Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: SeaBiscuit on February 25, 2005, 10:10:33 AM

Title: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: SeaBiscuit on February 25, 2005, 10:10:33 AM
I just looked up lawschoolnumbers.org, and while I was surfing around I clicked on someone's name and viewed their profile because they're numbers looked almost identical to mine.  166/3.4 (my GPA is slightly higher).  Both of us went to Top 15 undergraduate schools.  Both have done service work and worked as a paralegal at prestigious firms after graduation.

One difference, she's a black female, I'm a white male.  Now I don't presume to know about her essay and recs, but I think mine were pretty solid.

She's in all over the place, Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, the works.  No rejections, not wiat lists.  I, on the other hand, am getting waitlisted or rejected by these schools.

I've always considered myself a pretty liberal guy and have supported AA, but I must say that being on this side of the equation sucks.

Feelin gloomy.  Should I wait and see if Bush makes AA illegal?  I've always despised American conservativism but at this rate of anger I'll be a Republican by 30.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: underwhelm on February 25, 2005, 10:14:05 AM
Why aren't you upset at all the white people that are more desireable candidates than you? That's who you're being compared with.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: twarga on February 25, 2005, 10:18:08 AM
When I got my score, 166, I danced around the living room in my underwear.  However, after spending time on this site and LSN, I feel like a moron.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: BigBadBo on February 25, 2005, 10:40:43 AM
underwhelm - you totally miss the point


However, something not often considered is that if everyone were judged on a neutral-race policy the impact for whites would be negligible...Minorities make up a relatively small section of the applicant pool. 

While her 166/3.4 would put her mainly in contention for schools 15-30, it would be the same for you.  You might be able to pull off a school ranked a few spots higher, but you would still not likely get into Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, etc.

Still SeaBiscuit, I feel ya.   Definitely have had the same thoughts at times - though I am convinced that what's for me is not always best for society.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: SeaBiscuit on February 25, 2005, 10:54:16 AM
I should clarify--I didn't apply to the Columbias or Harvards, I knew that would be a waste of time, but thought that I could perhaps squeek into one of Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, or Cornell.

I don't think that's going to happen, but I'm fairly confident that if I were a black female, I'd be in at those schools.  And that just irks me, because when I look at my black friends they're just the same in any way as my Asian/white/Ecuadorian/Columbian/French Canadian friends.  And it's not like I grew up in a mansion on Long Island, my family was not well off and I went to a pretty bad public high school.  I wish there was no racism in the world, I wish we had economic equality among all races, but as of right now I just wish I could get into a law school that I think matches my accomplishments.

Whatever.  I'm just whining.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: HKrustofsky on February 25, 2005, 11:33:46 AM
When I got my score, 166, I danced around the living room in my underwear.  However, after spending time on this site and LSN, I feel like a moron.

LOL! I know the feeling. After being on XOXO for a while I really thought a good score meant 177-180.  When I got a 175 I thought..."well, it aint THAT bad!" I hate XOXO for taking that joy away from me!  >:(
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: rwhitman on February 25, 2005, 01:01:27 PM
Being female alone doesn't qualify for AA, there are more females now applying to law school, especially among the black population where the males less typically pursue undergrad and grad degrees.

Just wanted to make that point, but yeah minorities do get some boost in admissions.  I think it's good to a certain extent to make the good law schools equally available to all races.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: dbgirl on February 25, 2005, 11:28:03 PM
When I read the posts by people that are disappointed to be white because it somehow hurts law school chances, I wonder how many would really want to BE a URM.

Where I work, all the jobs go to young white men. Recently, I was passed over for a promotion and the job was given to a less-experienced and objectively less-qualified white man.

We can't become minorities or whites based upon what is convenient, or best for our careers. If that were the case, I would probably decide to be a white man on job interviews.










Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 08:41:14 AM
I agree with you dbgirl - most URM's have an appreciably more difficult life than white males.

However I am imagine you do know affirmative action is very prevalent among reputable businesses also...?

Banking, Law, any large corporation...

It's quite telling when a law firm interviews at all of the top 14 and Howard... or a bank has a minority action program to bring more qualified minorities to company management....

It's because they want to increase diversity in their company - whether they believe it is good for their company or they're just trying to improve appearances isn't really the issue.


I'm sure at the base level - in your situation for example - this isn't the case.  But all things being equal, it is easier to attain a professional job as a minority than a white male.  Perhaps there is a glass ceiling of sorts once you're there...
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:10:11 AM
When I read the posts by people that are disappointed to be white because it somehow hurts law school chances, I wonder how many would really want to BE a URM.


This is an excellent point

But it still doesn't completely take away the sting of AA in law school applications....  :'(
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: HippieLawChick on February 27, 2005, 12:00:56 AM
Yes, it's hard to see when someone with the same credentials gets into a better school than you do possibly because their race was a "thumb on the scale"

However, I have a different perspective on things. I am in charge of hiring for a small firm that has a clientele that is 50% minority.  We have a heck of a time finding minority lawyers to hire.  I have been working like crazy to make sure that we do, but haven't succeeded yet.  For our clients, it helps when our staff looks like they do.  It makes the clients more comfortable.  The clients are the reason that we have a firm to begin with.

When I first started working at our firm 6 years ago, the owner would just try and talk lawyers he knew (all white males) about coming to work for him.  It was bad practice and bad for the firm.  It has been a battle to get him to realize that we need to have a staff that is as diverse as our client pool is.  I have finally gotten him to agree, but only about 5% of the resumes I got were from African-Americans. 

We need more black lawyers! 

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: dbgirl on February 27, 2005, 01:47:56 AM
Just FYI, I am a journalist, which I consider a professional-type position. And I am aware of NO AA policies w/in print journalism, it's all about who the boss folks "connect" with and it is very much a white boys club. In five years in journalism I have met only ONE black print journalist and only ONE Hispanic print journalist that works in the county where I work. (It is better on TV, I realize.) I live in California. We're pretty ethnically diverse here.

For argument's sake we could say that all other things being equal, there is no reason a minority should get any "bonus points" in legal hiring or opportunities.

I would disagree. I cover courts. The criminal defendants are predominately Mexican and Black. The lawyers? Almost exclusively white. I think that's a problem. If I were a defendant, frankly I would feel more comfortable with a defense attorney I could identify with.
I think it helps the prosecution as well to have minority attorneys. We all know many defendants claim racial discrimination. I think a defendant would have less credibility with that claim if the prosecutor were also a minority.

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: towanda03 on February 27, 2005, 10:20:45 AM
When I read the posts by people that are disappointed to be white because it somehow hurts law school chances, I wonder how many would really want to BE a URM.

You hit the nail on the head.  When the suit against Mich was being decided, there was an extraordinarily eloquent editorial written by a student there (which, I cannot find right now, but will post if I manage to unearth it).  The thrust of the argument can be summed up in one of the concluding lines, which surmised that white students that complain about the loss "seats" to minorities with "lesser" credentials assume that erasing the check mark next to "white" and re-checking a minority label changes nothing else about their lives, and by extension, their applications:  the opportunity for earning those credentials and the way those credentials are read.

I think a bit more transperancy about AA policies would help ease a lot of people's sense of injustice.  When analysts dissected the Michigan "point system," for instance, it was revealed that the setup still favored whites, since under their guidelines minority applicants couldn't be awarded extra points for some socio-economic disadvantages (went to a bad high school, etc).  Non-minority applicants that qualified for various combinations of these points frequently wound up with more of an advantage than minority applicants.  At any rate, bottom line, the equation is far more complicated than most people think it is. 
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on February 27, 2005, 04:15:16 PM
I hate to sound racist here, but the fact that there aren't enough minority lawyers to represent minority criminals is not going to change any time soon. Do you see asian people with the same problems? No.

An explanation of why this lack of Minority lawyers exists might be found in differences of intelligence levels by race:
www.answers.com/topic/race-and-intelligence

Argue the reasons why all you want, the fact remains that some races are, on average, smarter than others.

We need more white athletes in football, baseball, and basketball, track and field, etc... but let's face it, some races are better physically, and some are better mentally. Again, on average.

AA is stupid. It assumes that because you're a minority applicant, you've faced a much harder life than EVERY non-minority applicant. Or worse yet, it says that we need more people with your skin color, even though you're going to be a shittier lawyer than almost every other person with higher intelligence and better demonstrated achievement that we admit. Admission should be based on your accomplishments and demonstrated abilities. Nothing else.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: underwhelm on February 27, 2005, 08:32:06 PM
Argue the reasons why all you want, the fact remains that some races are, on average, smarter than others.

Knowing people as intelligent as you could become lawyers was what inspired me to take up the profession. How tough could it be?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on February 28, 2005, 09:09:32 AM
Read the article first. Your response was very...underwhelming.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: LaneSwerver on February 28, 2005, 09:47:21 AM
When I got my score, 166, I danced around the living room in my underwear.  However, after spending time on this site and LSN, I feel like a moron.

I have photos of this for sale.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: billyflynn on February 28, 2005, 12:18:30 PM
I just looked up lawschoolnumbers.org, and while I was surfing around I clicked on someone's name and viewed their profile because they're numbers looked almost identical to mine.  166/3.4 (my GPA is slightly higher).  Both of us went to Top 15 undergraduate schools.  Both have done service work and worked as a paralegal at prestigious firms after graduation.

One difference, she's a black female, I'm a white male.  Now I don't presume to know about her essay and recs, but I think mine were pretty solid.

She's in all over the place, Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, the works.  No rejections, not wiat lists.  I, on the other hand, am getting waitlisted or rejected by these schools.

I've always considered myself a pretty liberal guy and have supported AA, but I must say that being on this side of the equation sucks.

Feelin gloomy.  Should I wait and see if Bush makes AA illegal?  I've always despised American conservativism but at this rate of anger I'll be a Republican by 30.

Don't worry, you'll work for a law firm, probably make partner, then you'll be able to silently discriminate against all the URMs you want! 
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: dbgirl on February 28, 2005, 06:40:10 PM
It's amazing how all of these threads turn into opportunities for people to spew racist crap.

