URM and the LSAT Observations Forum

[Helicio]

Great freaking post. TLS irks me with how little this site truly understands the experience of many black americans. In my experience the language of the test is entirely different from the language I grew up around. However I do have white friends and I have seen them with their family members using language similar to the exam. Now It is always terrible to use yourself as an example and form that into a rule but their is definitely a difference.

Dude, that culture argument is such a lame excuse.

I do not benefit from URM, yet I grew up in a family where English was NOT even my first language.

My family is poor, barely functional, and the country we came from is probably on the brink of another war. Yet since I have less melanin than other people, and since Affirmative Action is purely based on race and does not take economic status into account, I don't benefit from AA.

If your argument for affirmative action is that blacks/Hispanics grew up in different cultures, you need a reality check.

Many other people--many of whom are poor--grew up in families that are from the Middle East, India, East Asia, or Eastern Europe. Many people from these areas are extremely poor and could use a helping hand or two in their lives, just like the helping hand that African-Americans and Hispanics get.

Despite the cultural differences that I have compared to your average American--and these differences are much greater than those that American minorities share with mainstream America--I have been able to learn English well enough to be scoring 170 + on my practice tests for my LSAT. I've been able to do this through hard work and studying, despite having to work another job all my life.

I know I'm made fun off on these forums a lot, but I've been able to get what I've got in life through hard work. I'm as liberal as they come, and I grew up in a majority-black neighborhood. I'm probably one of the few light-looking people who is telling the truth when I say that I probably have more black friends than white friends. But I've always hated affirmative action as it is now; I wouldn't mind it if it was socioeconomic and took people like me into account, but as it is now it screws poor people over if they aren't black, Hispanic, or Native American.

To use the culture argument is stupid, unless you are going to include Asians/Indians/Middle Easterners like me who do NOT benefit from affirmative action. Instead we have to work our asses off with no 8-point-boost.

While I agree that from your experience Affirmative Action fails for you but as you said you grew up in those neighborhoods and you saw the ethnicity of those around you. Having programs based for those races seem plausible in this regard. While it isnt always perfect you obviously see the disadvantages you were born with and it's similarities to those around you so there is obviously something going on

Congrats on your success tho.

No arguing that in the United States, URMs are definitely more disadvantaged than whites and Asians. It just irks me that my friends get advantages that I don't, that's all. I guess it's more acute for me since I have so many URM friends.

I sent you a PM too; I like debates, especially civil ones like this.

Back to LSAT studying . I'll see you guys tomorrow. Hopefully this thread stays civil and doesn't descend into a flame-fest from Hell.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Helicio - as far as your life experience goes, don't forget that the PS can help.

[Quan292]

However I do have white friends and I have seen them with their family members using language similar to the exam. Now It is always terrible to use yourself as an example and form that into a rule but their is definitely a difference.

Also, I don't know what white people you hang around, but I seriously doubt they use language similar to the exam. No one in their right mind uses language similar to the exam except the test makers and in some cases lawyers.

Stereotyping white people is just as bogus as stereotyping black people; not all white people are rich dictionary-dorks. Actually, a large amount are poor.

Some, like me, are poorer than most URMs (or people in general, for that matter). Unforuntately, I don't get AA.

You are correct that stereotyping whites is as bad as doing the same for blacks but I didn't mean to say all whites use the same language as the lsat because that isn't true. I mean to say that you take a middle class black from a black neighborhood and a middle class white from a white neighborhood I feel as if the jump into learning the language of the lsat would be easier for the white compared to the black guy.

[Helicio]

However I do have white friends and I have seen them with their family members using language similar to the exam. Now It is always terrible to use yourself as an example and form that into a rule but their is definitely a difference.

Also, I don't know what white people you hang around, but I seriously doubt they use language similar to the exam. No one in their right mind uses language similar to the exam except the test makers and in some cases lawyers.

Stereotyping white people is just as bogus as stereotyping black people; not all white people are rich dictionary-dorks. Actually, a large amount are poor.

