in. You'll be one of the very few, if not the first HLS grad I spoke to, out of so many, that's not from a well off family.

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

I agree with everything you said about Yale when compared to Harvard . But I disagree with the rest. What do you call giving weight to someone who did white collar work but barely any or none to someone who did blue collar work before applying to law school? What do you call putting so much emphasis on the LSAT, which doesn't have a high correlation with success in or after law school but has a nice correlation with wealth (just access to the materials and an LSAT program can make you go from 150s to a 170)? What do you call preference for applicants who graduated from higher ranked undergraduate schools, which themselves tend to cater to more wealthy students (especially cause working-class students tend to go to state or local schools even if they qualify for national schools)? What do you call "please identify a close relative that went to" this school? Come on now. Every tiny bit of the admission process is basically a proxy for, "So, you got the money?" And in the same breath they say they're all about diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.

That's like if I were looking to hire a CEO and said "I'm an equal opportunity employer who finds the following characteristics important: (1) lifting heavy weights at the gym, (2) hunting, shooting guns for fun, and drinking beer with the boys, and (3) ability to grow a beard." But nooooo I definitely wouldn't actively discriminate against women. Nope. Not at all. It's just that those characteristics happen to historically correlate to success as a CEO. I mean, look at how many successful CEOs before could biological grow a beard so obviously there's something there hahah

My favorite is when they say, "Golly gee wiz. There just aren't any qualified working-class applicants to take. None of them went to Exeter and then Harvard before applying here." hahahahahah

[cavalier1138]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't mean to be rude to OP, and I apologize if I came off that way. A lot of top schools (even the one I went to, although not Harvard), have (I think) very low socioeconomic diversity. it's basically students who started off in private or very good schools, did insincere free internships like building benches in Africa to boost their resume, just doing what's expected and walking into the next institution built for them. In some schools, at least during undergrad when I was applying, they actually take your lack of ability to pay as a negative factor. So some schools, especially the top ones, have been shameless about taking in mostly well off applicants/students. I'd put the cousins down if they donated. If they haven't, who knows, maybe it might hurt you cause it might imply you won't donate either.

Also, take what I said with a grain of salt, cause it might not apply perfectly to Harvard. But I really hope you get in. You'll be one of the very few, if not the first HLS grad I spoke to, out of so many, that's not from a well off family.

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

I agree with everything you said about Yale when compared to Harvard . But I disagree with the rest. What do you call giving weight to someone who did white collar work but barely any or none to someone who did blue collar work before applying to law school? What do you call putting so much emphasis on the LSAT, which doesn't have a high correlation with success in or after law school but has a nice correlation with wealth (just access to the materials and an LSAT program can make you go from 150s to a 170)? What do you call preference for applicants who graduated from higher ranked undergraduate schools, which themselves tend to cater to more wealthy students (especially cause working-class students tend to go to state or local schools even if they qualify for national schools)? What do you call "please identify a close relative that went to" this school? Come on now. Every tiny bit of the admission process is basically a proxy for, "So, you got the money?" And in the same breath they say they're all about diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.

That's like if I were looking to hire a CEO and said "I'm an equal opportunity employer who finds the following characteristics important: (1) lifting heavy weights at the gym, (2) hunting, shooting guns for fun, and drinking beer with the boys, and (3) ability to grow a beard." But nooooo I definitely wouldn't actively discriminate against women. Nope. Not at all. It's just that those characteristics happen to historically correlate to success as a CEO. I mean, look at how many successful CEOs before could biological grow a beard so obviously there's something there hahah

My favorite is when they say, "Golly gee wiz. There just aren't any qualified working-class applicants to take. None of them went to Exeter and then Harvard before applying here." hahahahahah

That's hardly unique to Harvard. And while there are certainly debates to be had about whether the LSAT is classist (I spent $30 on prep materials and raised my score 10 points, so I reject that narrative wholeheartedly), it is at least somewhat correlated with law school performance. And how do you suggest they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Good interviews and work experience have even lower correlations with law school performance than the LSAT.

[maybeman]

And while there are certainly debates to be had about whether the LSAT is classist (I spent $30 on prep materials and raised my score 10 points, so I reject that narrative wholeheartedly), it is at least somewhat correlated with law school performance. And how do you suggest they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Good interviews and work experience have even lower correlations with law school performance than the LSAT.

The better argument - at least I think - is that having a work ethic needed to do well on the test is more easily established when you grow up in a wealthier environment. Poor schooling and a non-academic focus probably contribute to this. Anybody motivated enough can easily get on an even playing field in terms of prep materials. The discrepancy comes from the difference in motivation

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't mean to be rude to OP, and I apologize if I came off that way. A lot of top schools (even the one I went to, although not Harvard), have (I think) very low socioeconomic diversity. it's basically students who started off in private or very good schools, did insincere free internships like building benches in Africa to boost their resume, just doing what's expected and walking into the next institution built for them. In some schools, at least during undergrad when I was applying, they actually take your lack of ability to pay as a negative factor. So some schools, especially the top ones, have been shameless about taking in mostly well off applicants/students. I'd put the cousins down if they donated. If they haven't, who knows, maybe it might hurt you cause it might imply you won't donate either.

Also, take what I said with a grain of salt, cause it might not apply perfectly to Harvard. But I really hope you get in. You'll be one of the very few, if not the first HLS grad I spoke to, out of so many, that's not from a well off family.

