Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: JoJo on January 16, 2005, 03:14:53 AM

Title: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: JoJo on January 16, 2005, 03:14:53 AM
I have no doubt, given the recent posts by "Black__Reign" this post is going to upset many, but really, why do SOME people of color feel they are deserved something?  Why can't we live on the basis of survival of the fittest?  Is/Was Darwin that WRONG? 
I know this discussion is quite philosophical and there are no "correct" answers, but from an economical standpoint, are we not all better off if, according to J.S. Mills, we approach life in a utilitarian point of view?  If people (or certain "CULTURES") have ideological views that are "not productive to further advancing the human condition for all; that is life, liberty, and justice" why should we adhere to such policies as Affirmative Action? 

I'm curious to hear more opinions on this seeing as wee all have to live with it, no matter what race/color you are.  I've always lived by the idea that if you respect me I'll respect you,  no matter what f-in race you are.
Title: Re: I dind't enslave anyone! Why can't people get in based upon merit?
Post by: EruditeLady on January 16, 2005, 04:40:35 AM
Is it so hard to believe that people of color are being admitted to schools based on merit and achievement?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: TLFKARG on January 16, 2005, 04:40:48 AM
You are a coward for not having the balls to post what you really think under your real username.  I am not, however, surprised and suspect that many more cowards share your misguided views.  
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Southern Gentleman on January 16, 2005, 04:53:11 AM
The problem is one of fairness. There is an inherent advantage in being "white". By white, I mean more than skin color, but a part of the mainstream culture. Throughout history there have been several groups of people who are now considered white, but in the past were not. For example, in the early 20th century there was an influx of immigrants from Southern European nations such as Italy. These people were NOT considered white at the time and were heavily discriminated against. Another, perhaps more striking, example us the Irish. The Irish were not considered white either! Even though you cannot get much more physically white than they, they did not meet the requirements because they were not ENGLISHMEN. The definition originally sprang from how Anglisized someone was. During the occupation of Ireland by the British a concerted effort was made to decrease the "wild Irish." They literally starved them out to the point that they died & died & died. Coffins were made with false bottoms so they could be re-used. I could talk about the Native Americans or the Chinese, too.

The difference between African-Americans and most of these other groups is that of the potential for assimilation into the mainstream; being re-defined over time as "white." THe Irish who came to America were able to physically bleand in & could learn the culture and therefore adapt. The same is true, more recently, with the South Europeans. Part of this was also due to intermarriage. All of these things are much more difficult for African-Americans. Yhey can't just blend in, whether they "learn" the culture or not (even if they should, which is a completely different question). They are defined by the inherent preconceptions of everyone who meets them. Even themselves. Jesse Jackson once told the story of a time when he was in Washington, DC and his car broke down. It was in the evening & DC is not a low-crime area. He walked down the sidewalk to look for a phone. He heard footsteps behind him. He thought he was bout to be mugged, turned & looked, and was RELIEVED that it was a white guy. He realized that if it had been a black man he would have been more concerned. Now, this indicated the level that stereotypes have pervadeded our American culture. Crime is not defined by race, but by socio-economic status. They crime rate for poor whites is just as high as poor blacks. Unfortunately, African Americans have a tougher time escaping poverty at every turn than whites do. There is an inherent advantage in being white. Affirmative Action programs try to "level the playing field" and no, it is not a perfect system. But, its the only one that can be somewhat fair. Every group of people deserves the same opportunities for their children.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: NontradMike on January 16, 2005, 11:18:58 AM
This shouldn't be too difficult to understand.  Let's see if we can get you there...

Everyone in life has challenges they have to overcome.  Women look up to a glass ceiling.  URM's often have to deal with inferior schools and a culture that, for whatever its merits, is distinctive and seperate from that of "white-America".

As a white guy, I can tell you this.  I'd much prefer the challenge AA presents than having to deal with the lifetime challenge of dealing with a rascist majority that refuses to adequately fund my schools or ensure that my vote counts.  The necessity of scoring 4-8 points higher on an LSAT and needing a .2-.4 higher GPA to get into a law school pales in comparison...

And the fact is, I am still being judged by merit.  I know what scores I need to be relatively assured entrance to the schools I want.  If I want to get into Harvard, but I only have a 3.2 GPA and 166 LSAT, well, I've got nobody to blame except myself.  Buck up, ya pansy...  nothing worse than a person born with every advantage whining about not getting what they want...  we all get what we deserve.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 16, 2005, 11:21:10 AM
The problem is one of fairness. There is an inherent advantage in being "white". By white, I mean more than skin color, but a part of the mainstream culture. Throughout history there have been several groups of people who are now considered white, but in the past were not. For example, in the early 20th century there was an influx of immigrants from Southern European nations such as Italy. These people were NOT considered white at the time and were heavily discriminated against. Another, perhaps more striking, example us the Irish. The Irish were not considered white either! Even though you cannot get much more physically white than they, they did not meet the requirements because they were not ENGLISHMEN. The definition originally sprang from how Anglisized someone was. During the occupation of Ireland by the British a concerted effort was made to decrease the "wild Irish." They literally starved them out to the point that they died & died & died. Coffins were made with false bottoms so they could be re-used. I could talk about the Native Americans or the Chinese, too.

The difference between African-Americans and most of these other groups is that of the potential for assimilation into the mainstream; being re-defined over time as "white." THe Irish who came to America were able to physically bleand in & could learn the culture and therefore adapt. The same is true, more recently, with the South Europeans. Part of this was also due to intermarriage. All of these things are much more difficult for African-Americans. Yhey can't just blend in, whether they "learn" the culture or not (even if they should, which is a completely different question). They are defined by the inherent preconceptions of everyone who meets them. Even themselves. Jesse Jackson once told the story of a time when he was in Washington, DC and his car broke down. It was in the evening & DC is not a low-crime area. He walked down the sidewalk to look for a phone. He heard footsteps behind him. He thought he was bout to be mugged, turned & looked, and was RELIEVED that it was a white guy. He realized that if it had been a black man he would have been more concerned. Now, this indicated the level that stereotypes have pervadeded our American culture. Crime is not defined by race, but by socio-economic status. They crime rate for poor whites is just as high as poor blacks. Unfortunately, African Americans have a tougher time escaping poverty at every turn than whites do. There is an inherent advantage in being white. Affirmative Action programs try to "level the playing field" and no, it is not a perfect system. But, its the only one that can be somewhat fair. Every group of people deserves the same opportunities for their children.

One of the best posts I have seen on the subject.  ;D
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: hylas99 on January 16, 2005, 11:27:15 AM
I am loving the recent flames on this board. Keep 'em coming.

BTW, original poster. The philosopher you refer to is John Stuart Mill, not John Stuart Mills. And utilitarianism is not the same thing as survival of the fittest. In fact, many arguments in favor of affirmative action are utilitarian in thrust.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Runner-up on January 16, 2005, 11:45:57 AM
I have no doubt, given the recent posts by "Black__Reign" this post is going to upset many, but really, why do SOME people of color feel they are deserved something?  Why can't we live on the basis of survival of the fittest?  Is/Was Darwin that WRONG? 
I know this discussion is quite philosophical and there are no "correct" answers, but from an economical standpoint, are we not all better off if, according to J.S. Mills, we approach life in a utilitarian point of view?  If people (or certain "CULTURES") have ideological views that are "not productive to further advancing the human condition for all; that is life, liberty, and justice" why should we adhere to such policies as Affirmative Action? 

I'm curious to hear more opinions on this seeing as wee all have to live with it, no matter what race/color you are.  I've always lived by the idea that if you respect me I'll respect you,  no matter what f-in race you are.


The other side will continue to laugh at us, as long as we structure our arguments this way.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on January 16, 2005, 11:48:08 AM
I don't think diversity would be that much of an issue, were it not for the extreme weighting that is given to one's ethnicity.  We all want to meet a lot of different people in law school.  Age, gender, economic background, work experience, and ethnicity are all good factors for determining who gets into law school.

That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

Reason why this happens is because very few minorities are within the 3.5+ and 165+ category. Very, very little. Ref. to the Mich case, something like 26 blacks fit here, and a comparable number of hispanics. Since these are the top scoring minorities, they get their pick of HYS and, generally, the rest of the top 14. So the schools lower on the totem pole need to look a little further down relative to GPA and LSAT, otherwise risk not having any minorities AT ALL in their classrooms. Hence, the 'effects' of AA are definetely most pronounced at the lower schools.

And people, please ignore the original poster's flame ....
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: HBCU.EDU on January 16, 2005, 12:08:01 PM
Post under your real username you tool. YOu are such a f-ing troll dude. Yet another AA thread. 
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: blk_reign on January 16, 2005, 12:09:36 PM
it's blk_reign get it right..LOL . I don't recall arguing for or against AA. but thanks for the honorable mention
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: poopoo1 on January 16, 2005, 12:13:30 PM
This shouldn't be too difficult to understand.  Let's see if we can get you there...

Everyone in life has challenges they have to overcome.  Women look up to a glass ceiling.  URM's often have to deal with inferior schools and a culture that, for whatever its merits, is distinctive and seperate from that of "white-America".

As a white guy, I can tell you this.  I'd much prefer the challenge AA presents than having to deal with the lifetime challenge of dealing with a rascist majority that refuses to adequately fund my schools or ensure that my vote counts.  The necessity of scoring 4-8 points higher on an LSAT and needing a .2-.4 higher GPA to get into a law school pales in comparison...

And the fact is, I am still being judged by merit.  I know what scores I need to be relatively assured entrance to the schools I want.  If I want to get into Harvard, but I only have a 3.2 GPA and 166 LSAT, well, I've got nobody to blame except myself.  Buck up, ya pansy...  nothing worse than a person born with every advantage whining about not getting what they want...  we all get what we deserve.

I'm a white male who agrees with you 100%.

PS, i've already taken your spot NontradMike!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Southern Gentleman on January 16, 2005, 12:28:42 PM
The problem is one of fairness. There is an inherent advantage in being "white". By white, I mean more than skin color, but a part of the mainstream culture. Throughout history there have been several groups of people who are now considered white, but in the past were not. For example, in the early 20th century there was an influx of immigrants from Southern European nations such as Italy. These people were NOT considered white at the time and were heavily discriminated against. Another, perhaps more striking, example us the Irish. The Irish were not considered white either! Even though you cannot get much more physically white than they, they did not meet the requirements because they were not ENGLISHMEN. The definition originally sprang from how Anglisized someone was. During the occupation of Ireland by the British a concerted effort was made to decrease the "wild Irish." They literally starved them out to the point that they died & died & died. Coffins were made with false bottoms so they could be re-used. I could talk about the Native Americans or the Chinese, too.