Some, like me, are poorer than most URMs (or people in general, for that matter). Unforuntately, I don't get AA.

You are correct that stereotyping whites is as bad as doing the same for blacks but I didn't mean to say all whites use the same language as the lsat because that isn't true. I mean to say that you take a middle class black from a black neighborhood and a middle class white from a white neighborhood I feel as if the jump into learning the language of the lsat would be easier for the white compared to the black guy.

Agreed.

[Helicio]

Helicio - as far as your life experience goes, don't forget that the PS can help.

Definitely.

Ight, I'm gonna go over a LSAT section before sleep, g'night for real now guys.

[Yeshia90]

Helicio - as far as your life experience goes, don't forget that the PS can help.

But certainly not as much as if he'd been able to check off "URM" in his application.

But even moving past the question of whether the LSAT is, in whatever way, biased against some race or another, why is it in the best interest for any law school to admit any student who doesn't otherwise meet their admissions statistics? Certainly, no government agency would hold it against them if they didn't have quotas to meet. For what reason is "diversity" considered such a lofty goal that it supersedes taking the best possible students? Because only if the LSAT truly is biased--not culturally, not on any merits other than race--is that question rendered moot.

Of course, the law-school bound population is entirely different from the population at large, even the college-going population as a whole. I'd be willing to guess that your average law student comes from a far better socioeconomic position than the mean, regardless of race--you're probably not going to see too many kids coming straight outta Compton who are seriously thinking about dropping $200K on a legal education. I'm sure, those cases exist, but let's not presuppose that the average URM applicant grew up in "the hood."

I grew up in an upper-middle class, predominantly white area, but I've lived in rural areas as well--I go to college in one. I'd argue that the cultural capital of rural whites is no greater, or barely so, as compared to urban African-Americans. And in my experiences, especially in college, I've met black kids who acted "whiter" than any of my white friends, and those who understood the difficulty of straddling two worlds. I suppose that what I'm getting at is that suggesting that any population so large as "URM" or "white" is really in no way monolithic, and shouldn't be considered as such. Worse than any perceived negatives of affirmative action, or of cultural bias on the part of LSAC, is failing to see each individual as exactly that--though influenced by their surroundings, to be sure, I'm not sure you can draw any implications in a vacuum.

So getting back to the matter at hand--why do URMs score lower on the LSAT? I'd bet that most of the discrepancy is based off of socioeconomic status--and it's a fact, albeit a sad one, that minorities, on the whole, occupy lower rungs of the social strata. While I was able to take the summer off to study for the LSAT, a prospective college-goer from a less wealthy family would certainly have to work full-time in the summer--and possibly, if not probably, during the school year too. I could afford a prep class--less advantageous students couldn't. That doesn't explain all the difference--I'd bet that the LSAT probably mirrors IQ, when all other factors are controlled (I scored a 166 completely cold, which plenty of rich white guys couldn't do given months of studying)--but the overwhelming majority of it. If you take two people with identical intellectual skills, and give them the exact same resources, but one of them's white and the other's black, you'd have to assume they'd score the same, right?

Then the LSAT isn't racist. Not on its face, at least. But social pressures certainly can be--going to law school was never the goal for me, going to a great one was. That might not be the case for someone who doesn't have family in the law business, who understands the difference between going to Michigan and Cooley--and don't laugh, because some people really don't understand the difference between "law school" and "law school."

[SchopenhauerFTW]

For what reason is "diversity" considered such a lofty goal that it supersedes taking the best possible students?

Assuming the best possible students can be determined by their score and GPA alone. Which is mostly true.

[Gizmo]

AA policy makes more sense when you think about race/socioeconomic status as being connected. That is, historically, minority groups have been systematically discriminated against and essentially kept in poverty. Even if we were to pretend that kind of racism doesn't occur anymore, it would still be a mistake to ignore its effects on the current distribution of wealth/opportunity/etc. AA, in part, seeks to remedy that.