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

I agree with everything you said about Yale when compared to Harvard . But I disagree with the rest. What do you call giving weight to someone who did white collar work but barely any or none to someone who did blue collar work before applying to law school? What do you call putting so much emphasis on the LSAT, which doesn't have a high correlation with success in or after law school but has a nice correlation with wealth (just access to the materials and an LSAT program can make you go from 150s to a 170)? What do you call preference for applicants who graduated from higher ranked undergraduate schools, which themselves tend to cater to more wealthy students (especially cause working-class students tend to go to state or local schools even if they qualify for national schools)? What do you call "please identify a close relative that went to" this school? Come on now. Every tiny bit of the admission process is basically a proxy for, "So, you got the money?" And in the same breath they say they're all about diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.

That's like if I were looking to hire a CEO and said "I'm an equal opportunity employer who finds the following characteristics important: (1) lifting heavy weights at the gym, (2) hunting, shooting guns for fun, and drinking beer with the boys, and (3) ability to grow a beard." But nooooo I definitely wouldn't actively discriminate against women. Nope. Not at all. It's just that those characteristics happen to historically correlate to success as a CEO. I mean, look at how many successful CEOs before could biological grow a beard so obviously there's something there hahah

My favorite is when they say, "Golly gee wiz. There just aren't any qualified working-class applicants to take. None of them went to Exeter and then Harvard before applying here." hahahahahah

That's hardly unique to Harvard. And while there are certainly debates to be had about whether the LSAT is classist (I spent $30 on prep materials and raised my score 10 points, so I reject that narrative wholeheartedly), it is at least somewhat correlated with law school performance. And how do you suggest they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Good interviews and work experience have even lower correlations with law school performance than the LSAT.

I wasn't saying that was happening only at HLS. I even said I wasn't sure if it applied perfectly there. But I think we both agree that it's a rampant problem in a lot of schools, especially the tops ones. And you're using a lot of the arguments well off people use to justify their position (including me at times when I forget to check myself), which is generally "oh I did it with such ease and little resources that anyone else can do it." I get that you paid only $30 on prep materials, but did you also not use a computer? Did you also not have easy access to internet? Were you the first one in your family to even consider going to college let alone to law school, which has a huge impact psychologically on how much non-monetary resources you have to expend to prepare and succeed? Was your housing secure or were you under pressure by overdue bills or similar socioeconomic concerns? All of these things are "resources", not just money. So add it up now, internet cost, housing, utilities, food, family knowledge and connection with what you're doing (as opposed to you having to explain to them what you're doing and why it's important, or feeling disconnected when they don't understand), the money you didn't have to worry about losing (AND NEEDED TO PAY FOR BILLS) because you got to go study the LSAT all day at the library, or having to work overtime to make ends meet (which cuts into your studying or prep), all of that.... plus $30 lol. Just cause a lot of those things were a given to you (and you didn't have to worry about them), doesn't mean they're a given for everyone.

And how do they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Be less biased. Consider their test scores and GPA only in reference to their background. A son of a lawyer and a judge who got a 175 scored worse than a daughter of a single parent on welfare who got a 165. Admit it and accept the latter. Rely more on the personal statement. Someone who built benches in Africa during Spring Break and knows "all about the Africans" isn't going to contribute more to the school or the legal profession than someone who had something significant happen to them that gives them a unique perspective on law and strong potential to make that unique perspective actually change the legal landscape. I rather be in a room full of 150s who can teach me how a law operates and should change in a way I never imagined than in a room of 175s who all say the same bookish comment or two on every single legal issue. And I rather have the former, and think the former is more qualified, to be a lawyer and a leader.

The better argument - at least I think - is that having a work ethic needed to do well on the test is more easily established when you grow up in a wealthier environment. Poor schooling and a non-academic focus probably contribute to this. Anybody motivated enough can easily get on an even playing field in terms of prep materials. The discrepancy comes from the difference in motivation

.

That's classist. Log off your computer, walk to the nearest corner, stand there, and think about what you just wrote.

[cavalier1138]

I wasn't saying that was happening only at HLS. I even said I wasn't sure if it applied perfectly there. But I think we both agree that it's a rampant problem in a lot of schools, especially the tops ones. And you're using a lot of the arguments well off people use to justify their position (including me at times when I forget to check myself), which is generally "oh I did it with such ease and little resources that anyone else can do it." I get that you paid only $30 on prep materials, but did you also not use a computer? Did you also not have easy access to internet? Were you the first one in your family to even consider going to college let alone to law school, which has a huge impact psychologically on how much non-monetary resources you have to expend to prepare and succeed? Was your housing secure or were you under pressure by overdue bills or similar socioeconomic concerns? All of these things are "resources", not just money. So add it up now, internet cost, housing, utilities, food, family knowledge and connection with what you're doing (as opposed to you having to explain to them what you're doing and why it's important, or feeling disconnected when they don't understand), the money you didn't have to worry about losing (AND NEEDED TO PAY FOR BILLS) because you got to go study the LSAT all day at the library, or having to work overtime to make ends meet (which cuts into your studying or prep), all of that.... plus $30 lol. Just cause a lot of those things were a given to you (and you didn't have to worry about them), doesn't mean they're a given for everyone.

And how do they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Be less biased. Consider their test scores and GPA only in reference to their background. A son of a lawyer and a judge who got a 175 scored worse than a daughter of a single parent on welfare who got a 165. Admit it and accept the latter. Rely more on the personal statement. Someone who built benches in Africa during Spring Break and knows "all about the Africans" isn't going to contribute more to the school or the legal profession than someone who had something significant happen to them that gives them a unique perspective on law and strong potential to make that unique perspective actually change the legal landscape. I rather be in a room full of 150s who can teach me how a law operates and should change in a way I never imagined than in a room of 175s who all say the same bookish comment or two on every single legal issue. And I rather have the former, and think the former is more qualified, to be a lawyer and a leader.