The difference between African-Americans and most of these other groups is that of the potential for assimilation into the mainstream; being re-defined over time as "white." THe Irish who came to America were able to physically bleand in & could learn the culture and therefore adapt. The same is true, more recently, with the South Europeans. Part of this was also due to intermarriage. All of these things are much more difficult for African-Americans. Yhey can't just blend in, whether they "learn" the culture or not (even if they should, which is a completely different question). They are defined by the inherent preconceptions of everyone who meets them. Even themselves. Jesse Jackson once told the story of a time when he was in Washington, DC and his car broke down. It was in the evening & DC is not a low-crime area. He walked down the sidewalk to look for a phone. He heard footsteps behind him. He thought he was bout to be mugged, turned & looked, and was RELIEVED that it was a white guy. He realized that if it had been a black man he would have been more concerned. Now, this indicated the level that stereotypes have pervadeded our American culture. Crime is not defined by race, but by socio-economic status. They crime rate for poor whites is just as high as poor blacks. Unfortunately, African Americans have a tougher time escaping poverty at every turn than whites do. There is an inherent advantage in being white. Affirmative Action programs try to "level the playing field" and no, it is not a perfect system. But, its the only one that can be somewhat fair. Every group of people deserves the same opportunities for their children.

One of the best posts I have seen on the subject.  ;D

Thanks Giffy. My UG degree is in Sociology & I have always had an interest in this particular area. If anyone is seriously interested in learning more you might get the following books. they go into far more detail than anyone can do on a BB.

1. A Different Mirror by Takaki
2. White Privilege by Rothenberg
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: TTTchick on January 16, 2005, 12:51:54 PM
I commend Southern Gentleman for pointing out the fact that short improvised conversations filled with cliches do little to address the real issues. Doing some reading on the subject coupled with getting some real-life experience is probably preferable to message board arguments.

However, I am hopeful that even message board discussions can foster a beneficial exchange of ideas. The topic of AA has been beaten to death ONLY within a certain paradigm. What is  needed is a re-thinking of the topic in a direction that can be built upon.

I would recommend taking the following short interview into consideration in further discussion of the topic: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/guinier.html

Included are compelling argumemts in favor of women, the poor, and minorties.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 16, 2005, 12:52:51 PM
The problem is one of fairness. There is an inherent advantage in being "white". By white, I mean more than skin color, but a part of the mainstream culture. Throughout history there have been several groups of people who are now considered white, but in the past were not. For example, in the early 20th century there was an influx of immigrants from Southern European nations such as Italy. These people were NOT considered white at the time and were heavily discriminated against. Another, perhaps more striking, example us the Irish. The Irish were not considered white either! Even though you cannot get much more physically white than they, they did not meet the requirements because they were not ENGLISHMEN. The definition originally sprang from how Anglisized someone was. During the occupation of Ireland by the British a concerted effort was made to decrease the "wild Irish." They literally starved them out to the point that they died & died & died. Coffins were made with false bottoms so they could be re-used. I could talk about the Native Americans or the Chinese, too.

The difference between African-Americans and most of these other groups is that of the potential for assimilation into the mainstream; being re-defined over time as "white." THe Irish who came to America were able to physically bleand in & could learn the culture and therefore adapt. The same is true, more recently, with the South Europeans. Part of this was also due to intermarriage. All of these things are much more difficult for African-Americans. Yhey can't just blend in, whether they "learn" the culture or not (even if they should, which is a completely different question). They are defined by the inherent preconceptions of everyone who meets them. Even themselves. Jesse Jackson once told the story of a time when he was in Washington, DC and his car broke down. It was in the evening & DC is not a low-crime area. He walked down the sidewalk to look for a phone. He heard footsteps behind him. He thought he was bout to be mugged, turned & looked, and was RELIEVED that it was a white guy. He realized that if it had been a black man he would have been more concerned. Now, this indicated the level that stereotypes have pervadeded our American culture. Crime is not defined by race, but by socio-economic status. They crime rate for poor whites is just as high as poor blacks. Unfortunately, African Americans have a tougher time escaping poverty at every turn than whites do. There is an inherent advantage in being white. Affirmative Action programs try to "level the playing field" and no, it is not a perfect system. But, its the only one that can be somewhat fair. Every group of people deserves the same opportunities for their children.

One of the best posts I have seen on the subject.  ;D

Thanks Giffy. My UG degree is in Sociology & I have always had an interest in this particular area. If anyone is seriously interested in learning more you might get the following books. they go into far more detail than anyone can do on a BB.

1. A Different Mirror by Takaki
2. White Privilege by Rothenberg

Ahhh, a Soc major that explains the reasoned and thought out opinion on race in America. ;D Thanks for the book recommendations. I have been meaning to read white privilege for a while now but alas have not had the time.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 01:04:39 PM
Why can't we live on the basis of survival of the fittest?  Is/Was Darwin that WRONG?

As soon as affluent whites are willing to give up all the advantages they have then i'm sure minorities will be willing to do the same. In short, using a succinct example, as soon as affluent whites are willing to share their property taxes with poorer and predominantly minority school districts so that both groups get the same educational opportunity growing up then minorities would be more willing to give up their AA advantage. But as long as affluent whites refuse to share and hoard all of their property taxes for their own school districts - fine, but AA will stay in place to level the playing field later on.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 01:08:54 PM
That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

You are exagerating. Please point out even one 2.25/145 URM admit to a T1 school.

This is often a cheap tactic of anti-AA folk, to exagerate reality to make people believe that severely retarded minorities are being accepted to HYS.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: TTTchick on January 16, 2005, 01:10:22 PM
Big Tex is a gentleman and a scholar. Listen to this man.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: EruditeLady on January 16, 2005, 01:10:45 PM
I don't think diversity would be that much of an issue, were it not for the extreme weighting that is given to one's ethnicity.  We all want to meet a lot of different people in law school.  Age, gender, economic background, work experience, and ethnicity are all good factors for determining who gets into law school.

That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

Please tell me what T1 and T2 schools show people being accepted with these numbers.

University of Cincinnati let someone who landed on the 2.25-2.49/150-154 part of the grid.  Univ of Cincy's 25% UGPA/LSAT is 3.19/157.  That is a huge difference.  It seems like every low T1, T2 school has outliers like this.  Univ of Cincy has a few others with questionable numbers.  The school does not disclose whether or not this person was a diversity candidate, or not.

So, what you're saying is that that person who was admitted MUST have been a URM?  Because there is just no way that a person of color could possibly have scored high on LSAT's and done well in school?  Why couldn't that person have been "White" with an extraordinary application/personal statement/recommendation and real potential as a future lawyer?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 01:12:39 PM
University of Cincinnati let someone who landed on the 2.25-2.49/150-154 part of the grid.  Univ of Cincy's 25% UGPA/LSAT is 3.19/157.  That is a huge difference.  It seems like every low T1, T2 school has outliers like this.  Univ of Cincy has a few others with questionable numbers.  The school does not disclose whether or not this person was a diversity candidate, or not.

Cincinnati is not T1 and a 150 is not a 145. So, you were being falsely inflammatory.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 01:18:46 PM
Going from a general statement to a particular fact does not weaken my argument.  I have seen other T1 and T2 schools with outliers that are worse than this, but I don't really want to investigate it when the point has been made so well with my Univ of Cincinnati example.

Your picking nits does not make your argument any stronger.

If a school's 25% threshold is 3.19/157, I find it hard to believe that a person with a 2.25-2.49/150-154 would have such great non-quantifiable factors as to make it into that particular law school.

You said 2.25/145 URM's are admitted to T1 schools. That is an outrageous claim. You were called on it and are now scrambling.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 16, 2005, 01:19:14 PM
I don't think diversity would be that much of an issue, were it not for the extreme weighting that is given to one's ethnicity.  We all want to meet a lot of different people in law school.  Age, gender, economic background, work experience, and ethnicity are all good factors for determining who gets into law school.

That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

Please tell me what T1 and T2 schools show people being accepted with these numbers.

University of Cincinnati let someone who landed on the 2.25-2.49/150-154 part of the grid.  Univ of Cincy's 25% UGPA/LSAT is 3.19/157.  That is a huge difference.  It seems like every low T1, T2 school has outliers like this.  Univ of Cincy has a few others with questionable numbers.  The school does not disclose whether or not this person was a diversity candidate, or not.

So, what you're saying is that that person who was admitted MUST have been a URM?  Because there is just no way that a person of color could possibly have scored high on LSAT's and done well in school?  Why couldn't that person have been "White" with an extraordinary application/personal statement/recommendation and real potential as a future lawyer?

I agree perhaps they had 20 years of work experience as a CEO of a large company, or perhaps they spent the last few years in the DRC helping war orphans and took the LSAT shortly after arriving back to the US while incredibly jet lagged. The point is we don't know and it is just as silly to assume that they are an URM then anything else.
I never said that the person from UC was a URM. But, it makes you wonder what great non-quantifiables they had that would get them into UC.

I think people need to realize that AA does not affect people of affluence, no matter what their race/background/gender. It disproportionately lands on people who don't have a pot to piss in, and had zero advantage at anything.

Regardless - I stand by my UC comments, and I have seen other worse examples in T1, T2 schools. I said that low T1 and T2 schools seem to have a lot of these "outliers." Which is true, just look at the grids.

Lots of schools have outliers. Its called looking beyond the numbers (WE EC ect).
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 01:21:15 PM
Regardless - I stand by my UC comments, and I have seen other worse examples in T1, T2 schools.  I said that low T1 and T2 schools seem to have a lot of these "outliers."  Which is true, just look at the grids.

I don't think anyone believes you. Show me a T1, 2.25/145 URM admit.

It's fine to say "AA bad". It's not fine to make outrageous claims to support your argument and follow it up with "I know my outrageous claims are true, i just don't want to prove it".
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: I hear America singing on January 16, 2005, 01:26:21 PM
I like AA because as a white person it forces me to work harder.  Without it I could probably coast on my skin color, sadly enough.  I know enough white people that do that.  They make me sad.