On the other hand, there have always been poor, white people. Still, they have had greater socioeconomic mobility than their minority counterparts.

None of this is to say that Helicio and others haven't worked exceptionally hard as well, or that there aren't very clear examples where individuals probably shouldn't be privy to the URM boost. But I think it's a mistake to think about this only in terms of socioeconomic status.

[PDaddy]

to be honest, this seems like a pretty weak argument for a cultural bias. I have read things about the language of the test being culturally biased using idioms and phrases and what not that are not commonly found used in minority houses, but are in white houses. I'd be interested in more arguments like this.
For your first point, one could say that those with the top scores go to those who do end up in corporate law, whereas those with lower scores go to schools where they will be groomed for things like family law.
As a whole, I feel like instead of doing an after-the-fact boost, you're talking about evening out the scores so that white people miss ones that URMs/low income students are more likely to get. It's an interesting switch...

If you think my argument is weak, it's because you simply wouldn't want to hear the music no matter what song I played. the only thing you want to say or hear is, the LSAT is perfect as long as the majority of people who succeed at it are white and male. Sorry, there are researchers at top universities worldwide who disagree with you. You can start at Berkeley, which is developing what will probably be the new test, and end at Harvard and Oxford.

[PDaddy]

For what reason is "diversity" considered such a lofty goal that it supersedes taking the best possible students?

Assuming the best possible students can be determined by their score and GPA alone. Which is mostly true.

That's exactly the point I was making. The LSAT doesn't predict the "best" law students or lawyers, no matter how much certain people argue otherwise. PSUdevon assumes that by seeking diversity the schools are (necessarily) escewing "quality". Again, the LSAT is not worthless, nor do I believe we can devise a "perfect test". However, i do feel that the LSAT is a flawed and incomplete exam that could test more of the skills essential or at least useful for becoming a good attorney. The LSAT tests some of the skills but not all of them. If I can run the court faster than anyone and dunk a basketball that doesn't mean I am a better player than Larry Bird. I might be a better athlete, but not necessarily a better player. Same with the LSAT. You might test better, but that means nothing when it comes to the real world, where you have to employ a list of about 25-50 different skills in any situation.

Donald trump has tested this theory in a different way on The Apprentice by pitting book smart prospects against street smart prospects. The street smart prospects are found to have a leg up because they possess more of the intuitive qualities that allow them to adapt to situations. Book smart prospects need structure to survive and tend fail miserably at adaptation and improvisation. Street smart people can often pick up book smarts in a short time, but the reverse is far from true. Being a good lawyer requires one to be able to THINK, and not always in strict logical terms. It requires one to FEEL. Good reading speed and proficiency at repitition don't test those things.

[PDaddy]

To an extent, the test itself is race-neutral with regards to the language of the questionetc.

It is "race-neutral" to the extent that any person from any race or ethnicity, given the proper long-term exposure to the language, syntax/sentence structure, etc. should be able to understand the the questions as posed. The problem is that the test is not "socioeconomically neutral". Remember, i stated that there are students of all backgrounds who are disadvantaged when it comes to the LSAT.

White, suburban students raised in schools with top teachers, the best resources and educated parents/families are more likely to understand the language of the LSAT. It doesn't make them more intelligent, it simply means they are immersed in the language and it is second nature to them. And when I speak of "language", I not only mean the written language; I mean understanding the mechanics of logic.

To the white students: How many of you believe Jay-Z or Diddy could be a better lawyer than you can? They both hated school. Diddy went to Howard and dropped out. But they are both geniuses. Listening to them speak, they probably wouldn't do well on the LSAT. If there was a standardized test for music moguls, they would probably do worse than Tommy Matolla or David Geffen. But they are both on track to become billionaire entertainment moguls, and, given their starting points, they have accomplished much more than either of the latter. Larry bird didn't test well at the pre-draft workouts. He was a sorry athlete to the scouts. Look at his accomplishments! You can't "test" everything.