Yeah, I really dislike the, "Check your privilege," angle. It usually just translates to, "Shut up and agree with me."

Incidentally (even though this is none of your business), I certainly grew up in good circumstances. I won't deny that. But I went to public schools and state universities (for undergrad and graduate studies), and I've been out of school for quite some time. I studied for the LSAT while working two jobs, and while I certainly had it better than some, I also didn't have this fantasy life that you've assigned me in your story. And I spent about five minutes of time on the internet (something that I don't think we can say is inaccessible, given how many public institutions offer free access) getting LSAT materials, including the diagnostic test.

And of course there are lots of factors that influence people's ability to do well on a test, in school, etc. Being the first in the family to attend law school comes with pressures. So does being the next in a long line of successful attorneys. You're trying to rank people's psychological demons, and that really doesn't work out very well.

Your idea of how admissions should work is equally problematic. How do we rank life circumstances to determine this imaginary curve? And do we carry it over to law school? Would blind grading in 1L be replaced by blind grading with a life story accompanying the exam to let the professors know just how tough it was for that student to get where they were?

I'm not saying that people's circumstances shouldn't be taken into account at all; building a diverse community of different perspectives is hugely important. But competence is competence. If my best effort at an appellate brief isn't as good as someone else's, the judges aren't going to give me a pass because I had to work harder to become an attorney.

Anyway, this is all very far afield, and you're arguing about a wider systemic bias that has to be addressed via other routes. We're not going to fix educational imbalances by starting at the graduate (or even the college or high school) level.

[Hildegard15]

(and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts)

Well see now I have to take issue with this. Considering that I am heading off to HLS, I must say those of us who bleed crimson outshine the Yalies

[KissMyAxe]

Post Deleted

[KissMyAxe]

(and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts)

Well see now I have to take issue with this. Considering that I am heading off to HLS, I must say those of us who bleed crimson outshine the Yalies

Lol. Hildy, you know I love you. But unfortunately, it is like you Crimson are the missing link in the long evolutionary line leading to the glorious Greek Gods that are known as the Eli.

[Hildegard15]

(and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts)

Well see now I have to take issue with this. Considering that I am heading off to HLS, I must say those of us who bleed crimson outshine the Yalies

Lol. Hildy, you know I love you. But unfortunately, it is like you Crimson are the missing link in the long evolutionary line leading to the glorious Greek Gods that are known as the Eli.

I'm just going to have to pretend your posted ended with "Hildy, you know I love you" especially since I had to google "The Eli" to figure out what that meant.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I wasn't saying that was happening only at HLS. I even said I wasn't sure if it applied perfectly there. But I think we both agree that it's a rampant problem in a lot of schools, especially the tops ones. And you're using a lot of the arguments well off people use to justify their position (including me at times when I forget to check myself), which is generally "oh I did it with such ease and little resources that anyone else can do it." I get that you paid only $30 on prep materials, but did you also not use a computer? Did you also not have easy access to internet? Were you the first one in your family to even consider going to college let alone to law school, which has a huge impact psychologically on how much non-monetary resources you have to expend to prepare and succeed? Was your housing secure or were you under pressure by overdue bills or similar socioeconomic concerns? All of these things are "resources", not just money. So add it up now, internet cost, housing, utilities, food, family knowledge and connection with what you're doing (as opposed to you having to explain to them what you're doing and why it's important, or feeling disconnected when they don't understand), the money you didn't have to worry about losing (AND NEEDED TO PAY FOR BILLS) because you got to go study the LSAT all day at the library, or having to work overtime to make ends meet (which cuts into your studying or prep), all of that.... plus $30 lol. Just cause a lot of those things were a given to you (and you didn't have to worry about them), doesn't mean they're a given for everyone.

And how do they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Be less biased. Consider their test scores and GPA only in reference to their background. A son of a lawyer and a judge who got a 175 scored worse than a daughter of a single parent on welfare who got a 165. Admit it and accept the latter. Rely more on the personal statement. Someone who built benches in Africa during Spring Break and knows "all about the Africans" isn't going to contribute more to the school or the legal profession than someone who had something significant happen to them that gives them a unique perspective on law and strong potential to make that unique perspective actually change the legal landscape. I rather be in a room full of 150s who can teach me how a law operates and should change in a way I never imagined than in a room of 175s who all say the same bookish comment or two on every single legal issue. And I rather have the former, and think the former is more qualified, to be a lawyer and a leader.

Yeah, I really dislike the, "Check your privilege," angle. It usually just translates to, "Shut up and agree with me."

Incidentally (even though this is none of your business), I certainly grew up in good circumstances. I won't deny that. But I went to public schools and state universities (for undergrad and graduate studies), and I've been out of school for quite some time. I studied for the LSAT while working two jobs, and while I certainly had it better than some, I also didn't have this fantasy life that you've assigned me in your story. And I spent about five minutes of time on the internet (something that I don't think we can say is inaccessible, given how many public institutions offer free access) getting LSAT materials, including the diagnostic test.

And of course there are lots of factors that influence people's ability to do well on a test, in school, etc. Being the first in the family to attend law school comes with pressures. So does being the next in a long line of successful attorneys. You're trying to rank people's psychological demons, and that really doesn't work out very well.

Your idea of how admissions should work is equally problematic. How do we rank life circumstances to determine this imaginary curve? And do we carry it over to law school? Would blind grading in 1L be replaced by blind grading with a life story accompanying the exam to let the professors know just how tough it was for that student to get where they were?