Aim for the top of your class, not the bottom 20% or so where such things become an issue.

If you're the best, it doesn't matter what color you are.

HTH
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: I hear America singing on January 16, 2005, 01:31:35 PM
I don't know- and never will know- what type of influence being a URM makes on a person.  That being said, I could probably compete with them early on from an economic level.  Most of my friends as a child are now living off the government in some form or fashion.  I'm the only one who attended college.

In other words, I had every reason to fail.  But I didn't.

After the life I've had, I'm not going to let external forces dictate my future.  Power comes from within.  If you don't get into a law school and choose to blame a URM for taking your spot, you don't deserve to go to law school. 

Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: I hear America singing on January 16, 2005, 01:42:17 PM
Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else.

óHistorian Roger Wilkins


I just thought that was an interesting quote.  Never thought of it this way.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Infoolio on January 16, 2005, 01:53:03 PM
I never said that the person from UC was a URM.

dude, lexy got into yale and she was WELL below their 25's.  and what great quantifiables did she have?  white? from the suburbs? from boston?  i mean, c'mon man.  its very easy to believe that this person at UC could have gotten in based on writing ability alone like lexy did at yale.

A masters from Stanford perhaps? :)
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 16, 2005, 02:01:16 PM
That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

Here's an example of a Tier One (#47 US News) that fits with my statement earlier.  The school is SMU.

One person was admitted with a 2.75-2.99/145-149.

Two persons were admitted with a 2.50-2.74/150-154.

Of course, there is no way of knowing if this person is a minority, or not.  That's never been my point.

Neither of those people had stats like you methioned earlier.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Braden on January 16, 2005, 02:27:46 PM
Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA, while those who are non-white, non-asian who do grow up in affluent areas should be given AA.

Why can't we live on the basis of survival of the fittest?  Is/Was Darwin that WRONG?

As soon as affluent whites are willing to give up all the advantages they have then i'm sure minorities will be willing to do the same. In short, using a succinct example, as soon as affluent whites are willing to share their property taxes with poorer and predominantly minority school districts so that both groups get the same educational opportunity growing up then minorities would be more willing to give up their AA advantage. But as long as affluent whites refuse to share and hoard all of their property taxes for their own school districts - fine, but AA will stay in place to level the playing field later on.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 02:34:29 PM
Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Braden on January 16, 2005, 02:35:32 PM
I just want you to clarify your stance. Should black kids who grow up rich be given AA?

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 02:39:45 PM
I just want you to clarify your stance. Should black kids who grow up rich be given AA?

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?

IMHO, to put it in very simple and admittedly non-specific terms, each of the following should account for 1 AA "point":

1. under represented racial or ethnic minority
2. grew up in poverty

So, the white kid from the trailer park and the black kid who grew up rich should both be on equal footing w/ respect to AA advantage. But the black kid who grew up in the projects, he/she should get the most advantage.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Andie203 on January 16, 2005, 03:04:00 PM
Here's what I wish was the policy for admissions to college, law school, med school, etc etc etc....

I think that when you apply, you are given a number.  The only person who sees your name is a number-assigning person, not anyone who has any admissions decision making power.

Then, admission file is given to the adcoms and they must base their decisions on your GPA, LSAT, letters of rec and personal statement/essay.  And nothing can be included that indicates race, socio-economic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc etc.

And then after the acceptances/rejections are decided, the applicants are informed and that's that.

Now, I know this is highly unrealistic because they'd have to make sure that none of the recommendations or writing samples include anything to indicate the factors I mentioned above and this would be extremely difficult to orchestrate.

However, think of how many problems this would solve.  I think that this would eliminate less-qualified applicants getting admitted simply because they make the incoming class more diverse.  (And I don't just mean race, I mean women, homosexuals, etc etc).  This would also eliminate less-qualified applicants getting admitted because they're white or male or straight or their dad went to the school or whatever.  Admissions would be based on your numbers, your writing sample and two recommendations and that would be it.

Andie
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on January 16, 2005, 03:11:02 PM
Here's what I wish was the policy for admissions to college, law school, med school, etc etc etc....

I think that when you apply, you are given a number.  The only person who sees your name is a number-assigning person, not anyone who has any admissions decision making power.

Then, admission file is given to the adcoms and they must base their decisions on your GPA, LSAT, letters of rec and personal statement/essay.  And nothing can be included that indicates race, socio-economic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc etc.

And then after the acceptances/rejections are decided, the applicants are informed and that's that.

Now, I know this is highly unrealistic because they'd have to make sure that none of the recommendations or writing samples include anything to indicate the factors I mentioned above and this would be extremely difficult to orchestrate.

However, think of how many problems this would solve.  I think that this would eliminate less-qualified applicants getting admitted simply because they make the incoming class more diverse.  (And I don't just mean race, I mean women, homosexuals, etc etc).  This would also eliminate less-qualified applicants getting admitted because they're white or male or straight or their dad went to the school or whatever.  Admissions would be based on your numbers, your writing sample and two recommendations and that would be it.

Andie

Let me be the first to say that this is effin' ridiculous.

One simple example: if you've been coddled your entire life and managed to get a 4.0, that's great and all, but probably doesn't begin to compare to the life of a very socio-economically disadvantaged person, whatever the race, who'd gotten, say, a 3.5 or even a 3.7. The former person will have succeeded and excelled academically, and, yes, your method will demonstrate that. However, the same method would severely disadvantage the other by not taking into consideration the all-important context of that GPA. What if it was a crappy freshman year as this person adjusted to life outside the trailer park/ghetto/barrio? What if the last three years were a 4.0?

To sum it up: the context of one's life is always going to follow you around, alter your life chances, your type of living, your economic situation. Is it really all that crazy to take it into account when measuring and examining your achievements?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Southern Gentleman on January 16, 2005, 03:12:01 PM
I just want you to clarify your stance. Should black kids who grow up rich be given AA?

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?

IMHO, to put it in very simple and admittedly non-specific terms, each of the following should account for 1 AA "point":

1. under represented racial or ethnic minority
2. grew up in poverty

So, the white kid from the trailer park and the black kid who grew up rich should both be on equal footing w/ respect to AA advantage. But the black kid who grew up in the projects, he/she should get the most advantage.

That is a simple, but effective, way to state it. Being black will effect your level of opportunity regardless of your economic status. There will always be people that descriminate based on skin color. Of course such a person would not be as disadvantaged as a black kid from the hood. I am white and grew up in poverty. That is a disadvantage. However, I can remake myself... educate myself... make it possible that I can mix with those of much higher socioeconomic backgrounds without it having as much of an effect as a black kid that lived under similar conditions. Even the process of education is easier for me because we live in a world where primarely white schools (even in poor areas) get a much higher amount of funding for schools. The teachers will be of better quality & will treat the students differently. A wealthy black person will still be at a disadvantage when dealing with whites of similar socioeconomic status. The difference may be less pronounced, but prejudice will STILL be a part of their life in a way that we will never be able to fully appreciate.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Braden on January 16, 2005, 03:18:34 PM
I agree. As much as I disagree with the use of race (for any means), neglecting the circumstances in which a GPA was earned is ridiculous. (This assumes the plan also took into account major, EC's and other factors that were not specified. If the plan excluded those it becomes even worse than before).


Let me be the first to say that this is effin' ridiculous.

One simple example: if you've been coddled your entire life and managed to get a 4.0, that's great and all, but probably doesn't begin to compare to the life of a very socio-economically disadvantaged person, whatever the race, who'd gotten, say, a 3.5 or even a 3.7. The former person will have succeeded and excelled academically, and, yes, your method will demonstrate that. However, the same method would severely disadvantage the other by not taking into consideration the all-important context of that GPA. What if it was a crappy freshman year as this person adjusted to life outside the trailer park/ghetto/barrio? What if the last three years were a 4.0?

To sum it up: the context of one's life is always going to follow you around, alter your life chances, your type of living, your economic situation. Is it really all that crazy to take it into account when measuring and examining your achievements?
Quote
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Braden on January 16, 2005, 03:20:40 PM
Southern Gentleman, should Asians and Arabs also be given AA preference because of the racism they face?

I just want you to clarify your stance. Should black kids who grow up rich be given AA?

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?

IMHO, to put it in very simple and admittedly non-specific terms, each of the following should account for 1 AA "point":

1. under represented racial or ethnic minority
2. grew up in poverty

So, the white kid from the trailer park and the black kid who grew up rich should both be on equal footing w/ respect to AA advantage. But the black kid who grew up in the projects, he/she should get the most advantage.

That is a simple, but effective, way to state it. Being black will effect your level of opportunity regardless of your economic status. There will always be people that descriminate based on skin color. Of course such a person would not be as disadvantaged as a black kid from the hood. I am white and grew up in poverty. That is a disadvantage. However, I can remake myself... educate myself... make it possible that I can mix with those of much higher socioeconomic backgrounds without it having as much of an effect as a black kid that lived under similar conditions. Even the process of education is easier for me because we live in a world where primarely white schools (even in poor areas) get a much higher amount of funding for schools. The teachers will be of better quality & will treat the students differently. A wealthy black person will still be at a disadvantage when dealing with whites of similar socioeconomic status. The difference may be less pronounced, but prejudice will STILL be a part of their life in a way that we will never be able to fully appreciate.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 03:31:06 PM
Southern Gentleman, should Asians and Arabs also be given AA preference because of the racism they face?

Sorry, don't mean to butt in, but just thought i'd give my opinion.

Asians should not be given AA preference because they are not underrepresented. Though we should all do what we can to prevent racism against Asians, such racism has not proven to have a negative impact on the ability of Asians to gain entrance to law school in proportion to their population. So, though there may be areas where racism against Asians is having a negative impact on the group, their ability to get into law school is not one of them.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: WoeIsMe on January 16, 2005, 03:47:49 PM
how can you be certain that racism does not have a significantly negative  impact on the lower performing half of asians?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Southern Gentleman on January 16, 2005, 03:52:12 PM
Southern Gentleman, should Asians and Arabs also be given AA preference because of the racism they face?

Sorry, don't mean to butt in, but just thought i'd give my opinion.