These pointless threads are usually started and perpetuated by jealous malcontents who can't wrap their heads around the concept that a student with lower scores and grades might nevertheless predict as a better law student and lawyer than they do, or at least be as good. If such a student got in and you didn't, the committee liked them just a little better, and they earned it. Just accept it and move on.

[bk1]

This thread is in desperate need of a stairbortion.

[Blessedassurance]

I grew up in an upper-middle class, predominantly white area, but I've lived in rural areas as well--I go to college in one. I'd argue that the cultural capital of rural whites is no greater, or barely so, as compared to urban African-American

Not to take this track into a different direction, consider the issue of crime. I have made arguments that the correlation between poverty and crime is more a consequence of environmental factors (including but not limited to exposure to opulence in addition to poverty etc) than race. I lived in bumfuck Oklahoma where many residents were poor, but you could leave your door open and no one would steal anything. The first day I moved to a predominantly black neighborhood in WA (because it was close to the Army base I was assigned to), my car stereo was stolen. The first reaction would be to associate black neighborhoods with crime but I think such a correlation is spurious. It could be due to poverty, but then what makes poor black people in urban neighborhoods more prone to theft than poor white people in rural areas? Before you can attribute it to race, consider the fact that poor people in Africa act like rural white people in certain parts of America. Obviously, skin color cannot account for the difference in behavior.

I think "expectations" as explained by sociologists like Mead (employing it to other observations) perhaps explains the fact that we tend to attribute certain phenomena in America to race and by so doing, miss other pertinent factors. There might be certain issues which we are entirely missing in the debate due to the fact that our observations are clouded by preconceived notions.

I do not have any problem with the boost obviously, but it is subject to abuse like any system of preferential treatment. Certain people magically asset their URM-ness when for all practical purposes, they are white (at least, in the areas for which being URM invites systematic discrimination). I think the disadvantages associated with being a certain URM are quite clear but others tend to discover the fact that they are 1/4th this and that for Law School admission purposes. The system needs an overhaul in certain aspects but to assert that it should be completely abolished fails to recognize the extent to which race permeates American society.

As a black man, I want nothing more than the collective progress of the race as a whole; progress to a point where people of all races operate on an equal playing field and where one's success is not judged within the strait-jacketed confines of affirmative action and the monkey-on-one's-back it places on the few successful blacks. As is, blacks are still severely underrepresented in Law schools even with the boost. The movie "traffic" has a scene where the guy makes a pretty convincing argument. Why would you go to Law School when practically everybody you meet on the street asks you for drugs because they assume you have a connect solely due to the fact that you are black? I will be the first to admit there are systemic issues within the black community that ought to be addressed by blacks. The URM boost is benign and helps America as a whole even though you singularly feel fucked in the ass sans lube and "the courtesy of a reach-around" but do realize that a large number of black men are languishing in jails and blacks comprise a disproportionate number of inmates appropos of their percentage of the general population as a whole.

There are many issues that need to be addressed in America with respect to race. I simply do not think the LSAT boost is that much of a significance. It's not like blacks are taking over America's Law Schools. Also realize that as a caucasian, you can practice or live in anywhere in the country (desirable, at least) without wondering if your race might be an issue. It's like bitterly complaining the president was elected because he was black when everyone else before him stood a chance simply because they were white and male. Criticize his policies, but leave his race be. The black American male is in a unique spot, even the immigrant African cab-driver (himself, black) hesitates to pick him up, solely due to his race. It's complicated.

[Jack Smirks]

Take that wall-o-text to the personal statement forum. Jesus Christ.

[Blessedassurance]

Take that wall-o-text to the personal statement forum. Jesus Christ.

Benign bro, simply benign. No harm, no foul.

[Blessedassurance]

As Claude Steele explains in most of his findings, many minorities/women have the added pressure of feeling like they have to disprove negative stereotypes about themselves, which -- surprise surprise -- causes them to underperform. Ironically, students who tend to do BETTER academically were more likely to succumb to stereotype threat -- probably because a large part of their identities are based around being "smart."