Ryanjim, I didn't say they were minority criminals, I said minority defendants. And yes, frankly, I have seen that problem with Asian defendants as well. We have quite a few Asian defendants out here in our courts too. And I don't see a lot of Asian attorneys in criminal law.

Anyway, some people obviously get their kicks out of insulting URMs. I don't think that was what the original poster had in mind.


Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: underwhelm on February 28, 2005, 11:05:42 PM
Read the article first. Your response was very...underwhelming.

I don't need to because I already know you're playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word "smart" to serve your agenda. I don't subscribe to your usage, so HAND.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 01, 2005, 06:18:23 PM
Celark, your example is flawed in that you're comparing someone taking a test from a country that they don't live in. The IQ tests in the article were given to people who all live in the same country. Also, it does not discount the variable of environmental factors. In fact, it specifically states that even controlling for environmental factors(socioeconomic class etc..) it still did not explain the difference, nor change the fact that the difference still exists.

DBgirl, you must not live in the same country I do. Last time I checked, black people committed a huge percentage of the crime relative to their makeup in the overall population(USdoj figures). It would make sense that there are a lack of black lawyers to defend such a huge population. Asians, to contrast, make up a fairly large percentage of the minority population in law schools compared to the number committing crimes.
 Call me crazy but that doesn't seem to be the same with other URMs.

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: hot_tamale on March 03, 2005, 05:22:42 PM
Affirmative Action and White Privilege by Tim Wise

Ask a fish what water is and you'll get no answer. Even if fish were capable of speech, they would likely have no explanation for the element they swim in every minute of every day of their lives. Water simply is.

Fish take it for granted.

So too with this thing we hear so much about, "racial preference." While many whites seem to think the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.

Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous)slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.

Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.

Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.

In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the '60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.

In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.

White families, on average, have a net worth that is 11 times the net worth of black families, according to a recent study; and this gap remains substantial even when only comparing families of like size, composition, education and income status.

A full-time black male worker in 2003 makes less in real dollar terms than similar white men were earning in 1967. Such realities are not merely indicative of the disadvantages faced by blacks, but indeed are evidence of the preferences afforded whites - a demarcation of privilege that is the necessary flipside of discrimination.

Indeed, the value of preferences to whites over the years is so enormous that the current baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents and grandparents - property handed down by those who were able to accumulate assets at a time when people of color by and large could not.

To place this in the proper perspective, we should note that this amount of money is more than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRAs and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined.

Yet few whites have ever thought of our position as resulting from racial preferences. Indeed, we pride ourselves on our hard work and ambition, as if somehow we invented the concepts.

As if we have worked harder than the folks who were forced to pick cotton and build levies for free; harder than the Latino immigrants who spend 10 hours a day in fields picking strawberries or tomatoes; harder than the (mostly) women of color who clean hotel rooms or change bedpans in hospitals, or the (mostly) men of color who collect our garbage.

We strike the pose of self-sufficiency while ignoring the advantages we have been afforded in every realm of activity: housing, education, employment, criminal justice, politics, banking and business. We ignore the fact that at almost every turn, our hard work has been met with access to an opportunity structure denied to millions of others. Privilege, to us, is like water to the fish: invisible precisely because we cannot imagine life without it.

It is that context that best explains the duplicity of the President's recent criticisms of affirmative action at the University of Michigan.

President Bush, himself a lifelong recipient of affirmative action - the kind set aside for the mediocre rich - recently proclaimed that the school's policies were examples of unfair racial preference. Yet in doing so he not only showed a profound ignorance of the Michigan policy, but made clear the inability of yet another white person to grasp the magnitude of white privilege still in operation.

The President attacked Michigan's policy of awarding 20 points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who are members of underrepresented minorities (which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians). To many whites such a "preference" is blatantly discriminatory.

Bush failed to mention that greater numbers of points are awarded for other things that amount to preferences for whites to the exclusion of people of color.

For example, Michigan awards 20 points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don't get 40 points), in effect this is a preference for poor whites.

Then Michigan awards 16 points to students who hail from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural, largely isolated, and almost completely white area.

Of course both preferences are fair, based as they are on the recognition that economic status and even geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of K-12 schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences - though disproportionately awarded to whites - remain uncriticized, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger. Once again, white preference remains hidden because it is more subtle, more ingrained, and isn't called white preference, even if that's the effect.

But that's not all. Ten points are awarded to students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are given to students who took an especially demanding AP and honors curriculum.

As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most segregated in America for blacks, according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the "best" schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites.

So even truly talented students of color will be unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.

Four more points are awarded to students who have a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites.

Ironically, while alumni preference could work toward the interest of diversity if combined with aggressive race-based affirmative action (by creating a larger number of black and brown alums), the rollback of the latter, combined with the almost guaranteed retention of the former, will only further perpetuate white preference.

So the U of M offers 20 "extra" points to the typical black, Latino or indigenous applicant, while offering various combinations worth up to 58 extra points for students who will almost all be white. But while the first of these are seen as examples of racial preferences, the second are not, hidden as they are behind the structure of social inequities that limit where people live, where they go to school, and the kinds of opportunities they have been afforded. White preferences, the result of the normal workings of a racist society, can remain out of sight and out of mind, while the power of the state is turned against the paltry preferences meant to offset them.

Very telling is the oft-heard comment by whites, "If I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college."

Such a statement not only ignores the fact that whites are more likely than members of any other group - even with affirmative action in place - to get into their first-choice school, but it also presumes, as anti-racist activist Paul Marcus explains, "that if these whites were black, everything else about their life would have remained the same."

In other words, that it would have made no negative difference as to where they went to school, what their family income was, or anything else.

The ability to believe that being black would have made no difference (other than a beneficial one when it came time for college), and that being white has made no positive difference, is rooted in privilege itself: the privilege that allows one to not have to think about race on a daily basis; to not have one's intelligence questioned by best- selling books; to not have to worry about being viewed as a "out of place" when driving, shopping, buying a home, or for that matter, attending the University of Michigan.

So long as those privileges remain firmly in place and the preferential treatment that flows from those privileges continues to work to the benefit of whites, all talk of ending affirmative action is not only premature but a slap in the face to those who have fought, and died, for equal opportunity.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 03, 2005, 08:17:10 PM
I read that entire post. It has good points in it, but it also has a lot of facts and figures that are very questionable. For instance, picking out the "16 points for upper michigan residents". It's a state school, of course it will have preference for residents. No one is disallowing minorities to live in that part of Michigan. Also, I'm guessing that if it's largely rural, they're probably poor as well.

This article also digs waaaay back into history to try and prove it's "aa for whites" theory. What's prevented any minority of the last generation from getting a good job and owning a house?

The last part that is bolded says that white people don't have to think about race on a daily basis. That is true. I'm sure it is difficult to be a minority if you think that every white person is out to get you, and that you were denied a job because of your color, and not the way you dress or speak. How this "thinking about race everyday" impacts whether or not you do your homework or read in your spare time is beyond me.

Lastly, the most telling stat is the one from the Michigan study in question:
Of those students with a 3.5-3.74 and a 160 LSAT, 8 of 10 minorities got in. TWO of SIXTY-FIVE whites got in with those numbers. And another:
3.25-3.49 and 156-158 lsat, 15 of 18 minorities got in. ONE of FIFTY-ONE whites got in with those numbers.
So while that author might come up with some theoretical point value that he thinks will give white people a one-up over minorities, in reality it seems that the point value for minorities is indeed a huge bonus for them. In fact, I would go so far as to venture that in practice, they adcoms added MORE than 20 points, as that seems the only way to make up the huge gap between the gpa/lsat of the minorities admitted, vs. the avg white applicant.

I have no issue with someone that had a difficult background growing up getting a little edge over an identical numbers white person w/an affluent background. That information should be considered in the personal statement, not in an "instant points for you" type of deal that puts them up in the range of people with 3.5 and 170's. The problem with that system is the fact that most black people applying to law school are most likely going to come from those same affluent neighborhoods as the white applicants. That's where it's unfair.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 04, 2005, 04:55:53 PM
Spec, you're right of course. Every race is perfectly equal. No one has evolved differently at all.
Your reading comp needs work though, if you'd read the studies conducted on the site that I posted, you would see that the races ARE NOT within a standard deviation of each other, which is the WHOLE POINT of the study.

Oh, and the fact that average cranium size differs by approx 10%, which is also related to intelligence, has no bearing on the issue I'm sure.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 05, 2005, 12:24:19 PM
I don't care that you're curious.

If you've read it before, where did you get your "they're within one standard deviation" comment? All scientific lingo aside, it was a 15 point difference between some sect of jews, white people, and black. 115, 100, and 85 respectively. Avg cranium size went Asian > White > Black, with the largest difference between white and black, and a small difference between asian and white.
Is that the study that you had previously read, which you've somehow discounted as completely without merit?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 05, 2005, 03:52:00 PM
Hey, Bill Cosby can't be wrong.
I'll read your other sources, because I'm geniuinely interested in how they might refute scientific evidence, but I already tore that first site from hot_tamale to shreds.
Don't forget, this isn't about who's superior to who, it's a genuine explanation of why AA is instituted and why there is a lack of minority lawyers. I'm white, but you don't see me crying a river over the study's assertion that asians are smarter than me do you? Or jews? I would look at that as a good indication of why you see so many asians in the hard sciences, as doctors, and as lawyers. They're damn smart.
IQ is not completely genetic, it gives you a range of potential that your environment determines where you fall in. Now, whether blacks and hispanics are lagging behind because of genetics or environment is a good debate. If you try and argue that there is no gap, you're trying to sweep a mountain of evidence under the rug. In fact, you could examine why whites are behind asians, or the jews in the study. Why are asians craniums larger than everyone elses? Why are their IQs higher? If I had to guess, it would have a lot to do with their culture that values education and working hard. Can you say that about black culture, in general?

