Top Law Schools

I'm just going to state outright at the beginning of this post that I am airing my grievances over affirmative action (AA).
I also feel the need to state that as a long-time liberal, I have always been in favor of affirmative action until now. Part of my disagreement towards AA stems from the many URM-related posts that I have seen on this forum, and part of it stems from what I have observed in so far in my 3.5 years in college. You be the judge.

1. I've always been in favor of leveling the playing field for URMs, but I'm beginning to see how AA is terribly unfair to other people, particularly Caucasians and Asians. A white or an Asian applicant would never get into Harvard with an 167/3.6, but a URM stands a good chance to. This seems especially unfair if all three attend the same university, took similar classes, and had the same resources at their disposal all throughout college.
2. Affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic background, not race. I know URMs who come from wealthier families than my own and who attended private school their entire lives, but got into the same college as I did with lowers numbers. You can probably anticipate the same for law school admissions. And when we seek the same job opportunities.
3. Come on! AA is slightly insulting to URMs. Don't tell me you feel good about being held to a lower standard, especially those who have always lived comfortable lives. Not to mention, to me it sounds like AA is implemented to enhance the educational experience of other students by increasing the diversity of the student body. Which brings me to my next point...
4. It seems kind of silly for schools to try to strive for a student body composition that reflects the population at large. If they really want to do this, where are the convicted felons? Where are the rapists? Higher education is never going to and should never reflect the population at large.
5. I'm surprised by how many URMs are willing to boast about getting into law school XYZ with significantly lower stats than all the other admitted students. I'm not saying URMs should be ashamed of themselves, I'm just saying that it's not something I'd be proud of or openly advertise, either. Let's be frank here. Considering how competitive law school admissions have gotten, these URMs are depriving many non-URM students from their rightful places in law schools.

That's all I have to say for now. I have no personal issue against URMs. I just think the system is flawed and unjust.

Enjoy the ban

retake

Not sure that this is deserving of or will draw ban as DH2O suggests, because I think OP is at least trying to be reasonable in bringing up his or her concerns about this. If people can't air honest opinions about this in a relatively respectful manner without getting shut down then I think there may be a problem. But I don't know what the specific TLS policy on discussing or debating potential drawbacks or unfairness of affirmative action is.

I personally really have never taken much of an issue (if at all) with affirmative law school acceptance policies, and I tend to think that tranditionally marginalized groups often do need certain special protections. However, now that I am in law school I must admit that I really take issue with the fact that pretty much all of the market-paying firm jobs available for 1Ls at my school are called "diversity" hires. It just rubs me the wrong way that the students getting the firm jobs paying 8k+ per month after 1L may be some of the lowest in the class and relatively least capable in terms of legal analysis, who nevertheless get hired for 'diversity' reasons. That seems really unfair to me.

Lawquacious wrote:Not sure that this is deserving of or will draw ban as DH2O suggests, because I think OP is at least trying to be reasonable in bringing up his or her concerns about this. If people can't air honest opinions about this in a relatively respectful manner without getting shut down then I think there may be a problem. But I don't know what the specific TLS policy on discussing or debating potential drawbacks or unfairness of affirmative action is.

I personally really have never taken much of an issue (if at all) with affirmative law school acceptance policies, and I tend to think that tranditionally marginalized groups often do need certain special protections. However, now that I am in law school I must admit that I really take issue with the fact that pretty much all of the market-paying firm jobs available for 1Ls at my school are called "diversity" hires. It just rubs me the wrong way that the students getting the firm jobs paying 8k+ per month after 1L may be some of the lowest in the class and relatively least capable in terms of legal analysis, who nevertheless get hired for 'diversity' reasons. That seems really unfair to me.

You weren't getting a 1l firm job anyway so what do you care. It doesn't hurt you and it's good for the profession in general.

Really? In the employment forum? And anonymous?

Ugh.

Well, they're not anonymous anymore.