How rare are black American males in T20 law schools? Forum

[094320]

..

[ajmanyjah]

Wait...why is Asian enrollment so low(compared to my undergrad)? Do fewer Asians apply to law school?

--LinkRemoved--

Seems the answer is there.

I'd guess (being an Asian) there are two big factors

1) Law requires cultural integration and schmoozing, not huge attributes of first generation immigrants
2) Children of immigrant tend to be pushed into fields with more stable/guaranteed employment (med school comes to mind)

[EbonyEsq]

How rare are black females?

Definitely not as rare as black males. That said, its not too impressive a figure.

Interesting NYTimes article on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/educa ... .html?_r=1


Supposedly black law student enrollment is on the decline. Here's what the Columbia Law School report found:

The Columbia study found that among the 46,500 law school matriculants in the fall of 2008, there were 3,392 African-Americans, or 7.3 percent, and 673 Mexican-Americans, or 1.4 percent. Among the 43,520 matriculants in 1993, there were 3,432 African-Americans, or 7.9 percent, and 710 Mexican-Americans, or 1.6 percent.

Though we are doing better on how we score on the LSATs it appears we are either not applying as much as before or LS are becoming more stringent in the type of URM they admit.

[tooswolle]

man those statistics you just cited are scary at best. How does society expect minorities to rise up when they are systematically locked out of higher education? Moreover, I remember reading LSAC's explanation of why minorities tend to do worst on the LSAT; because we are more "prone to test anxiety, or don't study as much" kind of sounds like bs to me when people minorities are the ones being disproportionately affected by a single test. Just my two cents on a messed up system that keeps a large amount of American's out.

[EbonyEsq]

man those statistics you just cited are scary at best. How does society expect minorities to rise up when they are systematically locked out of higher education? Moreover, I remember reading LSAC's explanation of why minorities tend to do worst on the LSAT; because we are more "prone to test anxiety, or don't study as much" kind of sounds like bs to me when people minorities are the ones being disproportionately affected by a single test. Just my two cents on a messed up system that keeps a large amount of American's out.

Play the game, toos. Play the game. There were many before us that did it and succeeded. President Obama and First Lady Obama too. We may be few but we do exist. This test, like so many aspects of the legal career to follow is a means to an end. Ain't no test should or can keep us from reaching our goals. If we can reach as far as getting into and graduating from college/universities, we sure as h*ll can learn and master a damn 5-hour exam.

[LLB2JD]

man those statistics you just cited are scary at best. How does society expect minorities to rise up when they are systematically locked out of higher education? Moreover, I remember reading LSAC's explanation of why minorities tend to do worst on the LSAT; because we are more "prone to test anxiety, or don't study as much" kind of sounds like bs to me when people minorities are the ones being disproportionately affected by a single test. Just my two cents on a messed up system that keeps a large amount of American's out.

Play the game, toos. Play the game. There were many before us that did it and succeeded. President Obama and First Lady Obama too. We may be few but we do exist. This test, like so many aspects of the legal career to follow is a means to an end. Ain't no test should or can keep us from reaching our goals. If we can reach as far as getting into and graduating from college/universities, we sure as h*ll can learn and master a damn 5-hour exam.

ride on

[SwollenMonkey]

man those statistics you just cited are scary at best. How does society expect minorities to rise up when they are systematically locked out of higher education? Moreover, I remember reading LSAC's explanation of why minorities tend to do worst on the LSAT; because we are more "prone to test anxiety, or don't study as much" kind of sounds like bs to me when people minorities are the ones being disproportionately affected by a single test. Just my two cents on a messed up system that keeps a large amount of American's out.

Your avatar is Scarface. If you recall, Scarface gave off the energy that he would work his ass off and not break his words nor his balls. In the movie, Frank Lopez, a drug dealer in Miami, takes one look at Scarface aka Tony Montana and says to one of his associates, "If you get this kind of man working for you, he'll break his back for you."

Shit happens in life and the location of your birth in relation to the socioeconomic ladder plays an integral role in your future success. I'd say more heavily if one is pursuing a law degree. With that said, get used to working your ass off. Not implying you are lazy or you don't bust your ass now. Study or do whatever it takes to set aside study time cause if you don't, there are others who will sacrifice anything to become attorneys. Me? I dumped my girlfriend of 5 years to pursue a law degree cause her anxiety and mental problems were ruining my LSAT prep and causing me unnecessary stress.