Here, it will be interesting to study the effect it has on the tendency of some students (not just blacks) to spend considerable time figuring out the answer to every question before moving on (which impacts their score). Like I said, I believe the LSAT is fairly sophisticated and tests time-management skills among other things. Part of the test depends on strategy. The stuff the LSAT predicts, must necessarily hold other things constant, which I feel is the purpose of the holistic approach to considering one's application for admission.

[KingMenes]

ADVERTISEMENT: ---> Neo-Eugenics LSAT Tutoring Co.

While operating in 18 major confederate cities, we have discouraged 18 of the 100 of the 40 Million African Americans who have sought our services from attending Law School. Likewise, we have 7x the proportion of 99th percentile scorers than those that have ever set for the exam itself. If this makes absolutely no fucking sense to you, then you are emotionally bias. True, we would suck as classmates. Still, we offer a special paper bag discount$$$$$, special poll tax discount, and a real goodie-the grandfather clause discount. Also, at Neo-Eugenics LSAT Tutoring we cater to the Willie Lynch model of URM skill development, perfected over 300 years of cultural integration. At Neo-eugenics LSAT Tutoring Co., we don’t simply focus on building test taking skills, but we make non-scientific cultural observations and judge our clients on that basis. If you register for our LSAT courses, we will throw in the neo-eugenic classic The Bell Curve.

Disclaimer: We are a secret society of tutors, led by an even more secret super tutor. All opinions stated in this advertisement are those we endorse, but do not necessarily believe. We are the racial circle-jerks of LSAT study.

Endorsements: Stormfront, Tea Party University, National Militia Bortherhood of the Secessionist States of America, and the States Have Rights Association

[MRavvel]

OP: For me, the URM LSAT admissions advantage has only increased my personal motivation. I know how much further a 170+ score can get me and I want to take full advantage of that. This is about as anecdotal as OP's example but; myself and most of my "URM" friends (at my UG) work much harder than my white friends who are lazy/wealthy/alcoholics/stoners (for the most part). We also get better grades as a result. Does this mean these white friends are representative of all whites? Obviously not. I guess I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Perhaps the lack of motivation of URMs that come to your company has more to do with a discouraging atmosphere in your company.

[kwais]

I grew up in an upper-middle class, predominantly white area, but I've lived in rural areas as well--I go to college in one. I'd argue that the cultural capital of rural whites is no greater, or barely so, as compared to urban African-American

Not to take this track into a different direction, consider the issue of crime. I have made arguments that the correlation between poverty and crime is more a consequence of environmental factors (including but not limited to exposure to opulence in addition to poverty etc) than race. I lived in bumfuck Oklahoma where many residents were poor, but you could leave your door open and no one would steal anything. The first day I moved to a predominantly black neighborhood in WA (because it was close to the Army base I was assigned to), my car stereo was stolen. The first reaction would be to associate black neighborhoods with crime but I think such a correlation is spurious. It could be due to poverty, but then what makes poor black people in urban neighborhoods more prone to theft than poor white people in rural areas? Before you can attribute it to race, consider the fact that poor people in Africa act like rural white people in certain parts of America. Obviously, skin color cannot account for the difference in behavior.

I think "expectations" as explained by sociologists like Mead (employing it to other observations) perhaps explains the fact that we tend to attribute certain phenomena in America to race and by so doing, miss other pertinent factors. There might be certain issues which we are entirely missing in the debate due to the fact that our observations are clouded by preconceived notions.

I do not have any problem with the boost obviously, but it is subject to abuse like any system of preferential treatment. Certain people magically asset their URM-ness when for all practical purposes, they are white (at least, in the areas for which being URM invites systematic discrimination). I think the disadvantages associated with being a certain URM are quite clear but others tend to discover the fact that they are 1/4th this and that for Law School admission purposes. The system needs an overhaul in certain aspects but to assert that it should be completely abolished fails to recognize the extent to which race permeates American society.