I'm not saying that people's circumstances shouldn't be taken into account at all; building a diverse community of different perspectives is hugely important. But competence is competence. If my best effort at an appellate brief isn't as good as someone else's, the judges aren't going to give me a pass because I had to work harder to become an attorney.

Anyway, this is all very far afield, and you're arguing about a wider systemic bias that has to be addressed via other routes. We're not going to fix educational imbalances by starting at the graduate (or even the college or high school) level.

I'm not gonna post any more about this but I want to clarify my comment. I'm not saying looking at people's background to determine the value of their test scores and GPAs is a way to compensate for their lack of competency. No, it's a way to measure their competence. If Person A doesn't have easy access to the internet (i.e. has to take a bus to the library whenever she has to look something up), worries about paying her bills, works overtime to make ends meet, and all these other challenges while taking the LSAT and gets a 165... and Person B who has easy access to the internet, doesn't have to worry about paying bills, has all the needed LSAT material and all that gets 175, my natural conclusion to this is the discrepancy isn't because of competence. It's because of difference of opportunity. Control for opportunity, and you get a real comparison for competence. That's why I said a 165 in the former's position is worth a 175 in the latter's position, not because I'm compensating for lack of competence in the former, but because the former really is more competent. She would have had a 175 or more had she had the same opportunities.

How do you measure this "imaginary curve"? The same way we measure imaginary competence through the LSAT. For the LSAT, we just assume a flat 175 is better than a 174, even though you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that's not true (again, look at what I said above.) Yet, people perpetuate the use of LSAT's measuring of competence that it doesn't even measure!! Now, per Court's rulings, they can't assign points or do quotas. But I don't see why they can't, in their holistic review, review the applicants against other similar applicants. It's not a perfect measure, but measure applicants in one income bracket only with applicants from that same bracket, and do it the same for all brackets. I'm sure Gabby will come around saying it's not fair that things are fair now and she was knocked out cause there were too many privileged people in her comparison pool. heheh

[maybeman]

Probably only matters if your cousins donate significant amounts to Harvard.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't mean to be rude to OP, and I apologize if I came off that way. A lot of top schools (even the one I went to, although not Harvard), have (I think) very low socioeconomic diversity. it's basically students who started off in private or very good schools, did insincere free internships like building benches in Africa to boost their resume, just doing what's expected and walking into the next institution built for them. In some schools, at least during undergrad when I was applying, they actually take your lack of ability to pay as a negative factor. So some schools, especially the top ones, have been shameless about taking in mostly well off applicants/students. I'd put the cousins down if they donated. If they haven't, who knows, maybe it might hurt you cause it might imply you won't donate either.

Also, take what I said with a grain of salt, cause it might not apply perfectly to Harvard. But I really hope you get in. You'll be one of the very few, if not the first HLS grad I spoke to, out of so many, that's not from a well off family.

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

I agree with everything you said about Yale when compared to Harvard . But I disagree with the rest. What do you call giving weight to someone who did white collar work but barely any or none to someone who did blue collar work before applying to law school? What do you call putting so much emphasis on the LSAT, which doesn't have a high correlation with success in or after law school but has a nice correlation with wealth (just access to the materials and an LSAT program can make you go from 150s to a 170)? What do you call preference for applicants who graduated from higher ranked undergraduate schools, which themselves tend to cater to more wealthy students (especially cause working-class students tend to go to state or local schools even if they qualify for national schools)? What do you call "please identify a close relative that went to" this school? Come on now. Every tiny bit of the admission process is basically a proxy for, "So, you got the money?" And in the same breath they say they're all about diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.

That's like if I were looking to hire a CEO and said "I'm an equal opportunity employer who finds the following characteristics important: (1) lifting heavy weights at the gym, (2) hunting, shooting guns for fun, and drinking beer with the boys, and (3) ability to grow a beard." But nooooo I definitely wouldn't actively discriminate against women. Nope. Not at all. It's just that those characteristics happen to historically correlate to success as a CEO. I mean, look at how many successful CEOs before could biological grow a beard so obviously there's something there hahah

My favorite is when they say, "Golly gee wiz. There just aren't any qualified working-class applicants to take. None of them went to Exeter and then Harvard before applying here." hahahahahah

That's hardly unique to Harvard. And while there are certainly debates to be had about whether the LSAT is classist (I spent $30 on prep materials and raised my score 10 points, so I reject that narrative wholeheartedly), it is at least somewhat correlated with law school performance. And how do you suggest they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Good interviews and work experience have even lower correlations with law school performance than the LSAT.

I wasn't saying that was happening only at HLS. I even said I wasn't sure if it applied perfectly there. But I think we both agree that it's a rampant problem in a lot of schools, especially the tops ones. And you're using a lot of the arguments well off people use to justify their position (including me at times when I forget to check myself), which is generally "oh I did it with such ease and little resources that anyone else can do it." I get that you paid only $30 on prep materials, but did you also not use a computer? Did you also not have easy access to internet? Were you the first one in your family to even consider going to college let alone to law school, which has a huge impact psychologically on how much non-monetary resources you have to expend to prepare and succeed? Was your housing secure or were you under pressure by overdue bills or similar socioeconomic concerns? All of these things are "resources", not just money. So add it up now, internet cost, housing, utilities, food, family knowledge and connection with what you're doing (as opposed to you having to explain to them what you're doing and why it's important, or feeling disconnected when they don't understand), the money you didn't have to worry about losing (AND NEEDED TO PAY FOR BILLS) because you got to go study the LSAT all day at the library, or having to work overtime to make ends meet (which cuts into your studying or prep), all of that.... plus $30 lol. Just cause a lot of those things were a given to you (and you didn't have to worry about them), doesn't mean they're a given for everyone.