Asians should not be given AA preference because they are not underrepresented. Though we should all do what we can to prevent racism against Asians, such racism has not proven to have a negative impact on the ability of Asians to gain entrance to law school in proportion to their population. So, though there may be areas where racism against Asians is having a negative impact on the group, their ability to get into law school is not one of them.

No problem, Tex  ;)

IMPO, it gets fuzzier with other minorities. In general, yes because there is definitely stigma attached. Pretty much all immigrants will face discrimination, including (perhaps especially in the current climate) Arabs. When speaking of Asians, people tend to lump together all asians. That is a mistake, because some asian nationalities go through far more difficulties than others. Those asians that are not over-represenated come from a sub-group of asians in general. Specifically, Japanese Americans & Chinese Americans. These minorities have a higher than average household income than white households. One thing to keep in mind is that they typically have a larger # of people in the household and the average income per person is not higher than whites. They work longer hours at jobs that do not pay as well and contribute more to the support of the family. This is all due to cultural differences between the asian model of families and the traditional American model.

A much more disadvantaged asian sub-group is those from SE Asia. They are typically poor, poor, poor and face discrimination from even other asian groups. you really can't lump them together fairly.

All that said, there are regional considerations as well to consider. For instance, in the south an asian person is a oddity, but not really an unpleasant one (for most people, that is). They are not really treated poorly, because they are not a threat. However we all know that there have been numerous attempts in CA to descriminate vs. asians in university admits, for instance. In the south, the percieved "threat" has always come from African Americans, so we developed a culture of hyper-racism that only now are we (very gradually) beginning to transcend.

BTW,diversity of all kinds, IMO, is good for education and should be encouraged.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Andie203 on January 16, 2005, 03:53:17 PM
First of all, yes of course my little hypothetical situation would include UG, major, extracurriculars, etc.  I should've included resume when I listed GPA, LSAT, writing samples and recommendations.

Secondly, I'm really don't think that explaining about your personal hardships should be a factor.  Because you know what?  I am a white, middle class girl.  I have two parents and enough money to be comfortable and my life seems great.

However, that does not mean I haven't had hardships in my life.  The hardships didn't stem from discrimination, but my life has not been all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.  However, my hardhips are extremely personal and not only do I not want to write about them in a PS, I don't think that they should be used as an excuse for why I did this or why I got that B or why my LSAT score is 167 or whatever.  I guarantee you that everybody applying for law school could write a PS about some obstacle they overcame.  And I just think, "No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.

Has anybody ever heard of the old game show Queen for a Day?  The gist of it was 3 housewives would come on this show and basically talk about how crappy their lives are. ("Well, Bob lost his job and I have a wooden leg and little Billy's iron lung doesn't work and we had to sell little Susie's kidney in order to pay for little Mary's glass eye") (That was supposed to be humorous, by the way.  If you have a glass eye, wooden leg or iron lung, I did not mean to offend.)

So after these 3 women got done prattling off their laundry list of hardships, the audience voted for whichever woman they thought had the worst life and then she won a washer and dryer or something.  It was ridiculous.  But my point is that I don't want to hear about everybody's problems.  I think that because everyone can point to hardships that it just should all be considered a wash.

Also, about this URM thing.  I don't really understand how they determine what gets to be a URM.  I mean, homosexuals are a URM and one could argue that they face more discrimination and hate crimes than any ethnicity.  Why does diversity automatically equal racial diversity?  I bet Yale's class of 2007 doesn't have any female-Hawkeye-football-fan-Theatre-majors.  Consequently, I would make their class more diverse.  ;D

Also, I hope that I did not make anyone angry (Like Maricutie, who by the way has the cutest avatar I've ever seen.  Makes you wanna hug her or smack her.  ;D)  I truly was just offering a hypothetical idea.  I'm not trying to be offensive or anything.  And I also don't appreciate my comments being called "effin' ridiculous."  If you want to oppose me, just state your argument.  No need to drag degrading remarks and profanity into this.

Andie

Drew: What holds you to the Earth?
Greg: Why, my love for you Drew!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: russian_concussion on January 16, 2005, 04:07:37 PM
"No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.

I agree. The only truly fair way to do it.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: RocketBot on January 16, 2005, 04:10:32 PM
"No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.

Your parents not give you money for the movies once or something?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: russian_concussion on January 16, 2005, 04:11:52 PM
"No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.
Your parents not give you money for the movies once or something?  ;D ;D

Wow, very intelligent.  ::)
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: RocketBot on January 16, 2005, 04:12:47 PM
"No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.
Your parents not give you money for the movies once or something?  ;D ;D

Wow, very intelligent.  ::)

Congrats it was a joke  :o
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on January 16, 2005, 04:37:03 PM
First of all, yes of course my little hypothetical situation would include UG, major, extracurriculars, etc.  I should've included resume when I listed GPA, LSAT, writing samples and recommendations.

This was probably the biggest complaint I had with the hypo. But glad it was a mistake ...   

Secondly, I'm really don't think that explaining about your personal hardships should be a factor.  Because you know what?  I am a white, middle class girl.  I have two parents and enough money to be comfortable and my life seems great.

However, that does not mean I haven't had hardships in my life.  The hardships didn't stem from discrimination, but my life has not been all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.  However, my hardhips are extremely personal and not only do I not want to write about them in a PS, I don't think that they should be used as an excuse for why I did this or why I got that B or why my LSAT score is 167 or whatever.  I guarantee you that everybody applying for law school could write a PS about some obstacle they overcame.  And I just think, "No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.

The thing is, there's a range here. For ex, when I went to berkeley I was amazed at the relative advantages people had had. Like, people could afford SAT prep courses. I had to get a job to pay for the AP tests I wanted to take. And I just grew up poor, but not, like, poor in the middle of East LA or anything. That's another extreme. And then, on the opposite side, there are those who've had everything handed to them on a silver platter. I just think things like your background do have the potential of affecting how well you're going to do with what you've got, so it just makes sense (in my opinion) to judge what you've managed to accomplish in light of this.

Also, about this URM thing.  I don't really understand how they determine what gets to be a URM.  I mean, homosexuals are a URM and one could argue that they face more discrimination and hate crimes than any ethnicity.  Why does diversity automatically equal racial diversity?  I bet Yale's class of 2007 doesn't have any female-Hawkeye-football-fan-Theatre-majors.  Consequently, I would make their class more diverse.  ;D

Yeah, I don't think you're going to get anyone who agrees with the status quo of AA. Most people, minorities and non-minorities alike, believe that there's some level of change necessary.

Also, I hope that I did not make anyone angry (Like Maricutie, who by the way has the cutest avatar I've ever seen.  Makes you wanna hug her or smack her.  ;D)  I truly was just offering a hypothetical idea.  I'm not trying to be offensive or anything.  And I also don't appreciate my comments being called "effin' ridiculous."  If you want to oppose me, just state your argument.  No need to drag degrading remarks and profanity into this.

No anger here, and no profanity, either! Sorry if it seemed the other way ... it's actually pretty funny, though, because I'm the last person to use a curse word. :) Even when I use "effin'" it's usually in the spirit of humor. It's a lesson learned, though, that things don't come out the same way on message boards!  ;) :D
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 04:48:14 PM
Uh, yeah everyone's life has been hard.  But the 'hardships' referred to in the AA debate are those factors over which URMs have no control over whatsoever.  (societal prejudices, etc.)  Not middle-class white-girl anorexia hardships

I agree. Life is hard. It's never really easy, no matter your background. Even rich kids deal with rejection, acne, puberty, first loves, abuse, rejection, etc. Those are the kinds of background hardships we ALL go through be we black, white, mexican, whatever. AA is not about addressing these common hardships of the human condition. It's about addressing the hardships peculiar to and endemic to certain groups.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: WoeIsMe on January 16, 2005, 04:50:43 PM
For whatever reason, it is 'white' people who question why asians aren't in the URM category and as the counter it's the groups currently in URM who are perfectly content to justify why asians should not be included?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: russian_concussion on January 16, 2005, 04:54:58 PM
For whatever reason, it is 'white' people who question why asians aren't in the URM category and as the counter it's the groups currently in URM who are perfectly content to justify why asians should not be included?

LoL, on a similar note, I don't think I've ever seen an asian person complain either way  :P
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 04:58:39 PM
For whatever reason, it is 'white' people who question why asians aren't in the URM category and as the counter it's the groups currently in URM who are perfectly content to justify why asians should not be included?

1. X = group A's percentage of the population in the United States.
2. X is a 'minority' percentage (say < 30%, pick some number)
3. Y = group A's percentage of the population in United States law schools.
4. If Y < X then someone from group A should be given URM status.

If Asians, or some subgroup thereof, satisfy the above then I'm perfectly willing to have them considered as a URM. What exactly do you want?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on January 16, 2005, 05:03:40 PM
For whatever reason, it is 'white' people who question why asians aren't in the URM category and as the counter it's the groups currently in URM who are perfectly content to justify why asians should not be included?

No, that's not true at all. Minorities too have some beef w/ AA; a good many, like BigTex and mobell just mentioned, realize the need to focus more on SES issues instead of keeping the overwhelming focus of AA policies on the sole race issue. Plus, minorities are going to have to deal with the stigma of 'being an AA admit', even when they're NOT -- so, as you can see, there's advantages to all in reforming the current status of AA policies. I don't think ANYONE is 100% with the way AA policies currently work.

Which is why some Asians (especially those from poor countries) complain about not being included in AA, while some are happy to be free from such AA "stigma."
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 05:06:43 PM
Hey mobel, i'm probably guilty of the Asian-lumping-together thing. To tell the truth, i just don't know much beyond the Chinese and Japanese asians. I know there are Koreans and Laotians and Vietnamese and i've heard there are some others, but i think many people are simply innocently unaware of what's up with all this.

For example, are these just issues of different nationality but the same ethnicity? Or all of these actually distinct ethnicities? Are some looked down upon even in the 'Asian' community?

It's not like i don't care, it's just i have no clue what's going on with all that. I had a Chinese roommate during college at UT so about the only thing i learned real well is that Chinese and Japenese don't like each other very much and are very different from one another.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: russian_concussion on January 16, 2005, 05:23:53 PM
Well not to start another fire, but simply to clarify something: as a Russian, shouldn't I receive special treatment considering the discrimination my countrymen and sympathizers faced during the McCarthy era?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 05:27:59 PM
Well not to start another fire, but simply to clarify something: as a Russian, shouldn't I receive special treatment considering the discrimination my countrymen and sympathizers faced during the McCarthy era?