Simply put, be the associate that will break his back for the firm and don't expect to be thanked for it.

Me, I plan on doing the same thing. In other words, "Run, mofo, run!" Or, play the game.

Also, be careful in real life if you decide to vent any type of frustration that might be perceived to have arisen cause of your race. Chances are, White people may not related to your struggles even after years of having been acquainted.

[tooswolle]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

[SwollenMonkey]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

The number of us getting there is a slight concern to me as well. However, I feel that in order for me to even begin to do something about the number of minority attorneys, I need to be in a position to be able to do something. In other words, I need to be an attorney first. Only then can I help others. Community service, volunteering, or any other crap you can think of is worthless if you are not an attorney. To become an attorney, you need to get used to and deal with the fact that it is a numbers game. Once you make peace with this, focus on obtaining the right numbers to put yourself in a position where you can make an impact on socio-economic affairs.

[EbonyEsq]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

To be honest, the majority of black law students in your top law schools come from privilege, be it old money, new money or upper middle class money. They went to private school or boarding school, vacationed in Martha's Vineyard and grew up in Jack&Jill .

That's not to say there aren't the few that came from immigrant families or socio economic disadvantages that made it this far, but, once again, they are few. So even amongst the black students that reach to the top there is imbalance. I'm pretty sure the same is reflected even amongst the black students that are posting on this board.

[094320]

..

[EbonyEsq]

Simply put, be the associate that will break his back for the firm and don't expect to be thanked for it.

Me, I plan on doing the same thing. In other words, "Run, mofo, run!" Or, play the game.

Majority of black associates who played the game do not play for long. We usually out in under two years and for those that stay longer, you'd be stuck as the 5th or 6th year associate slaving away for YTs who don't give a damn.

Not me, Swollen. I already know what I will be up against. I work in the type of environment now. I've seen a number of black associates come and go and we have NO black senior associates. Of the 70+ or so partners at the firm, we only have TWO black partners, both of whom have to work 7x as hard to gain the respect/recogniition as their counterpart. They are seldom if ever home to see their families.

I intend on doing this stint for at max, three years, and either (1) opening my own practice in the Caribbean serving my own people; (2) working as in-house counsel for just as good the pay but more flexible the hours or (3) working for the gubment.

I ain't gonna slave all my years away in BIGLAW. No sir, not me.

[EbonyEsq]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

There are systematic and structural disadvantages for a lot of URMS that start from the beginning of education in like...Kindergarten(or, hell, pre-school). Those effects tend to accumulate and snowball throughout their lives---the LSAT doesn't really "discriminate" against minorities any more than any other standardized test does...you find the same pattern in almost every single standardized test, especially major ones(ex: SAT) administered in the United States. The effects of a weaker, and at times, rather deficient, K-12 education are going to show up in undergrad, grad, and professional school admissions, even with a fair amount of effort to overcome it. Money goes a long way to giving your child a good education. Those who don't have it suffer.

You ain't never lied. I know my own weaknesses showed up my first year and a half in college. I had to learn to adjust in a quickness on my own.

[schween]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

There are systematic and structural disadvantages for a lot of URMS that start from the beginning of education in like...Kindergarten(or, hell, pre-school). Those effects tend to accumulate and snowball throughout their lives---the LSAT doesn't really "discriminate" against minorities any more than any other standardized test does...you find the same pattern in almost every single standardized test, especially major ones(ex: SAT) administered in the United States. The effects of a weaker, and at times, rather deficient, K-12 education are going to show up in undergrad, grad, and professional school admissions, even with a fair amount of effort to overcome it. Money goes a long way to giving your child a good education. Those who don't have it suffer.

It really isn't all about money. I recently read a book ( review here http://www.tnr.com/book/review/what-hope ) that cited an interesting statistic. The book, written last year by a prof at Penn Law, said that white students from families earning less than 30k/yr score higher on average on the SATs than black children who come from homes where family income is greater than 70k/yr. Same thing for the education of the parents: white students whose parents' highest degree was a high school diploma score higher on the SATs than black students from homes where at least one parent had a college degree.

That would suggest that the issues goes much deeper than money. There are plenty of other cultural factors involved in test score deficits, which really have more to do with early childhood experience: high rates of single-parenthood, incidence of non-biologically-related males living in the same household, etc.