And how do they pick the best candidates or communicate that their school is selective? Be less biased. Consider their test scores and GPA only in reference to their background. A son of a lawyer and a judge who got a 175 scored worse than a daughter of a single parent on welfare who got a 165. Admit it and accept the latter. Rely more on the personal statement. Someone who built benches in Africa during Spring Break and knows "all about the Africans" isn't going to contribute more to the school or the legal profession than someone who had something significant happen to them that gives them a unique perspective on law and strong potential to make that unique perspective actually change the legal landscape. I rather be in a room full of 150s who can teach me how a law operates and should change in a way I never imagined than in a room of 175s who all say the same bookish comment or two on every single legal issue. And I rather have the former, and think the former is more

The better argument - at least I think - is that having a work ethic needed to do well on the test is more easily established when you grow up in a wealthier environment. Poor schooling and a non-academic focus probably contribute to this. Anybody motivated enough can easily get on an even playing field in terms of prep materials. The discrepancy comes from the difference in motivation

.

That's classist. Log off your computer, walk to the nearest corner, stand there, and think about what you just wrote.

That's what I said... It's classist. But in a different way. Log off your computer. Walk to the nearest library, and learn to read

[LurkerTurnedMember]

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

I agree with everything you said about Yale when compared to Harvard . But I disagree with the rest. What do you call giving weight to someone who did white collar work but barely any or none to someone who did blue collar work before applying to law school? What do you call putting so much emphasis on the LSAT, which doesn't have a high correlation with success in or after law school but has a nice correlation with wealth (just access to the materials and an LSAT program can make you go from 150s to a 170)? What do you call preference for applicants who graduated from higher ranked undergraduate schools, which themselves tend to cater to more wealthy students (especially cause working-class students tend to go to state or local schools even if they qualify for national schools)? What do you call "please identify a close relative that went to" this school? Come on now. Every tiny bit of the admission process is basically a proxy for, "So, you got the money?" And in the same breath they say they're all about diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.

That's like if I were looking to hire a CEO and said "I'm an equal opportunity employer who finds the following characteristics important: (1) lifting heavy weights at the gym, (2) hunting, shooting guns for fun, and drinking beer with the boys, and (3) ability to grow a beard." But nooooo I definitely wouldn't actively discriminate against women. Nope. Not at all. It's just that those characteristics happen to historically correlate to success as a CEO. I mean, look at how many successful CEOs before could biological grow a beard so obviously there's something there hahah

My favorite is when they say, "Golly gee wiz. There just aren't any qualified working-class applicants to take. None of them went to Exeter and then Harvard before applying here." hahahahahah

At least we agree on what's important.

But let me reject the rest of your message. Fun fact. I had a blue color working background with literally 0 white collar work when I applied. I worked full-time to put myself through college in that job, and I was the first person in my family to graduate college (only the fourth in my extended family of 40+ individuals to graduate high school). Obviously, I didn't interview with YLS so I don't know their thoughts on me, maybe I was a charity case. However, I did interview with pretty much every other school except Stanford, either for scholarships or admissions. In my interviews with Columbia and Chicago, I could tell they found my background fascinating, and I got the strong impression that they were actively seeking students from these kinds of backgrounds. In Harvard's interview, my interviewer noted approvingly my work experience, commenting that she'd never seen someone with that kind of background, although to your credit, she was rude to me about my undergrad. But again, they let me in, and it was pretty obvious from my application that I'd be receiving close to the maximum need-based scholarship. Many of my friends there were also going to need grants, and their numbers were much more borderline, and yet they too were accepted. There is no evidence to support your statement that they are not need-blind and are actively discriminating against poor students, and a ton of evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to give you a statistics lesson, but I think you will find that some studies have found the LSAT to have a statistically high correlation with first year grades, which would count as law school success. Of course, one's LSAT score by no means defines an individual, and so they can still excel despite that, but statistically, you're wrong.

But more important is your claim that the LSAT is intrinsically tied to wealth. You're confusing correlation with causation, but more importantly, ignoring the real correlation here. There is a correlation between elite schools and LSAT score. Most Ivy League students have parents that are smart, hardworking (many of the parents are immigrants), and push their children extremely hard to succeed in school. There's a rational explanation to the Ivy League's high performance on the LSAT outside of "muh privilege", many are genetically very intelligent, hard working, and then have great educational backgrounds because of their parents to teach them how to think analytically. State school students meanwhile, often come from families with little to no motivation to focus on academics (as I did), and so often put it on the backburner, and so end up not developing the necessary analytical abilities the LSAT tests for. The LSAT does not reward wealth. I didn't spend a dime on my prep (borrowed some old books from a friend) and did well. It rewards logical ability, something that is just more prevalent at the elite schools. Schools are not saying "this guy is rich, let's let him in but this girl can't pay, fuck her." They're saying, "this person has a 3.9 GPA and a top 1% LSAT score and their recommender, a famous Harvard professor, is saying they're the smartest person they've ever seen." There is a correlation between attending an elite undergrad and attending an elite law school, but the cause is that those people are just smart and hardworking, not that the schools hate and reject poor people.