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,21501.msg309900.html#msg309900

Insert "Russian" for "group A" and let the chips fall where they may.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: WoeIsMe on January 16, 2005, 05:31:35 PM
There are two different arguments advancing.  I can understand BigTex's reasons based on proportion, since there's little controversy.  However, I would like to add, there is probably a critical number that a minority group has to achieve to overcome these said cultural challenges.  A policy based on percentage representation may not achieve the intended effects for SMALL minority groups.

Mobel's argument on the other hand "Historical crushing socioeconomic disadvantage", does not justify why a white person whose family tree contains few if any college graduates is not considered, nor does it justify why a URM from a wealthy family would be considered.  If anything, it supports the original question of exclusion.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 05:37:35 PM
There are two different arguments advancing.  I can understand BigTex's reasons based on proportion, since there's little controversy.  However, I would like to add, there is probably a critical number that a minority group has to achieve to overcome these said cultural challenges.  A policy based on percentage representation may not achieve the intended effects for SMALL minority groups.

Mobel's argument on the other hand "Historical crushing socioeconomic disadvantage", does not justify why a white person whose family tree contains few if any college graduates is not considered, nor does it justify why a URM from a wealthy family would be considered.  If anything, it supports the original question of exclusion.

I don't think you'll find many minorities who would argue with changing AA to some form of the following:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,21501.msg309694.html#msg309694

which would benefit poor white kids as well.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Andie203 on January 16, 2005, 05:46:23 PM
"No.  Life's tough, suck it up."  Put your best resume, LSAT, GPA, recs, and writing sample forward and let the chips fall where they may.  Because everybody's life has been hard in some way.
Your parents not give you money for the movies once or something?  ;D ;D

Wow, very intelligent.  ::)

Congrats it was a joke  :o

Yeah, I got that you were joking Rocket Bot.  No worries.  And yes, sometimes my parents don't give me my allowance and then I have to cry into my cashmere throw pillows.

Uh, yeah everyone's life has been hard.  But the 'hardships' referred to in the AA debate are those factors over which URMs have no control over whatsoever.  (societal prejudices, etc.)  Not middle-class white-girl anorexia hardships
First of all, don't trivialize anorexia.  Secondly, who's to say what hardships are more/less dire?  So prejudice is out of people's control.  But so is middle-class white-girl my dad is a workaholic who is sleeping with his secretary and my mom's addicted to valium.  That could have seroius repercussions on someone, even if she is a rich kid who's had everything handed to her.  Also, I was not saying that everone has hardships and including acne and getting dumped and stuff like that.  I meant actual obstacles and problems.  Everybody has them, even the rich white kids.

That isn't my personal life, either.  It was just an example.

Andie
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 06:09:57 PM
Also, I was not saying that everone has hardships and including acne and getting dumped and stuff like that.  I meant actual obstacles and problems.  Everybody has them, even the rich white kids.

Right, everybody has them, poor kids and rich white kids. But poor black/mexican kids have more problems to overcome than the rich white kids. Some of their parents cheat on each other just like the rich white kids, but they have extra bonus problems the rich white kids don't.

If you feel there's some peculiar hardship that you've overcome, you can always write a diversity essay on it. Most of the law schools to which i've applied seemed to welcome diversity statements on more than just ethnicity. If you think you can convince them that overcoming/dealing-with anorexia was a hardship on par with growing up in the projects, go for it.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 06:15:23 PM
Guess what, there are rich black kids, and poor white kids.

Guess what?  The highest represented demographic on welfare is single white female.

Don't you realize how racist it is to go by race instead of by need, or by socioeconomic disadvantage?

Guess what? You're not arguing with anybody.

Try to find a minority who's against giving the poor white kid from the trailer park an AA advantage.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 06:31:13 PM
Why would I specifically seek out a "minority"?  Is their opinion any more important than anyone else's?  Why are you so racist?

And anyway, I was pointing out the flaw in your logic.  In your examples in the post above mine, your examples consisted of "poor black kids" and "rich white kids"

i use "poor minority kids" and "rich white kids" as two ends of the AA spectrum. Rich white kids should get no AA benefit, poor minority kids should get the most. Poor white kids should fall somewhere in-between.

I mention "find a minority" to demonstrate that many/most minorities are not for AA out of pure self-interest. Many are in favor of AA for reasons of justice and recognize that the poor white kid should get AA benefits as well.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 16, 2005, 06:39:36 PM
AA is, by definition, racist. 

In that case, you win.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: aram on January 16, 2005, 09:45:44 PM
What do you guys think?

On average would a person with a higher GPA and a higher LSAT become a better lawyer than a lower GPA and a lower LSAT? (Remember the question asks on average)

If yes, than any URM practice on law school level will have the corresponding results on average.

Whoever answers no, needs to call the admissions offices of all the law schools and tell them that the policy that they are using for admission is incorrect.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Trevor on January 17, 2005, 02:30:42 AM
Actually, I have personally enslaved several people that I took prisoner in battle with a neighboring city-state.  This doesn't appear to have appreciably diminished my chances for admission.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: WoeIsMe on January 17, 2005, 04:24:33 AM
that's a good point.. what's the best student law association to be a member of?  i'll have to work on getting a girlfriend
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 17, 2005, 08:17:18 AM
What do you guys think?

On average would a person with a higher GPA and a higher LSAT become a better lawyer than a lower GPA and a lower LSAT? (Remember the question asks on average)

If yes, than any URM practice on law school level will have the corresponding results on average.

Whoever answers no, needs to call the admissions offices of all the law schools and tell them that the policy that they are using for admission is incorrect.

Your question is flawed because you are assuming that the average URM has the same chance of doing well on these things then the average white person.

While generally I would say that GPA and LSAT are an accurate way of predicting LS success, they are not perfect. For instance just because some one can afford to take an LSAT prep that doe not mean they will do better in LS or as a lawyer. Same with someone who didn't have to work during college vs. someone who did. The point your missing is that on average the life of an URM has been more difficult and there abilities to succeed have been less then your average white person. However as just about everyone I have ever talked to has acknowledged including SE status in AA would make it a much better system.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: buster on January 17, 2005, 08:19:41 AM
$10 says the OP enslaved some people
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on January 17, 2005, 02:14:06 PM
$10 says the OP enslaved some people

 :D :D

Yeah, "I didn't enslave anyone"... that's what they all say. Tell it to the judge.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: russian_concussion on January 17, 2005, 04:07:34 PM
Wait.......are we talkin about sex slaves?  ???
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: mivida2k on January 17, 2005, 06:18:06 PM
BOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIIINNNGGGG!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on January 17, 2005, 08:00:21 PM
"First of all", I'll trivialize any self-inflicted disease I care too.... whether that be crack addiction or anorexia.

I feel no sympathy to socio-economically well-off (well off socially is white, well off economically is rich) people who have the problems you mentioned.  They're rich because their dad works all the time.  They'd be poor if he didn't.  So you're going to have one of the problems..... better to be miserable and rich than miserable and poor.

HTH

First of all, anorexia is as self-inflicted as depression or schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Second what is this, "I feel no sympathy to socio-economically well-off people who have those problems"? Wow, I didn't realize you had to be below a certain income level to be deserving of human kindness and empathy. So only poor people can truly suffer? Look, I'll be the first to be sympathetic towards people who are disadvantaged, but that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at the world.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on January 17, 2005, 08:31:40 PM
Wait.......are we talkin about sex slaves?  ???


Ooooo ... then I'd post more.  ;)
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: russian_concussion on January 17, 2005, 08:40:52 PM
Wait.......are we talkin about sex slaves?  ???


Ooooo ... then I'd post more.  ;)

LoL hotness.  :-*
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 17, 2005, 10:37:29 PM
"First of all", I'll trivialize any self-inflicted disease I care too.... whether that be crack addiction or anorexia.

I feel no sympathy to socio-economically well-off (well off socially is white, well off economically is rich) people who have the problems you mentioned.  They're rich because their dad works all the time.  They'd be poor if he didn't.  So you're going to have one of the problems..... better to be miserable and rich than miserable and poor.

HTH

First of all, anorexia is as self-inflicted as depression or schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Second what is this, "I feel no sympathy to socio-economically well-off people who have those problems"? Wow, I didn't realize you had to be below a certain income level to be deserving of human kindness and empathy. So only poor people can truly suffer? Look, I'll be the first to be sympathetic towards people who are disadvantaged, but that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at the world.

amarain, surely you can see what sketchy is rather bluntly getting at. If a family has every resource at its disposal to succeed and yet squanders all of those resources (father cheats on mother, mom's an alcoholic, daughter's is obsessed with her looks and has anorexia, son is depressed because the sense of entitlement he grew up with is hitting reality) and fails because they were too messed up to know how to constructively use their own wealth and opportunity, then that's the fault of that family. Yes, i will say it, yes - that family deserves *LESS* sympathy than another family facing troubles and hardships (e.g. brutal poverty) which are *PATENTLY* not of their own making.

The fact of the matter is, i simply do not cry for the 90210 girl struggling with anorexia after watching her mother descend into alcoholism induced by a scumball father who's cheating on his wife and teaching his son to be serial date-raper. I've got anger at the rich dad for royally screwing up his family, but i don't feel sorry for them.

I don't know your background, but i'm guessing you haven't really lived in or been around abject poverty. When you're around it and in it, you just don't give a darn about the rarified problems of rich folk. There's a sense of absurdity to their tribulations that just doesn't permit much sympathy.

That being said, i remember when GW Bush lost the election to Clinton. Though my grandmother voted for Clinton she couldn't help but feel sorry for Bush: "Pobresito. What will he do now without his job?". Losing one's job is something *EVERY* family can relate to. But the bonds of sympathy are few and far between.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 17, 2005, 11:01:03 PM
I have been around poverty including people who are starving to death and living in conditions that most people in this country could scarcely imagine. That being said I have sympathy for anyone who suffers. We are born into the lot we are born into and regardless of what that lot is we face challenges and incur suffering. A kid who is abused by their parent, experiences mental illness such s anorexia, or who has to watch a family member waste away form substance abuse is some who deserves sympathy. Same with someone who is born into abject poverty.