Like I said, this is a talk about AA and why there is a lack of minority lawyers(not including asians). So what is it that you're disagreeing about? Do you think that every race is equal and that all differences are measurement errors on the part of the scientists? A result of slavery and racial inequalities? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you dispute that a difference in intelligence exists, or the reasons why?
I'm white, I don't dispute that asians are more intelligent than the average white person, but then again I have no insecurities about my color or my own abilities. The average only applies if you think you're average.

My beliefs? I don't believe anything. If you somehow convince me that I'm wrong, I'll change what I think immediately. If I had a feeling of superiority I wouldn't admit that asians have higher IQs. I'd probably run and find a bunch of opinion articles that cry about why asians have had more opportunities than whites and why the scientists are all wrong.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Name Changing Queen on March 05, 2005, 10:40:36 PM
I just looked up lawschoolnumbers.org, and while I was surfing around I clicked on someone's name and viewed their profile because they're numbers looked almost identical to mine.  166/3.4 (my GPA is slightly higher).  Both of us went to Top 15 undergraduate schools.  Both have done service work and worked as a paralegal at prestigious firms after graduation.

One difference, she's a black female, I'm a white male.  Now I don't presume to know about her essay and recs, but I think mine were pretty solid.

She's in all over the place, Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, the works.  No rejections, not wiat lists.  I, on the other hand, am getting waitlisted or rejected by these schools.

I've always considered myself a pretty liberal guy and have supported AA, but I must say that being on this side of the equation sucks.

Feelin gloomy.  Should I wait and see if Bush makes AA illegal?  I've always despised American conservativism but at this rate of anger I'll be a Republican by 30.

I have felt this same gut-reaction anger. But I have since realized that I am sort of glad about AA.  I really do want to attend a school that is diverse.  I really do want the legal market, legal representation to be diverse.  I really do want the URM to becoem less underrepresnted.  And there are some real obstacles out there that help prevent URM from reaching the applying-to-law-school stage.  While imperfect, AA does help URMs get into law school, at all levels and I'm glad for it. 

My one caviat is that, I think maybe AA causes people to assume that a URM peer is likely to be less-qualified and admitted/hired to fulfill diversity requirements.  That means lots of really qualified URm people are being underestimated.  If there was no advantage to being a URM in admission processes, nobody could dismiss a black man in their class as being "three to make the school look good" or "fulfill requirements". 

Also, I agree with an earlier poster, that we non-URMs need to keep in mind that the URM pool is so small it makes a negligible difference on our ability to get at a certain school.  If we have the stats, we are in.  If we don't have the stats, we shouldn't blame the oen person for whom they made an exception...
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 06, 2005, 09:49:46 AM
Ok spec. I can buy that theory. You think it is 100% environmental. What environmental factors cause this underperformance in blacks/hispanics? What causes Asians to perform better? Also, what do you think about the measurement of cranium size, the fact that there are clear differences in size, and that it appears to be linked to IQ? Surely that must be genetics?

CBHappy:
I agree with you that I'd like more diversity, as it helps everyone's learning. What I don't agree with is giving people instant bonus points that allow them to get in w/o having to put in the work that everyone else did. Tell the person who was on the bubble at the school of their dreams that they didn't get in because of a "negligible" impact of a URM getting in w/much lower credentials. Some people ARE affected by this. It's not the numbers affected, it's the principle of it. It says, "hey, you can do mediocre in school, barely study for the lsat, and we're still going to let you into a t14 school because of your color, which undoubtedly caused you to not be able to study and do well like everyone else"

I'm not saying racism is gone and that non-URMs don't have an advantage. I'm also aware that being black causes other issues to be a factor in their lives. However, I think that getting in with the help of AA just perpetuates the view that URMs aren't as smart and hard-working as everyone else. If you're going to get into the Harvard club, why not get there through hard work and doing well enough to get there on your own?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Macul on March 06, 2005, 10:08:31 PM
ryanjm,
you mentioned that

"Avg cranium size went Asian > White > Black, with the largest difference between white and black, and a small difference between asian and white." 

You then lumped blacks and hispanics together when discussing underperformance.  Just curious how hispanics are reflected in the various studies you cite.  Do they get a separate class or are they lumped with whites...
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Name Changing Queen on March 07, 2005, 12:58:00 AM
ryanjim,

What size hat do you wear?
(Just so I can know how smart you are)
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: BoscoBreaux on March 07, 2005, 01:12:17 AM
I just looked up lawschoolnumbers.org, and while I was surfing around I clicked on someone's name and viewed their profile because they're numbers looked almost identical to mine.  166/3.4 (my GPA is slightly higher).  Both of us went to Top 15 undergraduate schools.  Both have done service work and worked as a paralegal at prestigious firms after graduation.

One difference, she's a black female, I'm a white male.  Now I don't presume to know about her essay and recs, but I think mine were pretty solid.

She's in all over the place, Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, the works.  No rejections, not wiat lists.  I, on the other hand, am getting waitlisted or rejected by these schools.

I've always considered myself a pretty liberal guy and have supported AA, but I must say that being on this side of the equation sucks.

Feelin gloomy.  Should I wait and see if Bush makes AA illegal?  I've always despised American conservativism but at this rate of anger I'll be a Republican by 30.
I certainly hope that political affiliations don't change as a result of such practices. In a different post, I got attacked because I mentioned that if someone were a URM, they'd have a certain shot of admission, whereas if they were not (ie. if they were White) they would have little shot of admission with the same statistics. This is nothing new: race is a credential that makes up for inferior LSAT scores and GPAs. In general, white persons have to do better than non-whites to get accepted to the same schools. Further, the "golden children," at least as far as admissions are concerned, is persons who are Black/African American. If you have good scores, say 162-164, and belong to certain preferred races, you're likely getting a free ride to Harvard and Company. These are facts; whether the facts are justified is a question I'll leave for society to decide. The Supreme Court--hardly a liberal body--doesn't have a problem with it.
As for Bush and Republicans--was it not Bush who got into Harvard Business School with a C average and miserable boards? Can you say legacy admission?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: maricutie on March 07, 2005, 08:37:24 AM
You then lumped blacks and hispanics together when discussing underperformance.  Just curious how hispanics are reflected in the various studies you cite.  Do they get a separate class or are they lumped with whites...

I don't know about this specific study, but Hispanics are usually entirely ignored in the AA discussion. (Which may or not be a good thing; haven't decided that yet myself.) The recent article in the Stanford Law Review, for example, pretty much paints a white-and-black picture of this policy. On the other hand, there was an older study done on Virginia law schools and I remember seeing that Hispanics had the same chances of admission as Whites, assuming a given GPA and LSAT.

Short answer: not enough done yet. 
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ryanjm on March 07, 2005, 02:17:24 PM
Yeah, I agree with marie. There is passing mention to hispanics, but most of these studies were done in the 80's and 90's. In the limited reference to Hispanics, they clump them near blacks, but slightly above. I think most everyone is too PC now to even consider trying to get funding for a study like that now.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on June 09, 2005, 11:18:08 AM
Man, I would have to agree that most of the black applicants are equivalent to the white ones, we shouldn't even have the race box available to check, ya know?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: _____ on June 09, 2005, 06:49:04 PM
I would just like to remind Ryan that Jews are not a race (they are members of a Religion), and therefore have no ethnic checkbox, and therefore do not benefit from AA.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: mark_ede on June 09, 2005, 07:18:02 PM
I wonder...

I Canada we wouldn't have such discussions, and I'm not sure whether it's good (our way at approaching race and identity is very different from the U.S) or bad (we're turning a blind eye to systemic discrimination).

In any case here's how I would put it in holistic admissions terms:

Everyone offer something to a law school (imagine you having a value). Diversity is an externality, difficult to factor into that "value" unlike more visible values (i.e LSAT, GPA etc.) especially because the odds are an African-American female has overcome systemic discrimination to get where she is (not necessarily, there are some troubling stats on who benefits from heavily weighted admissions but I digress). In any case AA serves to internalize these externalities, at least somewhat. That's my standard economic AA justification.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on July 31, 2005, 12:52:58 AM
I just love it when your read a post from a p*ssed off person that sees ONE black female who happens to get admitted to a variety of T14 or T100 schools, and they get all in a huff like "woe is me, the black people are taking over and stealing seats at all the law schools!!! Waaaa...."

I mean, gee, it could NEVER be the other thousands of white applicants (or Asian or Latino for that matter) who could have taken their seat... just the ONE black person who they heard had equal or lesser #s...


I don't know when people will get it through their heads that the application process is more than just about numbers and and what color you are. I mean, why did we waste all that time filling out extensive apps with resumes, stellar letters of rec, lists of activities and community service, military and academic honors, well written colorful and introspective statements talking about our life experiences....hmmmm...
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Gary Glitter on August 01, 2005, 03:59:00 AM
you have missed the point of the original post completely

he was not implying that this person in particular was responsible for his losing out on his school of choice - instead, and more logically, he was voicing his angst which is a direct result of a system that confers certain advantages to people based on racial distinctions. saying that "if I were a member of race Y, given my stats, I would be going to school X" is completely different from "person A, with my exact stats, who is a member of race Y, stole my spot from school X". the latter is completely irrational as evidence does not exist for such a claim and is not what the original poster was getting at. the former is a sideways way of saying "hey maybe this system acts to propagate that which it looks to remove" - i.e. racism

but whatever

as long as members of races X Y and Z feel more comfortable with lawyers of race X Y and Z there will be a need for a system that guarantees available lawyers of the various races. until the day when we all grow up and say a man is a man regardless of skin color then such systems will exist, no matter how convulted and paradoxical the rhetoric from their proponents becomes

(the answer to the equation, by the way, is X=42)
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: gertrude on August 01, 2005, 09:06:15 AM
amen
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on August 01, 2005, 09:17:19 AM
you have missed the point of the original post completely

he was not implying that this person in particular was responsible for his losing out on his school of choice - instead, and more logically, he was voicing his angst which is a direct result of a system that confers certain advantages to people based on racial distinctions. saying that "if I were a member of race Y, given my stats, I would be going to school X" is completely different from "person A, with my exact stats, who is a member of race Y, stole my spot from school X". the latter is completely irrational as evidence does not exist for such a claim and is not what the original poster was getting at. the former is a sideways way of saying "hey maybe this system acts to propagate that which it looks to remove" - i.e. racism

but whatever

as long as members of races X Y and Z feel more comfortable with lawyers of race X Y and Z there will be a need for a system that guarantees available lawyers of the various races. until the day when we all grow up and say a man is a man regardless of skin color then such systems will exist, no matter how convulted and paradoxical the rhetoric from their proponents becomes

(the answer to the equation, by the way, is X=42)



Well it's also just as stupid to get upset and say "if I were a member of race Y, given my stats, I would be going to school X" .... There are pleanty of minorities with better numbers and stats than other minorities who get rejected from good schools. The same way there are pleanty of white students with better #s/stats who get rejected from good schools. To use ONE example of ONE black female as grounds to lament over this system is just stupid. The bottom line is that hundreds of thosands of applicants of ALL colors are applying to law school in record amounts. Yes, there will be stories about a VERY small amount of those applicants with lower #s etc that may have made it into a highly ranked school. But to sit there and say well "if I were that race/color, the same would have happened to me as well" is ridiculous. Black people get rejeceted from Yale and other T14's too! What a shocker!
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: gosox on October 21, 2005, 01:35:20 PM
nicorette
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 01, 2005, 03:56:30 PM
So the only way for them to get better is to have blacks leave the country and return in a hundred years?