Again, you're just plain wrong about schools discriminating against poor students and the top law schools having nothing but rich kids. However, I would genuinely love to know your alternative to admissions. The LSAT and GPA combined have a very high correlation to 1st year grades. However, even though we're in a very cerebral profession, because students who are inherently smart and also have strong educational foundations tend to do better on tests and maintain higher GPAs, should we throw out both of those? Because an Ivy league background does not show us a long history of Academic excellence from a student, but instead just says they're from a rich, privileged family, should we just reject all of them and accept only state and local school grads? Seriously, since apparently law admissions is hopelessly corrupt, and every single law student is extremely rich (I wish I could find my millions), what should we do?

Edit: I now see that you answered someone else with your alternative, albeit an insanely silly one. I would say I fit your latter example pretty well, but if I had made a 165, I would not have deserved to be chosen over another applicant with a 175. That is too statistically great a difference. Sure, socioeconomic diversity should be considered, but not to such a degree that it prejudices children of well-to-do parents, who no more chose their parents than anyone else. Where do we draw the line? In your example, the child of the judge/lawyer, probably went to a great school, excelled there, and then made a 175, which is about as good as anyone can hope. They literally did everything they could with the tools given to them. But you would reject them because of who their parents are. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of classist. I also find the idea that I need to be judged by different criteria because I grew up poor extremely offensive, like you need to take care of the little poor person.

Also, the fact that you asked cavalier if he had internet access as an example of his privilege shows that you are some upper-middle class kid who wants to lecture us on privilege. When I was growing up, sure, the internet was brand new so I didn't have it. But in todays world, the vast, vast majority of people have internet access. Even in my hometown, where more than 60% of people live below the poverty line, virtually everyone has internet access (everyone if you include the library computers). The more you know.

I used those examples because my friends and I've gone through that, and more. So good for you that you didn't, and assume that I was upper middle class cause you're somehow the measuring stick. Makes sense that we didn't run into each other.

You're like the Clarence Thomas of working-class people. "I also find the idea that I need to be judged by different criteria because I grew up poor extremely offensive, like you need to take care of the little poor person." That one has to be right out of one of his opinions, sounds something akin to: "Don't change the inequality, just apply it as firmly as possible because I've been socially conditioned to implicitly hate myself and my interests."

I think we're just seeing the world through two different lenses and so there's not much use in talking about this. You seem to look at the world and society assuming it's perfect as is, and then ask how can we change working-class people to better assimilate to it, as if the fault is with the people facing discrimination. So even though we have a system primarily favoring people from only a few particular backgrounds, instead of pushing for change so there's more inclusion and fairness, you push for conservatism and bash disadvantaged people for failing in a system set up to make them fail. Instead of changing how we measure merit, from using qualities that strongly correlate with wealth instead of merit to qualities that actually measure merit, you say no, let's double down on the skewed measures. "No, overcoming poverty and immeasurable odds to get to a 165 application isn't good enough. You have to do all that and get a 176 to beat the guy who walked into his 175 somewhere in between his private tutoring sessions and backpacking through Europe. Cause otherwise your measure for merit is classist." You must've been "one of the good ones" in your interviews.

[cavalier1138]

^That right there is a textbook example of why I hate engaging in this debate with undergrads from the last few years who focused on a social justice-oriented major of some kind.

People have decided that the best way to correct systemic injustice is to focus on lowering standards for adults based on some arbitrary set of criteria, rather than on actually fixing the problem through addressing the root issues instead of the outcomes.

It is, believe it or not, entirely possible for two intelligent people to disagree on this subject (and a myriad of others). It's also entirely possible that both people are making legitimate points. And the Uncle Tom-ing that you're engaging in doesn't help further any kind of substantive debate. It's a form of silencing critique that you don't want to hear, regardless of how accurate it is.

P.S. The LSAT doesn't measure "imaginary competence". Things like analytical reasoning and reading comprehension are actual skills that lawyers use. If you can't read and comprehend a passage on the LSAT, why would you think you'd be able to read and comprehend a dense legal case in school?

[KissMyAxe]

Post Deleted

[Mullens]

So, I know that HLS says you can put down in an addendum if any close relatives have attended HLS. I know this is typically for parents (and maybe grandparents). I have 3 first cousins who have attended HLS. How much of a stretch is it to call a first cousin a close relative? Do I lose any value in the eyes of an admissions person by doing so?

Sorry your thread has involved into an out of place argument that has made everyone involved look terrible.

I would include it. I can't possibly see how it could hurt you and it will give you a chance to express specifically in that addendum why you want to go to HLS based on family experience. I doubt it helps you that much except at the margins if you're already competitive, but again I don't think there is any way in hell it hurts you. The arguments for why it would hurt you hold no water in the real world.

[Fantasyfreak294]

So, I know that HLS says you can put down in an addendum if any close relatives have attended HLS. I know this is typically for parents (and maybe grandparents). I have 3 first cousins who have attended HLS. How much of a stretch is it to call a first cousin a close relative? Do I lose any value in the eyes of an admissions person by doing so?

Sorry your thread has involved into an out of place argument that has made everyone involved look terrible.

I would include it. I can't possibly see how it could hurt you and it will give you a chance to express specifically in that addendum why you want to go to HLS based on family experience. I doubt it helps you that much except at the margins if you're already competitive, but again I don't think there is any way in hell it hurts you. The arguments for why it would hurt you hold no water in the real world.

Thank you!

[LurkerTurnedMember]

This is stupid... Unless YLS and HLS have completely different makeups of class (and spoiler alert, they don't, although admittedly YLS students are smarter, harder working, funnier, nicer, and better looking than their HLS counterparts), then this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are some obscenely wealthy students there. And I would be willing to bet my family would be in the bottom 5% of socioeconomic status for my class, but the vast majority of top law students are middle class people who just happen to be extremely bright, and the First Generation Professionals is a relatively large club at those schools. To say virtually every student is well-off, and that schools actively discriminate against poor students, is one of the most idiotic things I've read on TLS, and I've read most of GDane's messages.