However in terms of admissions I can safely say that someone who lived their most of their life in poverty probably had to overcome more then someone who did not. There are of course expectations and thatís why we have PS and Addendums. On balance though I have no problem with providing a sort of AA to those that had sever SE disadvantages because on balance they most likely had more difficult time.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 17, 2005, 11:16:45 PM
giffy, i agree with you, but at the same time there's a reason why "let them eat cake!" is one of the most absurdly hilarious lines of all time. It's hard to feel sorry for the tragedy that came later.

Basically, some have it in their hearts for infinite compassion. I commend you for that giffy. But others of us only have a finite supply so we have to make distinctions on who to (and who not to) feel sympathy for.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Trevor on January 17, 2005, 11:19:50 PM
The fact of the matter is, i simply do not cry for the 90210 girl struggling with anorexia after watching her mother descend into alcoholism induced by a scumball father who's cheating on his wife and teaching his son to be serial date-raper. I've got anger at the rich dad for royally screwing up his family, but i don't feel sorry for them.
Yes!  It is her fault for not choosing to be born into a better family!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 17, 2005, 11:24:05 PM
giffy, i agree with you, but at the same time there's a reason why "let them eat cake!" is one of the most absurdly hilarious lines of all time. It's hard to feel sorry for the tragedy that came later.

Basically, some have it in their hearts for infinite compassion. I commend you for that giffy. But others of us only have a finite supply so we have to make distinctions on who to (and who not to) feel sympathy for.

Thatís cool. I would just say that it is one thing to not have sympathy for those that bring about there own problems. Believe me I have plenty of experience with people who for what ever reason destroy there lives. However those that are affected by someone else i.e. children have not done anything to deserve it except to be born. Sufficient material means is necessary for completely beneficial environment but it is no were near sufficient. Some one who is born to a family of means but no love may be just as bad off as someone who is born to a family of love, but no means.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 17, 2005, 11:36:08 PM
The fact of the matter is, i simply do not cry for the 90210 girl struggling with anorexia after watching her mother descend into alcoholism induced by a scumball father who's cheating on his wife and teaching his son to be serial date-raper. I've got anger at the rich dad for royally screwing up his family, but i don't feel sorry for them.
Yes!  It is her fault for not choosing to be born into a better family!

I don't fault her, i just don't have as much sympathy for that family as i do others. Think of it this way:

You've got an entire weekend you can spend helping a family out. On one hand, you've got a broken 90210 family. Rich as hell, but all screwed up. On the other hand, you've got a hard working mexican family living in the barrio. Their family cohesiveness is great and the family works well as a unit, they just don't have any resources to work with and are having a hard time getting ahead.

You've got one weekend to devote exclusively to helping out one of these families. Given this limitation, who do you decide to help out?

Me - i don't even think twice. I go help the poor but functional family.

That's all i'm saying.

In the end, who cares if one has sympathy or not. Sympathy counts for jack squat. What matters is action. And the fact of the matter is action is energy. And any excess energy i have to spend helping others out, that energy is going to be devoted to helping poor folk out, not rich folk. You wanna help the rich folk instead? Fine - i got no problem with that. Just don't ask me to feel guilty for not spending my finite excess energy on helping out the 90210 family.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 17, 2005, 11:49:01 PM
The fact of the matter is, i simply do not cry for the 90210 girl struggling with anorexia after watching her mother descend into alcoholism induced by a scumball father who's cheating on his wife and teaching his son to be serial date-raper. I've got anger at the rich dad for royally screwing up his family, but i don't feel sorry for them.
Yes!  It is her fault for not choosing to be born into a better family!

I don't fault her, i just don't have as much sympathy for that family as i do others. Think of it this way:

You've got an entire weekend you can spend helping a family out. On one hand, you've got a broken 90210 family. Rich as hell, but all screwed up. On the other hand, you've got a hard working mexican family living in the barrio. Their family cohesiveness is great and the family works well as a unit, they just don't have any resources to work with and are having a hard time getting ahead.

You've got one weekend to devote exclusively to helping out one of these families. Given this limitation, who do you decide to help out?

Me - i don't even think twice. I go help the poor but functional family.

That's all i'm saying.

In the end, who cares if one has sympathy or not. Sympathy counts for jack squat. What matters is action. And the fact of the matter is action is energy. And any excess energy i have to spend helping others out, that energy is going to be devoted to helping poor folk out, not rich folk. You wanna help the rich folk instead? Fine - i got no problem with that. Just don't ask me to feel guilty for not spending my finite excess energy on helping out the 90210 family.

I would probably do the same thing.  I was more referring to admissions and just generally sympathy and concern. And really no matter how you spend time helping others it is an admirable thing. There really isnít a right or wrong group to help, it is all a matter of where your passion, energy, and heart are.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 17, 2005, 11:55:20 PM
I would probably do the same thing.  I was more referring to admissions and just generally sympathy and concern. And really no matter how you spend time helping others it is an admirable thing. There really isnít a right or wrong group to help, it is all a matter of where your passion, energy, and heart are.

Yeah - the part where it gets tricky and the debate turns ugly is what to do with *COMMUNAL* resources (e.g. tax dollars and law school entrance). If uncle sam has $1,000,000 extra sitting around some folk are going to want to spend that money investigating anorexia among middle class teen girls and how to prevent it. While a laudable goal if it didn't cost anything, i'd much rather spend that $1,000,000 on job training for poor families.

THAT'S where the real debate and frustration starts to bubble up. I guess that's what politics is all about.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on January 17, 2005, 11:59:22 PM
I would probably do the same thing.  I was more referring to admissions and just generally sympathy and concern. And really no matter how you spend time helping others it is an admirable thing. There really isnít a right or wrong group to help, it is all a matter of where your passion, energy, and heart are.

Yeah - the part where it gets tricky and the debate turns ugly is what to do with *COMMUNAL* resources (e.g. tax dollars). If uncle sam has $1,000,000 extra sitting around some folk are going to want to spend that money investigating anorexia among middle class teen girls and how to prevent it. While a laudable goal if it didn't cost anything, i'd much rather spend that $1,000,000 on job training for poor families.

THAT'S where the real debate and frustration starts to bubble up. I guess that's what politics is all about.

Well we could always tax plastic surgery and diamond studded dog collars and probably solve the whole deficit problem to boot.

In all seriousness I agree that we should spend resources more on helping the poor and disadvantaged. The problems of the well off donít so much seem to be those of resource, but of love and family. These are not things that government can really solve.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Koga on January 18, 2005, 02:55:01 AM


First of all, anorexia is as self-inflicted as depression or schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

I usually agree with your posts, but comparing anorexia with schizophrenia is obscene.


Quote
So only poor people can truly suffer? Look, I'll be the first to be sympathetic towards people who are disadvantaged, but that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at the world.

This I agree with.  Anyone who says that a rich kid stuck with schizophrenia or even serious bipolar disorder is not as disadvantaged as someone raised in poverty(at least poverty in the US) is absurd.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Trevor on January 18, 2005, 03:01:54 AM
Yeah - the part where it gets tricky and the debate turns ugly is what to do with *COMMUNAL* resources (e.g. tax dollars and law school entrance). If uncle sam has $1,000,000 extra sitting around some folk are going to want to spend that money investigating anorexia among middle class teen girls and how to prevent it. While a laudable goal if it didn't cost anything, i'd much rather spend that $1,000,000 on job training for poor families.
I absolutely agree.  Sadly, I don't have $1m to donate to anybody, so all I have to offer is my compassion and understanding to people I know personally.  That stuff comes for free, so it seems stingy to save it for just the po' folks.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 18, 2005, 07:00:01 AM
so all I have to offer is my compassion and understanding to people I know personally. 

I don't personally know the broken 90210 family with the anorexic daughter.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on January 18, 2005, 07:11:32 AM


First of all, anorexia is as self-inflicted as depression or schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

I usually agree with your posts, but comparing anorexia with schizophrenia is obscene.


Quote
So only poor people can truly suffer? Look, I'll be the first to be sympathetic towards people who are disadvantaged, but that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at the world.

This I agree with.  Anyone who says that a rich kid stuck with schizophrenia or even serious bipolar disorder is not as disadvantaged as someone raised in poverty(at least poverty in the US) is absurd.

I was just saying that both anorexia and schizophrenia are mental disorders. I didn't mean to imply that they're the same.

I don't mean that rich people are more deserving of sympathy, or that they are deserving of sympathy to the exclusion of anyone else. But isn't it possible to feel sorry for more than one group of people? Some people suffer no matter how much money they have, some problems have nothing to do with money, and a person's bank account balance shouldn't be the indicator of how much we can feel bad for them. How much money does a family have to make when you no longer feel sorry for them? $25,000 a year? $50,000? $100,000?

Giffy put it well, and this is what I was partially getting at : "Sufficient material means is necessary for completely beneficial environment but it is no were near sufficient. Some one who is born to a family of means but no love may be just as bad off as someone who is born to a family of love, but no means."

This has nothing to do with college admissions or anything like that (that's another issue entirely), just strictly human kindness. I can have sympathy for the rich kid who has never experienced any kind of love or compassion while also feeling sorry for the poor family struggling to get ahead. I don't have a limited amount of sympathy or kindness that has to be rationed out to the most deserving.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 18, 2005, 01:31:54 PM
I can have sympathy for the rich kid who has never experienced any kind of love or compassion while also feeling sorry for the poor family struggling to get ahead. I don't have a limited amount of sympathy or kindness that has to be rationed out to the most deserving.

I can't speak for the rich folk, but i'm pretty sure the poor folk aren't interested in your sympathy (not intending that as mean, just matter-of-fact). It's irrelevant to them. What they want is your tax dollars for job training, education, etc.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on January 18, 2005, 01:52:57 PM
I can have sympathy for the rich kid who has never experienced any kind of love or compassion while also feeling sorry for the poor family struggling to get ahead. I don't have a limited amount of sympathy or kindness that has to be rationed out to the most deserving.

I can't speak for the rich folk, but i'm pretty sure the poor folk aren't interested in your sympathy (not intending that as mean, just matter-of-fact). It's irrelevant to them. What they want is your tax dollars for job training, education, etc.