 :D
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: RockyMarciano on November 01, 2005, 06:08:39 PM
Hey Caneschica,
     I think what you just mentioned in your post is the reason why some Cubans are not considered to be a disadvantaged minority. The first wave of Cuban immigrants were doctors, private business owners, and so forth. It is not really until the third wave that people with literally nothing start crossing to Florida. However, the community established in Miami has allowed these individuals to be accepted and achieve success rather fast. I have a Cuban uncle here in Los Angeles and he gets so much support from the Cuban community. It is really amazing to see how united they are.
     As for the Af-Am comment. there are people even Hispanics that will make fun of white people. I do not think that is right. It sucks that people advocating for equality are at the same time dehumanizing others. It may have just been an isolated incident but do not take that person as being representative of the entire community.
      As for the Hispanic or Latino lady. WTF is her problem too. I hate people that do not realize that there are a lot of Latino's of African ancestry. I am proud that Sammy Sosa is Latino. A lot of Latino communities act differently to other minorities. I am Mexican-American but the majority of my friends are either Filipino or African American. However, I have experienced the casual remark of "Why are you hanging with them?" To make is simple, some people are just plain stupid.

Peace,
RockyMarciano

P.S. I hate Black Beans. One time I went to a Cuban restaurant in Miami and I asked for Pinto Beans and the lady said "Are you not Cuban?" I hate that, I feel like Carlos Mencia that in Miami I am Cuban, in New York I am Puerto Rican, but here in LA I am always the "vato loco." lol
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: misery on November 02, 2005, 12:03:42 PM
Someone please explain to me why a correlation made between intelligence and [cranium size, race, socioeconomic status, any characteristic in general] is such a taboo subject.  It's obviously acceptable to say something like, people raised at high altitudes have higher lung capacity, or people of european decent are taller than asians.  Granted, intelligence is much more subjective than height/lung capacity, but the fact is, you can meet someone of any race, who will be so much smarter/dumber than you that it will be painfully obvious to anyone who knows the two of you more than in passing.  Since differences in intelligence, like any other characteristic, obviously exist between any two given people, why does it bother people so much?  Does it frighten people to suggest intelligence is some kind of innate attribute, that education and perseverence can only take one so far?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 02, 2005, 02:28:00 PM
We are too conditioned in our Lockian ways me friend.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 02, 2005, 06:35:40 PM
I think that there is nothing wrong with noting similarilties between groups of people, including skeletal structure. You are right, people think it is terrible just because Hitler did it. But so what?
Hitler also started a youth program, yet we see nothing wrong with that today. We try to start up groups of our youth in order to organiz them more and such. Difference? No.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on November 04, 2005, 12:01:04 AM
Someone please explain to my why a correlation made between intelligence and [cranium size, race, socioeconomic status, any characteristic in general] is such a taboo subject.  It's obviously acceptable to say something like, people raised at high altitudes have higher lung capacity, or people of european decent are taller than asians.  Granted, intelligence is much more subjective than height/lung capacity, but the fact is, you can meet someone of any race, who will be so much smarter/dumber than you that it will be painfully obvious to anyone who knows the two of you more than in passing.  Since differences in intelligence, like any other characteristic, obviously exist between any two given people, why does it bother people so much?  Does it frighten people to suggest intelligence is some kind of innate attribute, that education and perseverence can only take one so far?


You're kidding, right?

You're drawing a direct comparison between objective analyses that are statistically predictable and a subjective construct with no possible current empirical basis.  The two aren't even remotely analogous.  Nobody even knows what "intelligence" is, nevermind how to measure it. 

Your height is a constant; the interaction between the oxygen content of lungs and its saturation in the air is formulaic.  There is absolutely no reliable formula for "intelligence".  The most we can say is, in the loosest, most relative sense, that some people seem smarter than others.

And even then, these relative differences are spread across all races.  If we disregard all cultural factors and focus strictly on the genetics of "intelligence" (which, by the way, is still a very hazy area of study), then it is likely we would find that people of all races start from a similar slate.  There is nothing to suggest that race plays a significant factor in some sort of "innate intelligence".

In short, your argument is weak, as are any alternatives you're likely to present. 
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 04, 2005, 10:36:40 AM
Exactly, so everyone has the same opportunity for intelligence. Some just take more advantage than others. Race does NOT matter.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: misery on November 04, 2005, 03:47:04 PM
You're kidding, right?

No, you've just done a great job of exaggerating my viewpoint.

Quote
You're drawing a direct comparison between objective analyses that are statistically predictable and a subjective construct with no possible current empirical basis.  The two aren't even remotely analogous.  Nobody even knows what "intelligence" is, nevermind how to measure it. 

So you are telling me, just because something can't be measured completely objectively, it shouldn't be evaluated at all?  What about things such as music and movies?  No one is going to tell me the latest carrot top movie was better than the godfather.

Quote
And even then, these relative differences are spread across all races.  If we disregard all cultural factors and focus strictly on the genetics of "intelligence" (which, by the way, is still a very hazy area of study), then it is likely we would find that people of all races start from a similar slate.  There is nothing to suggest that race plays a significant factor in some sort of "innate intelligence".

In short, your argument is weak, as are any alternatives you're likely to present. 

I never said race was a significant factor in intelligence, I was asking why people refuse to consider that it MIGHT be a factor in intelligence.  The fact is, some people are smarter than others, and it's not because of sheer luck.  Whether it's the way they're raised, genetics, their race, the kind of food they eat, I don't care.  I'm sure someone is going to say, 'they're just better at some things, like taking tests, articulating themselves, memorizing material quickly, and understanding complex material, but that doesn't mean they're smarter!'  Well thats fine, but the aforementioned is what schools/law firms care about, and no one is going to argue that those skills are not useful to performing well in law school/as a lawyer, or pretty much being thought of as "smart."
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 04, 2005, 03:52:14 PM
Yeah, biology has nothing to do with race, so why wouldn't a kid that grew up in a black area, with white skin, be considered black? My point exactly. RAce is a stupid liberal construction
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on November 04, 2005, 05:52:09 PM
You're kidding, right?

No, you've just done a great job of exaggerating my viewpoint.

Quote
You're drawing a direct comparison between objective analyses that are statistically predictable and a subjective construct with no possible current empirical basis.  The two aren't even remotely analogous.  Nobody even knows what "intelligence" is, nevermind how to measure it. 

So you are telling me, just because something can't be measured completely objectively, it shouldn't be evaluated at all?  What about things such as music and movies?  No one is going to tell me the latest carrot top movie was better than the godfather.

Quote
And even then, these relative differences are spread across all races.  If we disregard all cultural factors and focus strictly on the genetics of "intelligence" (which, by the way, is still a very hazy area of study), then it is likely we would find that people of all races start from a similar slate.  There is nothing to suggest that race plays a significant factor in some sort of "innate intelligence".

In short, your argument is weak, as are any alternatives you're likely to present. 

I never said race was a significant factor in intelligence, I was asking why people refuse to consider that it MIGHT be a factor in intelligence.  The fact is, some people are smarter than others, and it's not because of sheer luck.  Whether it's the way they're raised, genetics, their race, the kind of food they eat, I don't care.  I'm sure someone is going to say, 'they're just better at some things, like taking tests, articulating themselves, memorizing material quickly, and understanding complex material, but that doesn't mean they're smarter!'  Well thats fine, but the aforementioned is what schools/law firms care about, and no one is going to argue that those skills are not useful to performing well in law school/as a lawyer, or pretty much being thought of as "smart."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and admit I probably misread you.

However, what I took issue with is the premise behind this line (and I remain perturbed):

"Someone please explain to my why a correlation made between intelligence and [cranium size, race, socioeconomic status, any characteristic in general] is such a taboo subject."

You lump those things into one category, when they are very disparate factors. 

What makes correlating intelligence and cranial size taboo is a) that it has been thoroughly scientifically discredited, and b) that it relates directly to a blatantly racist agenda of imperial self-justification during the late modern period, suggesting that there were innate divides between the races, that some were less evolved than others, and that cranial size and the assumed intelligence it showed was proof of this hierarchy.

Thus, correlating race and intelligence remains taboo for a very similar reason.  This, of course, doesn't even take into account that "race" is, as Vinny so ironically pointed out, merely a construct that retains less and less meaning as we move further into an age of globalization and diaspora.  That's a debate for another thread, however.

How you can correlate intelligence and socioeconomic status beats me.  In fact, the only way you can show that this status affects (and effects) intelligence is by coming to the exact opposite conclusion from the one you arrived at, which was to "suggest intelligence is some kind of innate attribute, that education and perseverence can only take one so far."  If intelligence is an innate attribute, then socioeconomic status should not matter one bit.