I agree with everything you said about Yale when compared to Harvard . But I disagree with the rest. What do you call giving weight to someone who did white collar work but barely any or none to someone who did blue collar work before applying to law school? What do you call putting so much emphasis on the LSAT, which doesn't have a high correlation with success in or after law school but has a nice correlation with wealth (just access to the materials and an LSAT program can make you go from 150s to a 170)? What do you call preference for applicants who graduated from higher ranked undergraduate schools, which themselves tend to cater to more wealthy students (especially cause working-class students tend to go to state or local schools even if they qualify for national schools)? What do you call "please identify a close relative that went to" this school? Come on now. Every tiny bit of the admission process is basically a proxy for, "So, you got the money?" And in the same breath they say they're all about diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity.

That's like if I were looking to hire a CEO and said "I'm an equal opportunity employer who finds the following characteristics important: (1) lifting heavy weights at the gym, (2) hunting, shooting guns for fun, and drinking beer with the boys, and (3) ability to grow a beard." But nooooo I definitely wouldn't actively discriminate against women. Nope. Not at all. It's just that those characteristics happen to historically correlate to success as a CEO. I mean, look at how many successful CEOs before could biological grow a beard so obviously there's something there hahah

My favorite is when they say, "Golly gee wiz. There just aren't any qualified working-class applicants to take. None of them went to Exeter and then Harvard before applying here." hahahahahah

At least we agree on what's important.

But let me reject the rest of your message. Fun fact. I had a blue color working background with literally 0 white collar work when I applied. I worked full-time to put myself through college in that job, and I was the first person in my family to graduate college (only the fourth in my extended family of 40+ individuals to graduate high school). Obviously, I didn't interview with YLS so I don't know their thoughts on me, maybe I was a charity case. However, I did interview with pretty much every other school except Stanford, either for scholarships or admissions. In my interviews with Columbia and Chicago, I could tell they found my background fascinating, and I got the strong impression that they were actively seeking students from these kinds of backgrounds. In Harvard's interview, my interviewer noted approvingly my work experience, commenting that she'd never seen someone with that kind of background, although to your credit, she was rude to me about my undergrad. But again, they let me in, and it was pretty obvious from my application that I'd be receiving close to the maximum need-based scholarship. Many of my friends there were also going to need grants, and their numbers were much more borderline, and yet they too were accepted. There is no evidence to support your statement that they are not need-blind and are actively discriminating against poor students, and a ton of evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to give you a statistics lesson, but I think you will find that some studies have found the LSAT to have a statistically high correlation with first year grades, which would count as law school success. Of course, one's LSAT score by no means defines an individual, and so they can still excel despite that, but statistically, you're wrong.

But more important is your claim that the LSAT is intrinsically tied to wealth. You're confusing correlation with causation, but more importantly, ignoring the real correlation here. There is a correlation between elite schools and LSAT score. Most Ivy League students have parents that are smart, hardworking (many of the parents are immigrants), and push their children extremely hard to succeed in school. There's a rational explanation to the Ivy League's high performance on the LSAT outside of "muh privilege", many are genetically very intelligent, hard working, and then have great educational backgrounds because of their parents to teach them how to think analytically. State school students meanwhile, often come from families with little to no motivation to focus on academics (as I did), and so often put it on the backburner, and so end up not developing the necessary analytical abilities the LSAT tests for. The LSAT does not reward wealth. I didn't spend a dime on my prep (borrowed some old books from a friend) and did well. It rewards logical ability, something that is just more prevalent at the elite schools. Schools are not saying "this guy is rich, let's let him in but this girl can't pay, fuck her." They're saying, "this person has a 3.9 GPA and a top 1% LSAT score and their recommender, a famous Harvard professor, is saying they're the smartest person they've ever seen." There is a correlation between attending an elite undergrad and attending an elite law school, but the cause is that those people are just smart and hardworking, not that the schools hate and reject poor people.

Again, you're just plain wrong about schools discriminating against poor students and the top law schools having nothing but rich kids. However, I would genuinely love to know your alternative to admissions. The LSAT and GPA combined have a very high correlation to 1st year grades. However, even though we're in a very cerebral profession, because students who are inherently smart and also have strong educational foundations tend to do better on tests and maintain higher GPAs, should we throw out both of those? Because an Ivy league background does not show us a long history of Academic excellence from a student, but instead just says they're from a rich, privileged family, should we just reject all of them and accept only state and local school grads? Seriously, since apparently law admissions is hopelessly corrupt, and every single law student is extremely rich (I wish I could find my millions), what should we do?

Edit: I now see that you answered someone else with your alternative, albeit an insanely silly one. I would say I fit your latter example pretty well, but if I had made a 165, I would not have deserved to be chosen over another applicant with a 175. That is too statistically great a difference. Sure, socioeconomic diversity should be considered, but not to such a degree that it prejudices children of well-to-do parents, who no more chose their parents than anyone else. Where do we draw the line? In your example, the child of the judge/lawyer, probably went to a great school, excelled there, and then made a 175, which is about as good as anyone can hope. They literally did everything they could with the tools given to them. But you would reject them because of who their parents are. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of classist. I also find the idea that I need to be judged by different criteria because I grew up poor extremely offensive, like you need to take care of the little poor person.

