1. Is the degree of difference in LSAT scores attributable to stereotype threat and other factors that affect minority performance equivalent to the 10+ points lower URMs seem to be able to score without experiencing a narrowing in the schools available to them? 2. Also, does stereotype threat affect GPA? I've seen the discussions on standardized testing and stereotype threat but nothing on its effect on GPA.Looking at LSN, there seems to be a strong possibility that two students--one a 3.8/172 white applicant and one a 3.1/163 URM applicant, will end up at the same school. I understand if the LSATs are taken as equivalent, considering stereotype threat and less access to resources (such as test prep companies) that URMs face. However, the GPAs are strikingly different so why the added consideration there?
One could say that AA creates a new, more enduring stereotype threat: the incompetent minority. The minority who has completed law school now has to worry about the stereotype threat that they are incompetent for the rest of their working lives, which should, in turn, make them less competent lawyers than they would be if AA, and the stereotype threat that it introduces, did not exist.
Great post, thanks. As far as the stereotype threat affecting GPA, it seems that the mechanism (over-thinking) would still be in place, but the negative results would be less pronounced than they would be in a standardized test designed for quick thinking.
Quote from: WarrenG on June 08, 2006, 01:44:39 PMOne could say that AA creates a new, more enduring stereotype threat: the incompetent minority. The minority who has completed law school now has to worry about the stereotype threat that they are incompetent for the rest of their working lives, which should, in turn, make them less competent lawyers than they would be if AA, and the stereotype threat that it introduces, did not exist.Yes, I think that's a fair argument to make. I think that AA is a second-best solution in response to law schools' failure to abandon the LSAT. The best solution is to revamp the admissions process entirely. Given, however, that they haven't and that they presumably won't, it is perverse and unfair to place the burden and the cost of this system on URM applicants' admissions prospects. It is, in fact, the very definition of unfair.As a factual matter, it has been shown, using longitudinal survey data, that applicants who had been admitted under Affirmative Action at Michigan Law went on to lead careers that were as productive, as accomplished and as well renumerated as those of white students. The only significant difference was that URMs made a significantly better and greater contribution to the communities in which they lived.The effects of the sterotype effect, therefore, seem to b potentially deadly in the applications process, in law school exams, but not thereafter.
The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing. When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.
Page created in 0.336 seconds with 17 queries.