Basically, my problem is that your assumption would be that there is some sort of way to measure intelligence; that, if some kid does really well and goes to law school, he is inherently smarter than another kid who did not.  This ignores all sorts of confounding variables, including mental problems like dyslexia, ADHD, Tourette's or even migraines; problems with access to better education, tutors, books, and other materials and resources required for academia; possible distractions at home, such as abuse, alcoholism, raising your siblings... you see where I'm going with this.

Perhaps there is an innate intelligence, but to measure it by someone's academic success is highly problematic.  The competitive field just is not equal for everyone.  In short, success is not a good measure of intelligence.

I'm not arguing that everyone is equally smart.  I do agree that, if we all started at the same point, differences would be all too apparent.  But when "race" is such a hazy category to begin with, how are we even going to begin to consider that it (whatever "it" is) plays a role in intelligence?  I know your premise is not that it does play such a role, that we should only consider it, but I don't even know how that would be done.   
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on November 04, 2005, 06:05:55 PM
Quote
So you are telling me, just because something can't be measured completely objectively, it shouldn't be evaluated at all?  What about things such as music and movies?  No one is going to tell me the latest carrot top movie was better than the godfather.

Another ridiculous analogy.  I never said something shouldn't be evaluated if it can't be measured objectively.  I just reminded you to compare apples with apples and pears with pears.  Projection based on empirical data does not and cannot compare with loose, subjective distinctions.  They're two different fields.

You'll grant me the point that we don't quite know what intelligence is, since your whole argument would make no sense if we did know (I mean, why, then, would we even consider some things to play a role in intelligence if we already knew what did and what didn't?). 

If we don't know what intelligence is, then how can we objectively measure it?  We can't.  And if we can't measure it objectively, then we can't compare it to other objective measures. 

I guess your Carrot Top analogy comes closer to fixing this problem, then, but it's still faulty.  Sure, his new movie does suck in comparison with the Godfather, but there is no claim being made that there is no difference in intelligence between individuals, either.  A better analogy to the claim that intelligence and [cranial size, race, socioeconomic status] are correlated would be to compare movie genres, whole groups of superficially similar products.  Would horror movies be inherently better than comedies?  How would you prove it?  Would you take the best of each and compare them?  Or would you use the worst of each?  What would be the basis of comparison?     
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: misery on November 07, 2005, 03:31:40 PM

If we don't know what intelligence is, then how can we objectively measure it?  We can't.  And if we can't measure it objectively, then we can't compare it to other objective measures. 

I guess your Carrot Top analogy comes closer to fixing this problem, then, but it's still faulty.  Sure, his new movie does suck in comparison with the Godfather, but there is no claim being made that there is no difference in intelligence between individuals, either.  A better analogy to the claim that intelligence and [cranial size, race, socioeconomic status] are correlated would be to compare movie genres, whole groups of superficially similar products.  Would horror movies be inherently better than comedies?  How would you prove it?  Would you take the best of each and compare them?  Or would you use the worst of each?  What would be the basis of comparison?     

I like this analogy so we'll run with it.  So in general, we can argue that certain genres are 'better' in terms of critical acclaim (dramas win more oscars than horror movies etc.)  Off the top of my head, the two obvious ways to judge a movie would be by its reviews and sales.  Sales is more correlated towards marketing/popularity of the actor/director, but most top selling movies are at least mediocre (to me, granted.)  Peoples feelings towards a movie do not always coincide with reviews/sales, but there is still a correlation...

As far as correlating intelligence with respect to socioeconomic status, if one believes that a childs upbringing affects intelligence, than it would be logical that a child raised in say a middle class suburb with a library nearby, would on average be more intelligent than a child who was raised in the slums.  So you may say, this is not an innate attribute.  I suppose, but stimuli at a younger age has more of a permanent effect on the developing brain of a child than a competely developed adult's brain.  As the effects are somewhat harder, if not impossible to change in the later years, one's upbringing can be considered an innate attribute.  In retrospect, I should have said upbringing instead of socioeconomic status, as I'm sure some rich people sit their kids in front of the tv all day.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 07, 2005, 04:23:55 PM
Amen!
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on November 21, 2005, 11:03:57 PM
Thank you, Winterlily. I thought dbgirl's statement was dubious, too.

I've worked in journalism for 8 years now, and AA programs are rampant. Some of them are good, but most are misguided, underhanded attempts at quotas (see Parity Project (http://www.nahj.org/paritynews/) and the Freedom Forum (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=12802), both of which look at diversity more as a numbers game than an attempt to bring qualified minorities into the field). Knight Ridder is notorious for its "aggressive" (their word) diversity attempts, which allowed an incompetent plagiarist (http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickprince/040307_prince/) to work at two of its papers.

In journalism, as long as a minority can put a sentence together, a job is almost guaranteed.

That sounds like a broad over-generalization...

And fyi, The Freedom Forums website states upfront: "Diversity Institute fellows are people seeking a mid-career change or recent college graduates who did not major in journalism."

The site also notes:
"Wayne Ma, who earned a bachelor's degree in political science and African studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and will work as a reporter at the Quad-City Times in Davenport, Iowa.

Elizabeth Roman, who this week became a reporter at the Telegram & Gazette in Worcester, Mass. Previously, Roman used her master's degree in education from Harvard University and graduate certificate in public health management from Suffolk University to support her family as a city planner in Cambridge, Mass., and director of planning and operations for a health center in Boston.

Hanna Tamrat, an associate insurance underwriter in San Francisco and a licensed childcare provider who earned a degree in economics and international relations from San Francisco University. Tamrat will now work as a reporter at The Oakland (Calif.) Tribune."


Yep, sounds like unqualified people who can barely put a sentence together....

Furthermore, the program has a whopping SIXTEEN fellows!! That barely makes a dent in the total population of US journalists/ interns... A miniscule amount of minorities get involved with a program like this and you act like it's taking your chance away from any type of opportunity. Yea so WinterLily couldn't use her connections to get a position...the reality is that she could still walk in for a job interview and more likely than not get hired over a person of color, even if both parties had similar qualifications. (I'm safely assuming that she is white). Sure you can say things are "equal" now, but people still have preconceived notions about people (esp. based on race) and these types of barriers still exist in today’s world. The same way people on this board can meet one “dumb minority” and write off the whole group as incompetent, there are people in the working world who think the same way, and are much less inclined to give minorities a fair chance in the job market. Programs like the Freedom Forums don't even make a dent in taking away opportunities from you. In fact, if you do a simple Google search for paid journalism internships, there are plenty of opportunities out there. Sure, it would be just delightful to have a internship program or other opportunity angled for whites – oh but wait, that’s the way it’s been in America for generations, and despite changes like the Civil Rights Movement, that circumstance is still the reality for whites today. Yea, it’s an extreme statement you may want to disagree with~ feel free to share with the board how tough the white population has it on a national scale (not woe is me, I live in South Beach and the Cubans don’t want to work with me…. we’re talking about a national level here…)when it comes to employment, career opportunities and non-gender glass ceilings….

I think one of the key reasons for brining minorities into the field is PERSPECTIVE. Journalism is all about the expression of thought, and being able to communicate such thought to others. If everyone came from the same walk of life, it certainly wouldn't give as much depth to the field as compared to having a journalist who grew up in the barrios and can give excellent inter-cultural coverage on a local community issue, or perhaps a journalist who grew up in India and is able to thoroughly cover the social implications of outsourcing. I'm not saying a non-minority person couldn't do the same job, but realistically, the probability is much less. Sure, you could argue that no one cares about those issues, or what were journalists doing before this, or anyone should be able to do the job, but the points I raise are that a) journalism is competitive and every paper wants to get an edge so the past practices are irrelevant, and b) yes people do care about these issues. And finally c), yes it’s true anyone should be able to do the job, and any sensible employer would realize this, so hey if you're white and you speak fluent Hindi and have a decent background in Indian culture, slap it on your resume and discuss at the interview.

Until people like kruddler and others of similar mind frames can change their way of thinking when it comes to minorities,:

In journalism, as long as a minority can put a sentence together, a job is almost guaranteed.
...the cycle will continue: discrimination/racism/AA... As annoyingly optimistic as it sounds, I really don't think this cycle will come to an end until we can just see each other as people, sans the color labels.

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: shae on November 22, 2005, 12:32:17 PM
in response to "we need more black lawyers"

you can be a black lawyer without going to HYS when you have a 3.4/162

Plently of law schools will admit you with that.

Hell, you can have a 2.3/145 and still get into an ABA accredited law school.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on November 22, 2005, 03:48:52 PM
Hey, if you're black you can. ;)
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on November 22, 2005, 03:53:37 PM
Hey, if you're black you can. ;)

And you wonder why people call you an idiot.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on November 24, 2005, 07:45:24 PM
Hey, if you're black you can. ;)

And you wonder why people call you an idiot.


Vinny keeps preaching about much we need color-blindness, but then continues to make obnoxious comments like this... *sigh*
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on November 24, 2005, 07:48:40 PM

The reason why the race part bugged me is because they emphasized the need for perspective.  Don't immigrants provide just as unique a perspective, even if they happen to be white?  Besides, those of us who come from backgrounds with Slavic languages tend to speak in passive voice, which makes editing news paper articles a lot easier ;)
Yeah, but really, how many white immigrants (and not I'm talking kids who grew up here in the States) are pursuing jobs in journalism, when compared to WASPy whites and other whites who have been here for one or more generations?

In terms of perspective on a racial level, there seems to be a great need in the field because minor cultural differences are often overlooked when writing on issues. Just the same way reporters and officials used to refer to minorities as "these people" even in the 1970s - an offensive slight of words that was certainly condescending, even though it didn't seem that way at the time. There have been a lot of negative portrayals of minorities when you look over the history of 20th century journalism, and a lot of these actions have changed thanks to minority journalists finally having a chance to move ahead in the industry. Sure, you can argue that "things are different now," and I supposed that's true when you compare today to the days when blacks were never seen on television or Asian or Latino writers were changing their surnames to sound more Anglo so they could get published.... but how far have we really come? The limitations faced by minorities moved from being overly blatant, to much more subtle, and continue to be this way today. The gung-ho diversity bandwagon that you see everywhere is because no paper/company/establishment wants to "look" racist or have their racist past attached to their reputation today. These programs work to diffuse any such type of reputation and also work to help minorities get opportunities in the field, since there once was time in the recent past when minorities were banned or faced great limitations from pursuing work.