As a black man, I want nothing more than the collective progress of the race as a whole; progress to a point where people of all races operate on an equal playing field and where one's success is not judged within the strait-jacketed confines of affirmative action and the monkey-on-one's-back it places on the few successful blacks. As is, blacks are still severely underrepresented in Law schools even with the boost. The movie "traffic" has a scene where the guy makes a pretty convincing argument. Why would you go to Law School when practically everybody you meet on the street asks you for drugs because they assume you have a connect solely due to the fact that you are black? I will be the first to admit there are systemic issues within the black community that ought to be addressed by blacks. The URM boost is benign and helps America as a whole even though you singularly feel fucked in the ass sans lube and "the courtesy of a reach-around" but do realize that a large number of black men are languishing in jails and blacks comprise a disproportionate number of inmates appropos of their percentage of the general population as a whole.

There are many issues that need to be addressed in America with respect to race. I simply do not think the LSAT boost is that much of a significance. It's not like blacks are taking over America's Law Schools. Also realize that as a caucasian, you can practice or live in anywhere in the country (desirable, at least) without wondering if your race might be an issue. It's like bitterly complaining the president was elected because he was black when everyone else before him stood a chance simply because they were white and male. Criticize his policies, but leave his race be. The black American male is in a unique spot, even the immigrant African cab-driver (himself, black) hesitates to pick him up, solely due to his race. It's complicated.

seriously, imagine for a second that this is a real life conversation. This rambling shit would really put people off. Pretend you are sitting at a dinner table and then make your comments the appropriate length. Especially because I think you make some decent points.

[sarahlawg]

to be honest, this seems like a pretty weak argument for a cultural bias. I have read things about the language of the test being culturally biased using idioms and phrases and what not that are not commonly found used in minority houses, but are in white houses. I'd be interested in more arguments like this.
For your first point, one could say that those with the top scores go to those who do end up in corporate law, whereas those with lower scores go to schools where they will be groomed for things like family law.
As a whole, I feel like instead of doing an after-the-fact boost, you're talking about evening out the scores so that white people miss ones that URMs/low income students are more likely to get. It's an interesting switch...

If you think my argument is weak, it's because you simply wouldn't want to hear the music no matter what song I played. the only thing you want to say or hear is, the LSAT is perfect as long as the majority of people who succeed at it are white and male. Sorry, there are researchers at top universities worldwide who disagree with you. You can start at Berkeley, which is developing what will probably be the new test, and end at Harvard and Oxford.

that's absolutely false. and rude. I right out say that I've heard of the cultural bias in the language of the test, which you talk about in a later post. The reading faster argument I find weak because everyone who takes the LSAT went to college and slow reading is not unique to URMs. And the intuition argument seems weak to me because I also don't think that poor people are the only people with any kind of intuition that testing for it would somehow make it fairer.

Anyway, I am open to reasons how and why the LSAT is bias and have stated as much.

[raregem]

You know the question that never gets asked? What about the rich well-to-do, well-connected white person that gets into a Top 14 with a mediocre LSAT score? Because for every “non-deserving URM” who skated by and made it into a university that they should not have gotten into, there is equally a rich well-to-do, well-connected white person who didn’t give a damn about their LSAT score, because they already knew they could get into the college/university of their choice.

Are their URMs who play the system? Sure. This is America. Who doesn’t play the system? There are many more African Americans and Latinos who actually do need the boost because of socioeconomic and racial factors that long pre-date their generation or even their parent’s generation. There are always exceptions to every rule and there are always people who will try to use rules their advantage. Do we change the rule even though it benefits many, many, many more people?

[flexityflex86]

You know the question that never gets asked? What about the rich well-to-do, well-connected white person that gets into a Top 14 with a mediocre LSAT score? Because for every “non-deserving URM” who skated by and made it into a university that they should not have gotten into, there is equally a rich well-to-do, well-connected white person who didn’t give a damn about their LSAT score, because they already knew they could get into the college/university of their choice.