[tooswolle]

this is the exact discussion that we should be having. We are all very fortunate to have made it this far, to be college graduates vying not only to go to law schools but the best law schools in the country. Hopefully when we all get in a position in power we can help bring about change. But as the poster alluded to the educational system from this country disproportionately affects the poor which for the most part are urms from birth. One can not assume that all people are on a level playing field when the field wasn't leveled to begin with. That is all I'm saying, personally I believe that Universities have a job to help create diversity and help put people like us in positions to bring about change for all. The only problem with that status quo is that one test disproportionately affects one large group of people and it systematically keeps them out. I have a very large fundamental problem with that as I believe all are entitled to an education and with the advents of U.S News and World Report and their ranking system many people who would be good lawyers are shut out. Realistically speaking gpa and lsat go only so far in predicting 1L success they aren't good enough to predict if you will be a good lawyer or not. My view is that if you came from the hood, and you made it through all the adversity you sure as hell will know what hard work is and you will do whatever you can to succeed. Standardized tests don't take that in to consideration.

[SwollenMonkey]

Simply put, be the associate that will break his back for the firm and don't expect to be thanked for it.

Me, I plan on doing the same thing. In other words, "Run, mofo, run!" Or, play the game.

Majority of black associates who played the game do not play for long. We usually out in under two years and for those that stay longer, you'd be stuck as the 5th or 6th year associate slaving away for YTs who don't give a damn.

Not me, Swollen. I already know what I will be up against. I work in the type of environment now. I've seen a number of black associates come and go and we have NO black senior associates. Of the 70+ or so partners at the firm, we only have TWO black partners, both of whom have to work 7x as hard to gain the respect/recogniition as their counterpart. They are seldom if ever home to see their families.

I intend on doing this stint for at max, three years, and either (1) opening my own practice in the Caribbean serving my own people; (2) working as in-house counsel for just as good the pay but more flexible the hours or (3) working for the gubment.

I ain't gonna slave all my years away in BIGLAW. No sir, not me.

I hear yah. I don't mind the working my ass for a long time part with no recognition. I'm used to doing things without getting compensated, awarded, recognized, etc. I'll work my ass for a number of reasons; one is to be able to provide opportunity to those that I may raise, or to those that my family may raise.

I may return to government work as well, as it offers perks not found in the civilian sector.

[SwollenMonkey]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

There are systematic and structural disadvantages for a lot of URMS that start from the beginning of education in like...Kindergarten(or, hell, pre-school). Those effects tend to accumulate and snowball throughout their lives---the LSAT doesn't really "discriminate" against minorities any more than any other standardized test does...you find the same pattern in almost every single standardized test, especially major ones(ex: SAT) administered in the United States. The effects of a weaker, and at times, rather deficient, K-12 education are going to show up in undergrad, grad, and professional school admissions, even with a fair amount of effort to overcome it. Money goes a long way to giving your child a good education. Those who don't have it suffer.

It really isn't all about money. I recently read a book ( review here http://www.tnr.com/book/review/what-hope ) that cited an interesting statistic. The book, written last year by a prof at Penn Law, said that white students from families earning less than 30k/yr score higher on average on the SATs than black children who come from homes where family income is greater than 70k/yr. Same thing for the education of the parents: white students whose parents' highest degree was a high school diploma score higher on the SATs than black students from homes where at least one parent had a college degree.

That would suggest that the issues goes much deeper than money. There are plenty of other cultural factors involved in test score deficits, which really have more to do with early childhood experience: high rates of single-parenthood, incidence of non-biologically-related males living in the same household, etc.

It is not really all about money, but it is how money is used. Some people can do a lot with $30k a year. Some people see themselves as poor if they earn $30k.

[094320]

..

[EbonyEsq]

I agree man through hard work one can conquer this test. I've worked my ass off from a 143 diagnostic to practicing in the solid 160s on my diagnostics. I know it can be done, but more importantly I'm more concerned with the number of us getting there. Many urms face socio-economic disadvantages growing up and for those who make it out of the hood and get to college and actually make it through there they've had to work hard; perhaps even have to work during college to make it through. Seems to me its an institutional exclusion of urm's. Some may argue that I'm being hysterical but the numbers speak for themselves. Something that disproportionately affects one group of people seems to me as something that is invidious in nature. (to borrow from 14nth amendment jurisprudence when discussing discrimination)

There are systematic and structural disadvantages for a lot of URMS that start from the beginning of education in like...Kindergarten(or, hell, pre-school). Those effects tend to accumulate and snowball throughout their lives---the LSAT doesn't really "discriminate" against minorities any more than any other standardized test does...you find the same pattern in almost every single standardized test, especially major ones(ex: SAT) administered in the United States. The effects of a weaker, and at times, rather deficient, K-12 education are going to show up in undergrad, grad, and professional school admissions, even with a fair amount of effort to overcome it. Money goes a long way to giving your child a good education. Those who don't have it suffer.