You make several counter-arguments on the issues of there being only paid internships for minorities. My only guess as to why this is the case is because these companies/periodicals are already fighting over such a small pool of qualified minority interns, and are probably trying to make the most attractive offers available to get interns of color to participate in their particular programs. Most companies/periodicals have to maintain their PR, and to answer to advertisers and consumers, so having programs like this is one step towards showing that they attempting to diversify their organization.

Sure you can say things are "equal" now, but people still have preconceived notions about people (esp. based on race) and these types of barriers still exist in today’s world.

I'm not doubting that.  I just think there's a difference between intelligent AA programs and dumb AA programs.  Some, like Michigan's law admissions, fall into the former category; others, like their undergrad admissions, fall into the latter.
An agreeable point/response.


I think one of the key reasons for brining minorities into the field is PERSPECTIVE.
I'm not doubting this.  What's troubling me is that by having so few paid internships, and only keeping those for racial minorities, you're blocking out white, lower -- and heck, even middle -- SES perspectives.

On a SES level, I see your point. Yet the reality is that a poor white kid could still get much farther in journalism than a middle class black kid. Yes, I know you're going to argue the other side of this point to make your own point... but it's still the reality today. When it comes to jobs, opportunities, and networking, the good ol' boys club is still out there. And they'd rather have poor white dude than take any black dude, unless programs like this are in place that really push for a change. Additionally, when it comes to perspectives, even if a white kid is poor are they going to be able to emphatetically or even sympathetically write on issues that represent and affect people of color? Sure, anything is possible, but the answer is much  more likely to be no.



Journalism is all about the expression of thought, and being able to communicate such thought to others.
I thought that was writing more generally, and that journalism in specific is about communicating events.
"Tomato, tomatoe"... yes, it's all of these things.



If everyone came from the same walk of life, it certainly wouldn't give as much depth to the field as compared to having a journalist who grew up in the barrios and can give excellent inter-cultural coverage on a local community issue, or perhaps a journalist who grew up in India and is able to thoroughly cover the social implications of outsourcing.

Funny you should mention this. :)  White Ukrainians who grew up in poor neighborhoods would not only be able to give excellent inter-cultural coverage on the local community issues, but would also be able to thoroughly cover the social implications of proposed trading laws with Russia.

The problem with your example is that we're still locked out of the program for being white.

Lovely editing.... you cut out the part where I said: yes it’s true anyone should be able to do the job, and any sensible employer would realize this, so hey if you're white and you speak fluent Hindi and have a decent background in Indian culture, slap it on your resume and discuss at the interview.

You know what, if you want to make that argument, I think you should apply for internship. Make your point on your application and send it in...hell what do you have to lose? You just might be very surprised with the outcome.... (However, on the other hand, one could also say that it might be reasonable to expect that there may not be a high demand for coverage of local Ukrainian community issues, and there may be enough staff to sufficiently cover Ukrainian/ Russian issues on a global level. Conversely, it may be likely that there is less staff available to give coverage of say, Latino-American community.) 

I'm not sure his comment demonstrates that the core of the problem is racism so much as it is about the education inequities stemming from using property taxes as the basis for education funding.  If our educational system was more like Japan's, and inner-city kids could get an education as good as their suburban counterparts, then they would be just as qualified and AA wouldn't ruffle as many feathers as it does -- if it's necessary at all.
Right, but our system isn't that way for a reason honey..But if you want to be a stand up gal against institutionalized racism in America's educational system, I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who will have your back.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on November 24, 2005, 08:06:41 PM
In journalism, as long as a minority can put a sentence together, a job is almost guaranteed.

Thanks for taking me out of context:
In journalism, as long as a minority can put a sentence together, a job is almost guaranteed. At some of the bigger papers, where editors have the time and resources to work with reporters, it can be a boost both to the reporter and the newspaper. At some of the smaller papers, where everyone's stressed and man hours are at a premium, the results of hiring an unqualified person based ln the color of his skin can be disastrous.

How was that taking you out of context?  Those were your exact words, and even without the useless fluff that followed, it's still a very extreme, overbroad and unfair statement to make. It takes more than that to be able to WORK in journalism, whether you are a minority or a white person. Yes, lack of experience can be overcome by anyone - whether you are Willy WASPy who got set up with a gig through your uncle or Marcia Minority who got an opportunity through a diversity program.


Yep, sounds like unqualified people who can barely put a sentence together....

I never said barely put a sentence together. You're putting words in my mouth. I said put a sentence together. Period.

No, you said "as long as..." which can more or less be paralled with "barely," or in other words implies some type of minimum. And yes, it's getting retarted that we about both getting this ticky taky over sematics.

At the newspaper I worked at, the top of the resume stack for open positions was reserved for minorities. When I had a position open up, the first calls I made were to minority applicants, because that was what the company wanted me to do. To get into my callback stack, they had to be pretty qualified in the first place, but to assume that a white person would automatically get hired over a person of color with similar qualifications is an erroneous assumption. The white person would have a hard time getting an interview, let alone get hired.

Yeah but how much of that pile had minority applicants in it? It would be one thing if it was 50%-50%... but if you've got 5-10 minority applicants and the other 90-95 are white it seems like a different story, especially if the company has some kind of public commitment to diversity. What about the white people competing against each other for interviews? And just because a person of color gets an interview, that doesn't automatically guarantee that they will be hired. You can't deny that whites can and will get hired over equally qualified minorities - while it's true that in some interviewing situations, candidates get a fair evaluation and there are times when whites are hired over a minority candidate, the reality is that there are many instances where minorities are still unfairly passed up for opportunities. Just because you didn't see it happen at your job doesn't mean that it does not happen. Now what you did see at your job was a diversity initiative. Companies make a concerted effort to recruit minorities for a lot of good reasons, but they are also protecting themselves as well. There used to be a frequent practice of minorities applying for jobs, and then being told that the position was filled or no longer available... and then shortly after when another white person would interview, they would get the job that was supposedly "filled or no longer available." This is just one example of illegal practices that got companies haled into court. There are many benefits from having a diverse workplace environment, and as I mentioned to Winterlily, there are a lot of PR motives behind these practices as well.

Sure you can say things are "equal" now, but people still have preconceived notions about people (esp. based on race) and these types of barriers still exist in today’s world. The same way people on this board can meet one “dumb minority” and write off the whole group as incompetent, there are people in the working world who think the same way, and are much less inclined to give minorities a fair chance in the job market.

::::YAWN::::

Yea yawn till your jaw pops... it's still the fact of the matter, and the only way any minimal changes have been made are due to mandated diversity initiatives.

Programs like the Freedom Forums don't even make a dent in taking away opportunities from you.

The Freedom Forum itself is barely a dent. You're right. But when major media companies -- Belo, Knight Ridder, Gannett -- start making their internships minority-only, it adds up quickly.

It adds up quickly? Hmmm, ok let's take look at Knight Ridder, as an example....
Knight Ridder
Offer numerous internships annually in newsrooms, online operations or business areas during summers and other periods of up to 12 weeks. In addition, they support their companies' local diversity efforts and offer three minority intership progs.

One of the three programs, The Knight Ridder Minority Scholars Program, had FIVE particiapants in 2005, and FOUR participants in 2004. Let's get alarmed- those kind of numbers are adding up SOOOOOOO quickly, especially when compared to all the white interns in the world...


Sure, it would be just delightful to have a internship program or other opportunity angled for whites – oh but wait, that’s the way it’s been in America for generations, and despite changes like the Civil Rights Movement, that circumstance is still the reality for whites today... (et al, trimmed for brevity)

Save the theory for the coffee shop.

Nice dismissal of my point. Touche. Three snaps in Z formation. Whoohoo.
You are the posterchild of why diversity is important in the workplace, particulary in communication fields.

As I have suggested on this board many times, I highly recommend that you read :
"When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America"
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=3U65fKHBlD&isbn=0393052133&itm=1 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=3U65fKHBlD&isbn=0393052133&itm=1)
by Ira Katznelson
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/fac-bios/katznelson/faculty.html (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/fac-bios/katznelson/faculty.html))
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on November 25, 2005, 10:26:14 AM
I'm not really sure what this has to do with AA.  If it's disproportionately lower, just as minorities pursuing jobs in the field are lower than the median, than doesn't that justify AA in those cases as well?

I think the reality for white immigrants is that they come to America, and they fall out of the immigrant category and into the "white" category. White immigrants get the benefits of being white, while other non-white immigrants fall into the minority category. You might question what are the benefits of automatically "being white," but this is a perspective that you may not understand since you are not a minority. There is no "white-immigrant-minority" category here... sure there was a time when Italians, Russians, and Irish were stratified into different groups from Anglo Saxon whites, but those days are gone. If you look white, that's what you are, and you are more or less relieved of the so-called "stigma" of being a minority.

I'm not sure they're diffusing the reputation.  It's like Clarence Thomas being used to diffuse the Supreme Court's racist past.  It's one thing to hire minorities, and it's another to actually alter the content of your stories.

Right but how many white writers are going to actively seek to alter the content of their stories to a minority perspective on a regular basis? I'm not saying it's not possible, but seriously, if all these internships were open for the taking, would you yourself say, "Gee I want to write about the black community in Philly as intern/staff writer!" or "I want to cover some issues in the Thai community..." etc etc. My guess is that (aside from understandably having interest in your own eastern european background) you'd prob want to just write, and not be as concerned with bringing in perspectives or content from a racial minority view point. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or be presumptuous about you, but my point in saying this is because had there been no type of diversity internship programs like this to get you upset, all of this diversity/cultural talk would probably have been a non-issue in your writing goals as you pursued journalism opportunities.

This only works if you assume AA is a beloved practice, when in reality, it's one of the most embattled institutions in this country.  If you're under the impression that you're hiring unqualified interns (or in my case, interns that want to be interns for all the wrong reasons) at the expense of well-qualified white students, then you're just going to increase hostility.