Also, the fact that you asked cavalier if he had internet access as an example of his privilege shows that you are some upper-middle class kid who wants to lecture us on privilege. When I was growing up, sure, the internet was brand new so I didn't have it. But in todays world, the vast, vast majority of people have internet access. Even in my hometown, where more than 60% of people live below the poverty line, virtually everyone has internet access (everyone if you include the library computers). The more you know.

I used those examples because my friends and I've gone through that, and more. So good for you that you didn't, and assume that I was upper middle class cause you're somehow the measuring stick. Makes sense that we didn't run into each other.

You're like the Clarence Thomas of working-class people. "I also find the idea that I need to be judged by different criteria because I grew up poor extremely offensive, like you need to take care of the little poor person." That one has to be right out of one of his opinions, sounds something akin to: "Don't change the inequality, just apply it as firmly as possible because I've been socially conditioned to implicitly hate myself and my interests."

I think we're just seeing the world through two different lenses and so there's not much use in talking about this. You seem to look at the world and society assuming it's perfect as is, and then ask how can we change working-class people to better assimilate to it, as if the fault is with the people facing discrimination. So even though we have a system primarily favoring people from only a few particular backgrounds, instead of pushing for change so there's more inclusion and fairness, you push for conservatism and bash disadvantaged people for failing in a system set up to make them fail. Instead of changing how we measure merit, from using qualities that strongly correlate with wealth instead of merit to qualities that actually measure merit, you say no, let's double down on the skewed measures. "No, overcoming poverty and immeasurable odds to get to a 165 application isn't good enough. You have to do all that and get a 176 to beat the guy who walked into his 175 somewhere in between his private tutoring sessions and backpacking through Europe. Cause otherwise your measure for merit is classist." You must've been "one of the good ones" in your interviews.

FYI, you pretty much lose all credibility in any given debate when you fail to respond to any substantive argument and present no argument and instead just resort to ad hominem attacks and assumptions about a person's political opinions. You seem very out of touch with the capabilities, needs, and desires of people of lower socioeconomic classes. I do find it ironic that you make this assumption that because I think it's offensive for you to say I can have a 10 point lower LSAT than my contemporaries because I'm just too stupid to be considered by the same standards as everyone else that I must hate myself and my interests. To use Clarence Thomas as an example (since you brought it up), It's like when some upper-middle class white kid in Long Island tells him how he should feel about discrimination. He lived through it, they read about it in books written by professors who themselves are upper-middle class and don't know. But I am glad you recognize we're seeing the world through different lenses. The only thing is, when you say schools actively discriminate against poor students, you're bringing the discussion into the side of the world where I am very experienced and can present evidence against your claim. You respond to me, not by proffering your own evidence, but instead by calling me an Uncle Tom (to borrow from Cav's great word for what you're doing).

And I do love how you never responded to this "In your example, the child of the judge/lawyer probably went to a great school, excelled there, and then made a 175, which is about as good as anyone can hope. They literally did everything they could with the tools given to them. But you would reject them because of who their parents are. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of classist." However, I don't think you have to. I think it's pretty clear your argument has no substance when you recommend rejecting someone strictly because of who their parents are.

But I can see this is a waste of time responding to you, because you are so entrenched in your insane view that you cannot consider any other perspectives. Good luck to you.

But don't bother responding, because I'm done in this thread.

I did respond to what you said. If you read my post, it would've been clear that that 175 is not as qualified, not because his parents happen to be a judge and a lawyer, but because a 175 in that context isn't as impressive as the 165 we were talking about. I think you're purposefully missing my point, assuming you're inherently right, and then concluding that I have to be insane or out there for thinking what I'm thinking, even though you didn't get it (so you claim) in the first place.

I'll try to explain it one more time with an example. Two runners, they're both competing for the metal. One runner will run as usual, has his regular running shoes on, running clothes on, etc. The other runner has to wear a 50 pound backpack and leg weights and has to give the first runner a 45 second head start. Are you really telling me that if the second runner, with all that weight on her and after starting from behind, still finishes relatively close to the first, barely losing to him, you're still gonna be like, "Oh yea, the first runner is much better. He won by 3 seconds. Great lead!" Really?

But that's the type of system we have! All they, and it seems you, too, look for is the resulting LSAT number and GPA. "Oh a 175? Splendid. That's surely better than a 174 no matter what!" Not everyone has the same opportunity, and I'm not gonna be naive and think we're gonna get to a point where everyone has the same shot. But at least take the damn 50 pound backpack off, or have em start at the same time, or something! My solution was, to continue with the metaphor, of course to focus on taking the extra weights off and having them start at the same time (tackling the underlying inequality head on). But there's no way you're gonna be able to do that any time soon given people's stubbornness about keeping the status quo. So why not in the meantime alter the rules of the game that benefit the guy who started running first? Why not, instead of measure merely who crossed the finish line first, measure their time to complete the lap, or some other measure that would actually be more reflective of the runners' abilities than who crossed the finish line first.

And of course I hope it's obvious by now that I didn't imply that the person we were talking about scoring 10 points less means s/he's stupider than if s/he scored a 175. In fact the opposite is what I meant in that situation. I attributed the disparity to the inequality, NOT to competence. So the 3 second difference in finishing the race, in the example above, would've been attributed to the extra weight and different start times, obviously not to the second runner's inferior running skills (the opposite is true). But people like you are so stubborn to change that you'd be that guy sitting in the stands with inequality hitting you right in the face, and yet you'd be oblivious, probably telling your friend the second runner just isn't as fast as the first.

And pointing out how ignorant you'd be there, and here for extending the same argument and ignorance, isn't a method of shutting you up cause I don't want to hear your perspective. It's just calling it like it is.

[Alive97]

You liking this, OP? LOL