It really isn't all about money. I recently read a book ( review here http://www.tnr.com/book/review/what-hope ) that cited an interesting statistic. The book, written last year by a prof at Penn Law, said that white students from families earning less than 30k/yr score higher on average on the SATs than black children who come from homes where family income is greater than 70k/yr. Same thing for the education of the parents: white students whose parents' highest degree was a high school diploma score higher on the SATs than black students from homes where at least one parent had a college degree.

That would suggest that the issues goes much deeper than money. There are plenty of other cultural factors involved in test score deficits, which really have more to do with early childhood experience: high rates of single-parenthood, incidence of non-biologically-related males living in the same household, etc.

It is parenting. Quite frankly not all black children have the privilege of being home to be raised by a loving parent. Not all black children are being encouraged to read Harry Potter books from young and attend top kindergarten/elementary schools that teach us and challenge us beyond the basics.

We are raised by siblings or day cares. We have parents that work double-shifts or are never home to raise a family and we rely on the broken US education system to teach us on what we are fed to believe we should know. So long as we pass some state standardized exams that we are forced to prepare for, we have supposedly made it.

This has been the reality of countless black children whose minds are being shaped and influenced by an inept educational system. Majority of our parents know no better.

[094320]

..

[EbonyEsq]

Hopefully when we all get in a position in power we can help bring about change.

This seldom happens.

One can not assume that all people are on a level playing field when the field wasn't leveled to begin with

Amen.

That is all I'm saying, personally I believe that Universities have a job to help create diversity and help put people like us in positions to bring about change for all.

We also have that responsibility to ourselves and our community.

The only problem with that status quo is that one test disproportionately affects one large group of people and it systematically keeps them out. I have a very large fundamental problem with that as I believe all are entitled to an education and with the advents of U.S News and World Report and their ranking system many people who would be good lawyers are shut out. Realistically speaking gpa and lsat go only so far in predicting 1L success they aren't good enough to predict if you will be a good lawyer or not. My view is that if you came from the hood, and you made it through all the adversity you sure as hell will know what hard work is and you will do whatever you can to succeed. Standardized tests don't take that in to consideration.

I agree, but, we didn't create the system. So long as there is a system, we have to learn and play the field they designed. It's learnable. It's accessible. It's possible. We have no more excuses.

[schween]

Public K-12 education, especially in urban areas, is tragically dismal.

Agreed, but would changing that really do all that much to reduce inequalities across the board? I really believe it's not the schools that are the problem: it's the kids. Who the kids are, is primarily a function of who the parents are.

You can go to an awful, awful school, but still have no trouble succeeding if you come from a supportive home that places a high value on education. Money isn't necessary for this.

So much of a child's future chances at success are determined by things that happen before children even enter school.

Also, evidence linking the amount of money spent on a K-12 student, and student outcomes, is quite lacking.

[EbonyEsq]

I really believe it's not the schools that are the problem: it's the kids.

You clearly have yet to understand what it means to attend public school in the ghetto.

[094320]

..

[schween]

I really believe it's not the schools that are the problem: it's the kids.

You clearly have yet to understand what it means to attend public school in the ghetto.

I don't know whether that explanation holds any weight in a generalization, but I know at my undergrad I've come across individuals whose parents emphasize education, who they themselves emphasize education, who are struggling significantly to keep up because they were poorly prepared in K-12 for the rigor of my undergrad.

The difference I'm getting at isn't what separates As and Cs at a given college. It's the difference between dropping out and going to college.

When I say "It's the kids," I mean it's the difference in upbringing that they have had, and the difference in experiences that they bring with them into school, compared to kids who have a much easier time finding success in school. The kids themselves aren't to blame, but just improving schools won't lessen inequalities unless much deeper structural issues are addressed.