Check the Freedom Fighters website. As I mentioned earlier, the interns they highlighted are well qualified. The only difference is that they have non-traditional backgrounds or non-journalism backgrounds and the POINT of the program is to bring in interested minorities into the field. You had one experience with some tool intern that got an opportunity so he could sit courtside at games. Does that represent all the other minorities who are serious about a career in journalism?? Hardly. The fact is that there are still very few minority journalists, especially due to the fact that the industry was once closed to minorities.

Take a look at yourself - you HAVE connections!! If they had worked for you, would you be sitting here day after day debating this with me? Would you even be talking about how great it is to be white and have connections that other people don't have? No. You'd be on your merry way without any complaint whatsoever. Now when things don't work out for you, what do you do? Get all p*ssed off that various papers are offering internships to a measly few racial minorities! I'm not trying to attack you, but it's just interesting that when a behind the door favor doesn't work out for you (a favor that is almost non-existent for most minorities), then you turn around and start attacking these programs and saying how unfair everything is.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: pop_tort on November 25, 2005, 10:26:50 AM
Here's the rest of my response...


Make my own point?  I think you may have be confused with someone else.
My point in making that statement is that there are people out there who will debate against the idea that a white person can still get farther than a black person or other minority in today's working world. I think a lot of people will deny or argue against that idea because you don't blatantly see it happening, but the reality is that it still happens. I could go on and on and cite examples of incidents from the past ten years, but I'm sure this post is already getting long enough, and there are folks who are still going to debate what has happened. I will leave the matter alone... there are readers out there who will know what I'm talking about, and others that will challenge this point and say "racial discrimination? what racial discrimination??"

So the reality today is that poor white kids can get jobs without experience just because they're white?  Given that people with experience are locked out of internships and entry level jobs due to their race -- even more affluent ones with connections -- then it's highly unlikely that this is true. Besides doesn't this contradict what you said about the value placed by publishing companies on racial diversity for the sake of racial diversity?
Getting one internship is a drop in the bucket when compared to the span of someone's career. My point is that in the long run of one's career a white person does have advantages that a person of color doesn't have. This has been proven on reports from Dateline and MSNCB over the years, even with simple examples like blacks and whites applying for the same jobs and seeing who gets hired after an interview; or submitting resumes that are virtually the same with the only difference being the name and seeing how many more responses are received from the "white" sounding name versus that black/asian/ latino sounding names.

People with experience are not locked out of jobs. If companies have a diversity initiative and are trying to hire minorities, that doesn't mean they are not trying to higher whites. If there's a major paper that is 90% minority staffed and still has a diversity initiative, then your point about qualified whites being "locked out" might be applicable. Most papers and other periodicals are staffed predominantly by whites, so to talk about a lock out is more or less ridiculous, don't you think?

Why not?  If a white kid is poor, then they're more likely to see things in terms of SES  -- which means they're far more likely to have stories sympathetic to poor black kids than rich white ones.

Anyone can be sympathetic to that issue. But are they interested in those issues, and not just on an SES level. Just because someone is white and dirt poor does not mean that they have an interest in covering issues on poor minorities. Someone who is white and poor may want to write in t he business section or write on international affairs. Sure you could make that argument about a racial minority, but a person of color is still going to hold that perspective in how they convey information. For example, when Nathalee Holloway was missing, look at how long the news continued to show pictures of the black islanders who were falsely accused of kidnapping her when it was quickly established that three non-black islanders were involved. The same way after Katrina, a disproportionate amount of homeless black people were shown again and again, and not as many whites where interviewed during the tragedy. I could go on and on, but the point is when you have a minority perspective in the newsroom, it begins to reshape how information is delivered because there are people present who can show how these types of things are perceived to different people. SES does not make as strong a link, or even the same type of link to a group of people in the way a racial or ethnic tie does.   

...I still didn't get an interview because I didn't match the stated criteria.
So you're saying the ONLY reason you didn't get called back was because you were white?

So much for your theory about the ol' boys network.
Ok, so you have not seen or benefited from the old boys network. But that that simply mean that it's not here anymore? I'd really beg to differ. It's just not in our faces, as blatant as it was in the past. Decisions are made by phone, behind closed doors, from friend to friend. It's still alive and well, just not operating in the way we once saw it.

Not in Philadelphia, which is around 10% percent foreign-born, and 20% Russian if you include their kids who were born in America.  The magnet schools are around 25-40%, with the notable exception of CAPA. 
Hey you know more than me when it comes to Philly - I'm from the west coast which has more of a larger population of Asian and Latino immigrants, as well as a significantly large population of 1st gen kids.

Actually, I did volunteer for a Congresswoman who tried to reform this in Pennsylvania.
I agree with you, that the school systems do need to change... it would be the first step in perhaps establishing some type of equal playing field so we could move on from what I call the modified "separate but equal" status quo.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 08:35:52 PM
Just FYI, I am a journalist, which I consider a professional-type position. And I am aware of NO AA policies w/in print journalism, it's all about who the boss folks "connect" with and it is very much a white boys club. In five years in journalism I have met only ONE black print journalist and only ONE Hispanic print journalist that works in the county where I work. (It is better on TV, I realize.) I live in California. We're pretty ethnically diverse here.

For argument's sake we could say that all other things being equal, there is no reason a minority should get any "bonus points" in legal hiring or opportunities.

I would disagree. I cover courts. The criminal defendants are predominately Mexican and Black. The lawyers? Almost exclusively white. I think that's a problem. If I were a defendant, frankly I would feel more comfortable with a defense attorney I could identify with.
I think it helps the prosecution as well to have minority attorneys. We all know many defendants claim racial discrimination. I think a defendant would have less credibility with that claim if the prosecutor were also a minority.



So you have no problem supporting both the equal protection policy and then supporting a position that undermines it?

The whole point is that race doesn't matter. We must not allow ourselves to cater to the primitive instincts of individuals who "relate" with their own race when the majority view and stated policy of this country is color blind.

We must not continue to accept that exceptions are, in fact, the rule.

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 09:02:48 PM
Quote
The Supreme Court--hardly a liberal body--doesn't have a problem with it.

Not sure where you are pulling that one from. The court was in fact liberal when it handed down its decision (or lack of a decision since it simply neglected to really make an argument and pretty much just recognized the Powell decision).
Quote
As for Bush and Republicans--was it not Bush who got into Harvard Business School with a C average and miserable boards? Can you say legacy admission?

Not only was George a legacy admit, his father was also a high ranking government official with a billion dollars. Your attempt to justify a rule (blacks with average credentials being admitted into elite schools) with an exception (Bush's legacy status and his father's five gazillion dollars) is futile.

I keep hearing proponents fall back onto this silly justification, but they overlook two crucial components. First, legacy admits fall stricly within the purview of each school, IE: there is no constitutional question that they are permitted. AA clearly and obviously runs counter to the equal protection clause and can only be justified by dubiously citing "compelling state interest," something heretofor exclusively the realm of national security.

The equivalent would be suspending habeus corpus in the case that someone commits a thought crime, I mean "hate crime."
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 09:30:20 PM

Quote
Basically, my problem is that your assumption would be that there is some sort of way to measure intelligence; that, if some kid does really well and goes to law school, he is inherently smarter than another kid who did not. 

You are way too smart for the crap you spew. If you get a whiff of someone questioning  your PC doctrine- you hysterically accuse that person of being a racist. You did imply he/she is racist by connecting his thoughts with an intellectual movement from before his lifetime that he is likely not even familiar with. Try to open your mind to the possibility that he has a valid position instead of just looking for places where he gets close to the line and then daring him to cross. Its immature.

Quote
Perhaps there is an innate intelligence, but to measure it by someone's academic success is highly problematic.  The competitive field just is not equal for everyone.  In short, success is not a good measure of intelligence.

I think the issue is linking intelligence with tests designed explicitly for the purpose. The LSAT is one such test (albeit designed to measure specific components of intelligence) and the IQ test. I dont think many rational and informed people conclude that success or academic competence is an accurate measure of capacity or intelligence, and for precisely the factors which you describe + others. Stop being so goddamned reactionary though. You could actually use your intelligence to help people understand complex issues, instead, you appear to use it to serve some other purpose that is beginning to look like megalomania.

And I seriously mean no offense to you. I respect your views and your knowledge and your ability to analyze issues.


Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: wallaby on December 06, 2005, 09:45:54 PM
Quote
???  I don't know what Ivy you go to, but around here, poorly qualified legacies are still a rule...

Would be nice to see some numbers that support your claim.

Quote
Quote
I keep hearing proponents fall back onto this silly justification, but they overlook two crucial components. First, legacy admits fall stricly within the purview of each school, IE: there is no constitutional question that they are permitted.

Then why can't the same be true with AA at private universities?

Two reasons, almost all of them accept federal or state money, and second, the equal protection clause. Each and every member of the supreme court understands that AA violates equal protection or anti discrimination legislation or both- the only debate is whether diversity in the classroom warrants classification as a "compelling state interest." The last ruling even threw out the defense of redress of historic injustices as a reason to affirm.

Quote
AA clearly and obviously runs counter to the equal protection clause and can only be justified by dubiously citing "compelling state interest," something heretofor exclusively the realm of national security.

Quote
Doesn't the equal protection clause primarily focus on federal and state laws?

Its purpose was to protect individuals from the state. But private institutions are still not immune to equal protection and anti discrimination legislation of the 60's if they receive federal money, and or if they are of a certain size.

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on December 06, 2005, 10:46:53 PM
The brevity of this post permits me a quick response during my writing break.

Quote
Basically, my problem is that your assumption would be that there is some sort of way to measure intelligence; that, if some kid does really well and goes to law school, he is inherently smarter than another kid who did not. 

You are way too smart for the crap you spew. If you get a whiff of someone questioning  your PC doctrine- you hysterically accuse that person of being a racist.

Actually, I have no PC doctrine.  This is an unsupported ad hominem.