Of course - who doesn't want my tax dollars, rich or poor? Anyway, that's not what I was talking about.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: BigTex on January 18, 2005, 02:36:00 PM
I can have sympathy for the rich kid who has never experienced any kind of love or compassion while also feeling sorry for the poor family struggling to get ahead. I don't have a limited amount of sympathy or kindness that has to be rationed out to the most deserving.

I can't speak for the rich folk, but i'm pretty sure the poor folk aren't interested in your sympathy (not intending that as mean, just matter-of-fact). It's irrelevant to them. What they want is your tax dollars for job training, education, etc.

Of course - who doesn't want my tax dollars, rich or poor? Anyway, that's not what I was talking about.

I know. I was just pointing out how, in a way, sympathy, and whether or not one has sympathy for a given group, is irrelevant. Sympathy doesn't really *do* anything.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Trevor on January 18, 2005, 02:52:02 PM
If you don't interact with them perosnally, then no it doesn't.

Hey guess what?  This thread got hijacked away from AA!  Yay!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on January 18, 2005, 03:00:46 PM
If you don't interact with them perosnally, then no it doesn't.

Hey guess what?  This thread got hijacked away from AA!  Yay!

Success!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: I hear America singing on January 30, 2005, 03:45:36 PM
Bleh. this is a topic that just makes my blood boil. Some things just are not fair. I should have just marked "Black" on my application and I would probably have gotten in to all the schools I applied for.

You don't deserve to live, much less attend law school.

HTH
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: psr13 on January 31, 2005, 11:56:26 AM
How about the fact that I, and all other white people I know, have faced racism. Should we be given an advantage?

Southern Gentleman, should Asians and Arabs also be given AA preference because of the racism they face?

I just want you to clarify your stance. Should black kids who grow up rich be given AA?

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?

IMHO, to put it in very simple and admittedly non-specific terms, each of the following should account for 1 AA "point":

1. under represented racial or ethnic minority
2. grew up in poverty

So, the white kid from the trailer park and the black kid who grew up rich should both be on equal footing w/ respect to AA advantage. But the black kid who grew up in the projects, he/she should get the most advantage.

That is a simple, but effective, way to state it. Being black will effect your level of opportunity regardless of your economic status. There will always be people that descriminate based on skin color. Of course such a person would not be as disadvantaged as a black kid from the hood. I am white and grew up in poverty. That is a disadvantage. However, I can remake myself... educate myself... make it possible that I can mix with those of much higher socioeconomic backgrounds without it having as much of an effect as a black kid that lived under similar conditions. Even the process of education is easier for me because we live in a world where primarely white schools (even in poor areas) get a much higher amount of funding for schools. The teachers will be of better quality & will treat the students differently. A wealthy black person will still be at a disadvantage when dealing with whites of similar socioeconomic status. The difference may be less pronounced, but prejudice will STILL be a part of their life in a way that we will never be able to fully appreciate.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: honeybuns on January 31, 2005, 09:47:42 PM
whoa. i don't deserve to live? that's kinda harsh... :'( :'( :'(

sorry English isn't my first language.  :-X  and yea that was a bad sentence-thanks for pointing out my mistakes and giving me a kick in the butt.

i shall remove my message so i don't offend anyone else. :-\

i didn't mean it in a bad way. it's true though that african americans get into schools with lower scores. i don't wanna get into the whole AA discussion right now. i'm just frustrated that i haven't heard back from any schools. that's all.

my bad- i didn't mean to offend anyone.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: dr_draino on January 31, 2005, 09:49:27 PM
For future reference, if you don't wanna get into the whole AA thing...don't post on an AA thread...

whoa. i don't deserve to live? that's kinda harsh... :'( :'( :'(

sorry English isn't my first language.  :-X  and yea that was a bad sentence-thanks for pointing out my mistakes and giving me a kick in the butt.

i shall remove my message so i don't offend anyone else. :-\

i didn't mean it in a bad way. it's true though that african americans get into schools with lower scores. i don't wanna get into the whole AA discussion right now. i'm just frustrated that i haven't heard back from any schools. that's all.

my bad- i didn't mean to offend anyone.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: honeybuns on January 31, 2005, 09:54:41 PM
good point.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on February 01, 2005, 07:02:55 AM
i didn't mean it in a bad way. it's true though that african americans get into schools with lower scores. i don't wanna get into the whole AA discussion right now. i'm just frustrated that i haven't heard back from any schools. that's all.

This has got to be the single most wrong reason to enter into an AA discussion.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: Phife on February 01, 2005, 07:40:44 AM
Nobody likes anyone having an advantage when they don't have one. We female dog when the rich guy doesn't wait in line to get into the club. We female dog when the beautiful girl gets pretty much anything she wants. And we female dog when our idiot friend gets a great job and Super Bowl tickets because his dad plays raquetball with someone important. But AA is very different.

Why would universities fight to admit students who have a greater risk of performing poorly in school. Wouldn't that negatively impact their graduation rates, average LSAT scores etc? But yet they still fight, bitterly, to protect this practice. There must be a reason. Nobody is forcing them to do it.

Universities believe in AA because they understand how critical their role is as institutions in establishing wealth and stability in society. College and even moreso graduate school has become the most reliable path to success and financial stability in America. That's something the black community desperately needs right now. The black community's struggle to break free of the entrenched poverty that has crippled our neighborhoods is not only our problem, it's America's problem. White America pays for our failure. You pay for our social services, you pay for our prisons, you pay for the police to harrass and intimidate us. We don't. As a whole, we're poor. We only pay a sliver of taxes. We don't contribute to society. We drain society of resources.

But it has to stop. And universities realize their responsibility to help stop it. By training the "most talented" black students at the best instituions they are training us with the intention of helping ourselves. Everytime another black man graduates from law school or medical school he has not only become a professional, he has become a role model. His burden is much heavier than getting up and going to work. Every day he has the responsibility of inspiring youth and being an alternative to Jigga and Shaq. He has the responsibility to reinvest his wealth in the black community (whether he does it is a different debate). But this is why univerisities fight so passionately to defend the practice of AA. Because they see clearly that where public high schools have failed, they have a responsibility to make up for their mistakes and train black students. Idealistic? Yes. Is there a better way to do it. Maybe. But considering universities are a haven for the world's most brilliant minds, i have to trust that they know what they're doing.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: I hear America singing on February 01, 2005, 07:48:27 AM
I agree with 99% of what you said- however, I think that parents are mostly to blame when a high school student does poorly in school.  No matter what color you are, you have to want success.

In other words, there are plenty of white students that do poorly in school- trust me, I try to teach 'em.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 08:10:06 AM
You know, I don't know if I really believe in AA, but this is the most persuasive and eloquent argument I've heard for it yet. Thank you.

I also agree with America, though, that the parents have a huge role to play in all of this as well.

Nobody likes anyone having an advantage when they don't have one. We female dog when the rich guy doesn't wait in line to get into the club. We female dog when the beautiful girl gets pretty much anything she wants. And we female dog when our idiot friend gets a great job and Super Bowl tickets because his dad plays raquetball with someone important. But AA is very different.

Why would universities fight to admit students who have a greater risk of performing poorly in school. Wouldn't that negatively impact their graduation rates, average LSAT scores etc? But yet they still fight, bitterly, to protect this practice. There must be a reason. Nobody is forcing them to do it.

Universities believe in AA because they understand how critical their role is as institutions in establishing wealth and stability in society. College and even moreso graduate school has become the most reliable path to success and financial stability in America. That's something the black community desperately needs right now. The black community's struggle to break free of the entrenched poverty that has crippled our neighborhoods is not only our problem, it's America's problem. White America pays for our failure. You pay for our social services, you pay for our prisons, you pay for the police to harrass and intimidate us. We don't. As a whole, we're poor. We only pay a sliver of taxes. We don't contribute to society. We drain society of resources.

But it has to stop. And universities realize their responsibility to help stop it. By training the "most talented" black students at the best instituions they are training us with the intention of helping ourselves. Everytime another black man graduates from law school or medical school he has not only become a professional, he has become a role model. His burden is much heavier than getting up and going to work. Every day he has the responsibility of inspiring youth and being an alternative to Jigga and Shaq. He has the responsibility to reinvest his wealth in the black community (whether he does it is a different debate). But this is why univerisities fight so passionately to defend the practice of AA. Because they see clearly that where public high schools have failed, they have a responsibility to make up for their mistakes and train black students. Idealistic? Yes. Is there a better way to do it. Maybe. But considering universities are a haven for the world's most brilliant minds, i have to trust that they know what they're doing.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 10:33:44 AM
Why would universities fight to admit students who have a greater risk of performing poorly in school. Wouldn't that negatively impact their graduation rates, average LSAT scores etc? But yet they still fight, bitterly, to protect this practice. There must be a reason. Nobody is forcing them to do it.

not really true.  if by force you mean legally obligated then no, not forced.  but the political and social pressure are tremendous (i'm not saying because pressure exists therefore wrong, i'm just saying there IS a lot of pressure and in many ways institutions are forced).  what do you think happens when a school has a low diversity rate, particuarly a terribly low or non-existent african american minority?  they are berated in the academic circles and often in the general media as well.  again, i'm not saying they shouldnt be attacked, but in many ways they are forced.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: jujubee on February 01, 2005, 02:23:09 PM
This subject is ridiculous! People DO get in based on merit, and other factors as well.

I believe in racial/social equity and I don't think that AA is the best way to handle the situation. It's our reaction to the inequality that Blacks have had to face. Law schools are trying to fix that. I personally believe that equality should start from the very beginning. For instance, more funding for inner-city schools that are dominated by Blacks. We need to fix the problem from its roots not necessarily at the university level when Blacks have already faced much inequality. Also, I could not afford to pay for a commercial LSAT prep course and studied on my own. Blacks overall have a harder time financing such prep courses as well.

I took a whole course on AA. I could go on forever. Please share your thoughts too!
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 02:32:02 PM
This subject is ridiculous! People DO get in based on merit, and other factors as well.

I believe in racial/social equity and I don't think that AA is the best way to handle the situation. It's our reaction to the inequality that Blacks have had to face. Law schools are trying to fix that. I personally believe that equality should start from the very beginning. For instance, more funding for inner-city schools that are dominated by Blacks. We need to fix the problem from its roots not necessarily at the university level when Blacks have already faced much inequality. Also, I could not afford to pay for a commercial LSAT prep course and studied on my own. Blacks overall have a harder time financing such prep courses as well.