Are their URMs who play the system? Sure. This is America. Who doesn’t play the system? There are many more African Americans and Latinos who actually do need the boost because of socioeconomic and racial factors that long pre-date their generation or even their parent’s generation. There are always exceptions to every rule and there are always people who will try to use rules their advantage. Do we change the rule even though it benefits many, many, many more people?

This is few and far between.

Giving a few 100k to a LS won't do much. You need to give a few million, and then it's still not a sure thing. Also what %age of applicants have millions of dollars, and would be willing to spend millions?

George Bush couldn't even get into UT fyi.

[Helicio]

You know the question that never gets asked? What about the rich well-to-do, well-connected white person that gets into a Top 14 with a mediocre LSAT score? Because for every “non-deserving URM” who skated by and made it into a university that they should not have gotten into, there is equally a rich well-to-do, well-connected white person who didn’t give a damn about their LSAT score, because they already knew they could get into the college/university of their choice.

Are their URMs who play the system? Sure. This is America. Who doesn’t play the system? There are many more African Americans and Latinos who actually do need the boost because of socioeconomic and racial factors that long pre-date their generation or even their parent’s generation. There are always exceptions to every rule and there are always people who will try to use rules their advantage. Do we change the rule even though it benefits many, many, many more people?

This is few and far between.

Giving a few 100k to a LS won't do much. You need to give a few million, and then it's still not a sure thing. Also what %age of applicants have millions of dollars, and would be willing to spend millions?

George Bush couldn't even get into UT fyi.

If W could get into Yale/Harvard, how the heck didn't he get into UT?

[Yeshia90]

You know the question that never gets asked? What about the rich well-to-do, well-connected white person that gets into a Top 14 with a mediocre LSAT score? Because for every “non-deserving URM” who skated by and made it into a university that they should not have gotten into, there is equally a rich well-to-do, well-connected white person who didn’t give a damn about their LSAT score, because they already knew they could get into the college/university of their choice.

Are their URMs who play the system? Sure. This is America. Who doesn’t play the system? There are many more African Americans and Latinos who actually do need the boost because of socioeconomic and racial factors that long pre-date their generation or even their parent’s generation. There are always exceptions to every rule and there are always people who will try to use rules their advantage. Do we change the rule even though it benefits many, many, many more people?

Oh, I think they're universally reviled.

[Blessedassurance]

You know the question that never gets asked? What about the rich well-to-do, well-connected white person that gets into a Top 14 with a mediocre LSAT score? Because for every “non-deserving URM” who skated by and made it into a university that they should not have gotten into, there is equally a rich well-to-do, well-connected white person who didn’t give a damn about their LSAT score, because they already knew they could get into the college/university of their choice.

Are their URMs who play the system? Sure. This is America. Who doesn’t play the system? There are many more African Americans and Latinos who actually do need the boost because of socioeconomic and racial factors that long pre-date their generation or even their parent’s generation. There are always exceptions to every rule and there are always people who will try to use rules their advantage. Do we change the rule even though it benefits many, many, many more people?

This is few and far between.

Giving a few 100k to a LS won't do much. You need to give a few million, and then it's still not a sure thing. Also what %age of applicants have millions of dollars, and would be willing to spend millions?

George Bush couldn't even get into UT fyi.

Start your analysis from the undergrad level. Also consider undergraduate education as relates to motivation for further pursuits. The LSAT is just one part of a very big puzzle.

The 'UR' in URM is very important. Asians are a minority but do not get the boost. If many people within a particular minority took advantage of the much-maligned boost as is claimed by some, they would in time, lose the "under-represented" classification. Analyze why the boost appears to work differently for AA males in relation to AA females. Why does it work differently for other latinos and hispanics in relation to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans? One question to ask is why adcomms would think someone of Salvadorian, Honduran or Guatemalan origin or ancestry does not deserve as much a boost as one who identifies as Mexican or Puerto Rican when conditions are better in the last two than the previous three (with respect to the conditions in the country of origin)? Different rationales might be in play. Maybe the process is holistic.

Answers to these and many other questions will be simple, neat and wrong...to borrow from Mencken.