I took a whole course on AA. I could go on forever. Please share your thoughts too!

I think this is a really good point. AA in college admissions is about 18 years too late. By then,  most kids are already too far behind. Yes, the advantage can help them get into college, but it won't necessarily help them succeed beyond that. They need the boost when they're BEGINNING their education, not when they've completed the bulk of it.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: WoeIsMe on February 01, 2005, 02:36:34 PM
please correct me.. based on my ignorance with only 1 sociology class.

was it my imagination, but were there mainly 3 paradigms: (1) functional, (2) conflict, (3) forgot-the-name.

granted this was well over 10 years ago, so my memory is bad, but basically it seemed like the explanations within the conflict paradigm were almost always self-evident.  The process was very simple. (1) identify the effect... ie: there is a difference in societal structures and (2) assume this must be do to some conflict or injustice (hence the name of the paradigm).  Under this paradigm it invariably seems like the causes will always be related to the larger group doing something subversive/antagonistic against the less powerful group.

what is taboo is to entertain the possibility that there are certain values within the group that also provide equivalent effects as the inter-group conflicts.  I hated the fact they always had little astericks and sidenotes for jews, asians, and other immigrant groups.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 02:38:39 PM
I think this is a really good point. AA in college admissions is about 18 years too late. By then,  most kids are already too far behind. Yes, the advantage can help them get into college, but it won't necessarily help them succeed beyond that. They need the boost when they're BEGINNING their education, not when they've completed the bulk of it.

doesnt everyone agree to this?  

the issue is that some say, well b/c extra help is not given to them early on (or doesnt happen often enough and as well as it should during those early stages), therefore we should have policies such as those of URM in law school while others say this doesnt alleviate the problem at all.  at best it does nothing for these URM as a group.  at worst it has adverse effects on the very URM groups that these policies aim to help.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 02:40:12 PM
I think this is a really good point. AA in college admissions is about 18 years too late. By then,  most kids are already too far behind. Yes, the advantage can help them get into college, but it won't necessarily help them succeed beyond that. They need the boost when they're BEGINNING their education, not when they've completed the bulk of it.

doesnt everyone agree to this?  


Well apparently not because there's a much bigger push for AA in college admissions than there is for increased Pre-K programs in black areas.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: jujubee on February 01, 2005, 02:43:18 PM
well then we need a strong voice for K-12 just like we've had one for college admissions. it just doesn't make sense to me to fix the problem so late.

this is the downside to AA- Blacks may not get 100% credit because others think that they don't deserve their position in higher education.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 02:44:20 PM
I think this is a really good point. AA in college admissions is about 18 years too late. By then,  most kids are already too far behind. Yes, the advantage can help them get into college, but it won't necessarily help them succeed beyond that. They need the boost when they're BEGINNING their education, not when they've completed the bulk of it.

doesnt everyone agree to this?  


Well apparently not because there's a much bigger push for AA in college admissions than there is for increased Pre-K programs in black areas.

that just shows that politicians take the easier route.
Title: Re: definitive post
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 02:45:54 PM
the definitive work on this subject already happened in THIS thread:

i dont begin to understand your point.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on February 01, 2005, 03:15:33 PM
Without trying to offend anyone, all Tron is alluding to is that this has all been discussed before. It will really be surprising to hear something different here than anything that has already been discussed at length in the previous AA postings. Not to say I couldn't be proven wrong ... just saying that I haven't been so far. 
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: jujubee on February 01, 2005, 03:21:08 PM
i'm sure this topic has already been discussed, just like many other topics. however, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed again/further. new people have new opinions. this is a discussion board.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: InVinoVeritas on February 01, 2005, 03:26:41 PM
i'm sure this topic has already been discussed, just like many other topics. however, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed again/further. new people have new opinions. this is a discussion board.

also, to the extent that rehashed topics allow individuals to clarify their thinking and logic, getting into this discussion over and over is a good thing.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 03:28:12 PM
Without trying to offend anyone, all Tron is alluding to is that this has all been discussed before. It will really be surprising to hear something different here than anything that has already been discussed at length in the previous AA postings. Not to say I couldn't be proven wrong ... just saying that I haven't been so far. 

lol--yes i know that :).  but as i said before, so what?  if someone says "i dont care to discuss this, i've discussed this many times before" they have a point.  but that a discussion has occurred 101 times before therefore why discuss again, that really doesnt make much sense.  

take a question any person who has the slightest belief in G-d (and even many that dont) asks again and again.  why do bad things happen to good people?  the question has been discussed to death (no pun intended).  no one would ever say, you know this has been discussed millions of times (literally) why are you discussing this again?  there are of course many large differences between this and AA/URM but the salient feature is that they are on people's minds.

to say, it has been discussed over and over again therefore why are you discussing again is really a rather stupid thing to say.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 03:29:45 PM
OK, well if someone has talked about it before, then there's no point in me talking about it.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on February 01, 2005, 03:36:12 PM
Sigh. No, it's just ... the reaction that I have to the points that continue to be made is to simply cut-and-paste my responses to earlier comments. I agree that discussions like these will spur intellectual development and debate ... I just don't see the point of dragging up exact questions that have been discussed less than a month prior. Seriously, do a search for the AA posts during MLK weekend. We were on a marathon. I, as well as many more viewers, I'm sure, just get a strange sense of deja vu every once in awhile. 
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 03:38:42 PM
I don't know if this has already been brought up, but I don't see the fairness in having AA for anyone but African-Americans who have been in this country for several generations and Native Americans.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 03:39:06 PM
Sigh. No, it's just ... the reaction that I have to the points that continue to be made is to simply cut-and-paste my responses to earlier comments. I agree that discussions like these will spur intellectual development and debate ... I just don't see the point of dragging up exact questions that have been discussed less than a month prior. Seriously, do a search for the AA posts during MLK weekend. We were on a marathon. I, as well as many more viewers, I'm sure, just get a strange sense of deja vu every once in awhile. 

i dont get this...then dont read it and/or dont respond ???
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 03:41:58 PM
I don't know if this has already been brought up, but I don't see the fairness in having AA for anyone but African-Americans who have been in this country for several generations and Native Americans.

you familiar with migrant workers?

Why don't you explain it to me?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: maricutie on February 01, 2005, 03:50:22 PM
Sigh. No, it's just ... the reaction that I have to the points that continue to be made is to simply cut-and-paste my responses to earlier comments. I agree that discussions like these will spur intellectual development and debate ... I just don't see the point of dragging up exact questions that have been discussed less than a month prior. Seriously, do a search for the AA posts during MLK weekend. We were on a marathon. I, as well as many more viewers, I'm sure, just get a strange sense of deja vu every once in awhile. 

i dont get this...then dont read it and/or dont respond ???

I read this because occasionally I feel like I will be surprised. Likewise, I assume that people post their questions after having done some research of their own. And I respond with such referrals to previous threads in the hope of answering people's questions that have been answered before.

Easier now?
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: WoeIsMe on February 01, 2005, 04:00:26 PM
she's a bigot who thinks migrants, dentists, lesbians, and engineers are all the same
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 04:02:59 PM
she's a bigot who thinks migrants, dentists, lesbians, and engineers are all the same
yes, that's true.

no, I am familiar with them, I just don't see how that should fit into affirmative action. Similarly, I don't think there should be affirmative action for women. 
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on February 01, 2005, 04:12:11 PM
she's a bigot who thinks migrants, dentists, lesbians, and engineers are all the same

There not??? I guess I shouldn't seek out mexican women with pocket protectors at gay bars for dental work anymore.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amelus on February 01, 2005, 04:17:21 PM
Sigh. No, it's just ... the reaction that I have to the points that continue to be made is to simply cut-and-paste my responses to earlier comments. I agree that discussions like these will spur intellectual development and debate ... I just don't see the point of dragging up exact questions that have been discussed less than a month prior. Seriously, do a search for the AA posts during MLK weekend. We were on a marathon. I, as well as many more viewers, I'm sure, just get a strange sense of deja vu every once in awhile. 

i dont get this...then dont read it and/or dont respond ???

I read this because occasionally I feel like I will be surprised. Likewise, I assume that people post their questions after having done some research of their own. And I respond with such referrals to previous threads in the hope of answering people's questions that have been answered before.

Easier now?

not really. 

i dont understand at all how this post addresses the "I just don't see the point of dragging up exact questions that have been discussed less than a month prior. Seriously, do a search for the AA posts during MLK weekend. We were on a marathon. I, as well as many more viewers, I'm sure, just get a strange sense of deja vu every once in awhile."  there you say that you dont understand why people have to drag up the same issues that have been discussed before.  now you are explaining why you might reference someone to a previous discussion thread in case they are also interested in reading those as well.
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: amarain on February 01, 2005, 08:27:07 PM
Wait, wouldn't my African-American friends be least in need of Black Awareness?

But happy Black Awareness Month to all of you, regardless. :)
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: giffy on February 01, 2005, 10:24:54 PM
I was actually not aware that there were any black people. jk
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: blk_reign on February 02, 2005, 03:36:27 PM
that's assuming they have African-American friends...

LOL
Title: Re: I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?
Post by: boogie77 on February 09, 2005, 11:33:24 AM
I could be late...if so please forgive me. There are many types different types of A.A. action...the "best"-that which almost insures your acceptance--is if your a rich white male, or your family donates alot of money to the institution--which is usually a white family...most blacks in 2005 are only 1 and 2nd generation college students, and are likely 1st generation law students.

Furthermore, there are many unoffical forms of A.A. that benifits whites outside of academia, that translate into advantages for whites. Research the act of gerrymandering, redlining, and the history of the G.I. bill, and find out who benifits the most from these actions- hint its not white women, or any other minority group.

Lastly, someone had an excellent post about the history of being "white"...I think on page one...thanks for knowing your history. If you don't want to read about the history of "white"--and who was or was not "white", check out Gangs of New York.

Remember future lawyers...we do not live in a present that is not heavily influenced by the past. Also, to white men, blacks and other minorities aren't always the one's taking you slots at the "top" academic institutions. G.W. Bush is a perfect example of this...did he deserve to go to Yale or Harvard? Was it based on Merit? If you believe so...convince me...without conservative rhetoric...based on numbers and g.p.a.