I don't see how this argument (or any of my arguments) is part of an agenda of political correctness.  Non-absolutism, definitely.  Critical perception of power constructs and the narrative construction of history (as fact-based mythology), also definitely.  But political correctness?  Nah.  You're not protected from my ire just because you're part of some particular group.

I don't like to polarize like you seem to enjoy doing.  I don't see issues in black and white (excuse the pun).  I don't see anything as an issue of "us versus them"; rather, it's one of "these terms versus those terms".  Solutions usually lie in the grey area somewhere in the middle.   

You did imply he/she is racist by connecting his thoughts with an intellectual movement from before his lifetime that he is likely not even familiar with. Try to open your mind to the possibility that he has a valid position instead of just looking for places where he gets close to the line and then daring him to cross. Its immature.

You make this mistake quite often.  I did not imply he is racist.  I implied his line of thinking is racist.  It was an addressal of the premises, not the person.  If you read the full debate, this should be clear to you.

The connection was specifically aimed at the premises upon which the argument was based.  The position was posited as valid, and my counter was that, given a certain set of criteria, it should not be posited as such.  The terms were debated, and a compromise reached.  That's the way reasonable people argue issues.

The irony of this statement of yours, of course, is that, just like the previous one, it's pure ad hominem.

Quote
Perhaps there is an innate intelligence, but to measure it by someone's academic success is highly problematic.  The competitive field just is not equal for everyone.  In short, success is not a good measure of intelligence.

I think the issue is linking intelligence with tests designed explicitly for the purpose. The LSAT is one such test (albeit designed to measure specific components of intelligence) and the IQ test.

Decontextualized.  This issue was specifically addressed.


I dont think many rational and informed people conclude that success or academic competence is an accurate measure of capacity or intelligence, and for precisely the factors which you describe + others.

Right.  Which is why propounding those factors to someone who may not be aware of them is necessary.

Stop being so goddamned reactionary though. You could actually use your intelligence to help people understand complex issues, instead, you appear to use it to serve some other purpose that is beginning to look like megalomania.

This seems like an odd comment given what I just addressed before it.  In any case, I debate for two reasons.  First, I'd like to provide an opposing view, in the hope that we can find an enlightening middle ground.  Second, I like to debate because I think I'm fairly decent at it.  That gives me an ego boost.  So yes, mild megalomania perhaps.  Still, why the need for the ad hominem?


And I seriously mean no offense to you. I respect your views and your knowledge and your ability to analyze issues.

Thanks.   ;D

Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: wallaby on December 07, 2005, 10:17:10 AM
Quote
Actually, I have no PC doctrine.  This is an unsupported ad hominem.

Yeah, believe what you will, but so far I've only heard you argue from the position of what is considered standard among liberal elites.

Quote
I don't see how this argument (or any of my arguments) is part of an agenda of political correctness.  Non-absolutism, definitely.  Critical perception of power constructs and the narrative construction of history (as fact-based mythology), also definitely.  But political correctness?  Nah.  You're not protected from my ire just because you're part of some particular group.

Notions of non-absolutism, power constructs and narrative construction of history are all liberal PC constructs themselves. You may not know that a world exists outside of liberal elitism, but I assure you it does.

Quote
I don't like to polarize like you seem to enjoy doing.  I don't see issues in black and white (excuse the pun).  I don't see anything as an issue of "us versus them"; rather, it's one of "these terms versus those terms".  Solutions usually lie in the grey area somewhere in the middle. 


We couldn't disagree more. Now we are talking philosophy. I personally feel that Plato was right, that there is a difference between belief and knowledge. I derive my conclusions based on hard data, knowledge- I'm not sure how you derive your's, but it seems that you avoid conclusions altogether and prefer to retreat into the relativism of modern liberalism.


Quote
You make this mistake quite often.  I did not imply he is racist.  I implied his line of thinking is racist.  It was an addressal of the premises, not the person.  If you read the full debate, this should be clear to you.

Im dazzled by your shell game. Remember Bill Clinton trying to call into question the meaning of "is"?

Quote
The irony of this statement of yours, of course, is that, just like the previous one, it's pure ad hominem.

Ad hominems are necessary when an out of control liberal whacko calls someone a racist for no reason.

Quote
Decontextualized.  This issue was specifically addressed.

No, it isn't, and no it wasn't.

Quote
Right.  Which is why propounding those factors to someone who may not be aware of them is necessary.

Not sure why you would bother doing so, noone had taken the position that intelligence was measured by academic acheivement.

Quote
This seems like an odd comment given what I just addressed before it.  In any case, I debate for two reasons.  First, I'd like to provide an opposing view, in the hope that we can find an enlightening middle ground.  Second, I like to debate because I think I'm fairly decent at it.  That gives me an ego boost.  So yes, mild megalomania perhaps.  Still, why the need for the ad hominem?

Because I dont think playing devil's advocate for the sake of argumentation and as a method of combating "absolutism" is prestigious. I think your motives are purely narcissist and obnoxious. Just because you are smarter than 99% of the world does not mean that they aren't right. You should try actually taking a position and then debating it, rather than just trying to punch holes in everyone else's position. You may impress a few plebs, but critical thinkers see your efforts for what they are, sometimes peripherally informative but otherwise gratuitous showboating.


Quote
Thanks.


You are welcome, now grow up and start contributing substance instead of forcing people to sift through your impressive rhetoric to uncover the fact that you dont have any views of your own. 


Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Gary Glitter on December 07, 2005, 03:46:01 PM
"You are welcome, now grow up and start contributing substance instead of forcing people to sift through your (un)impressive rhetoric to uncover the fact that you dont have any views of your own."

haha . . .what? using nifty catch phrases stolen from the margins of english lit 101 papers does not constitute an effective mode of argument?   

your honor, in responding to the prosecution's arguments, i say: decontextualized!
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: wallaby on December 07, 2005, 05:39:01 PM
Quote
haha . . .what? using nifty catch phrases stolen from the margins of english lit 101 papers does not constitute an effective mode of argument?   

your honor, in responding to the prosecution's arguments, i say: decontextualized!

Lest ye forget many many people score below 150 on the lsat, to them his musings are dazzling, like magic!
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on December 07, 2005, 10:43:21 PM
Quote
Actually, I have no PC doctrine.  This is an unsupported ad hominem.

Yeah, believe what you will, but so far I've only heard you argue from the position of what is considered standard among liberal elites.

Will address shortly.

Quote
I don't see how this argument (or any of my arguments) is part of an agenda of political correctness.  Non-absolutism, definitely.  Critical perception of power constructs and the narrative construction of history (as fact-based mythology), also definitely.  But political correctness?  Nah.  You're not protected from my ire just because you're part of some particular group.

Notions of non-absolutism, power constructs and narrative construction of history are all liberal PC constructs themselves. You may not know that a world exists outside of liberal elitism, but I assure you it does.

Also to be addressed.

Quote
I don't like to polarize like you seem to enjoy doing.  I don't see issues in black and white (excuse the pun).  I don't see anything as an issue of "us versus them"; rather, it's one of "these terms versus those terms".  Solutions usually lie in the grey area somewhere in the middle. 


We couldn't disagree more. Now we are talking philosophy. I personally feel that Plato was right, that there is a difference between belief and knowledge. I derive my conclusions based on hard data, knowledge- I'm not sure how you derive your's, but it seems that you avoid conclusions altogether and prefer to retreat into the relativism of modern liberalism.

Also to be addressed.

Quote
You make this mistake quite often.  I did not imply he is racist.  I implied his line of thinking is racist.  It was an addressal of the premises, not the person.  If you read the full debate, this should be clear to you.

Im dazzled by your shell game. Remember Bill Clinton trying to call into question the meaning of "is"?

Actually, I don't.  Also, please address my argument before you attempt to caricature it.

Quote
The irony of this statement of yours, of course, is that, just like the previous one, it's pure ad hominem.

Ad hominems are necessary when an out of control liberal whacko calls someone a racist for no reason.

Ah, I see.  Also to be addressed.

Quote
Decontextualized.  This issue was specifically addressed.

No, it isn't, and no it wasn't.

Yes, it is, and yes, it was.  For your benefit, this is the relevant link:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26271.msg822513.html#msg822513

Oh, also, Warpig, you still use words you learned in elementary school, right?  So what's wrong with them?  Nothing, when they're the correct terms.  Also, quit jumping on the bandwagon of those who are clearly superior to you.

Quote
Right.  Which is why propounding those factors to someone who may not be aware of them is necessary.

Not sure why you would bother doing so, noone had taken the position that intelligence was measured by academic acheivement.

Actually, they did. 

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26271.msg822202.html#msg822202


Quote
This seems like an odd comment given what I just addressed before it.  In any case, I debate for two reasons.  First, I'd like to provide an opposing view, in the hope that we can find an enlightening middle ground.  Second, I like to debate because I think I'm fairly decent at it.  That gives me an ego boost.  So yes, mild megalomania perhaps.  Still, why the need for the ad hominem?

Because I dont think playing devil's advocate for the sake of argumentation and as a method of combating "absolutism" is prestigious.

Nor do I.  But I think it's fun, and I think it's important.

I think your motives are purely narcissist and obnoxious. Just because you are smarter than 99% of the world does not mean that they aren't right.

Very true.  Funny that you accuse me of being a pure relativist, and then you tell me to stop being such an absolutist.

You should try actually taking a position and then debating it, rather than just trying to punch holes in everyone else's position. You may impress a few plebs, but critical thinkers see your efforts for what they are, sometimes peripherally informative but otherwise gratuitous showboating.

Actually, this method is a part of debate.  In any case, I'm not this caricature you're portraying.  Again, to be addressed.

Quote
Thanks.


You are welcome, now grow up and start contributing substance instead of forcing people to sift through your impressive rhetoric to uncover the fact that you dont have any views of your own. 

Again, the ad hominem and caricature.  Why, I'm not sure.  In any case, it's to be addressed. 


Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: zacharyl20 on December 26, 2005, 06:06:46 PM
I must admit that it is sad to see White americans jealous of URM's. When you think about life in general whites have a much better life than URM's. Many URM's went through very extreme circumstances. Many of us (URM's) have been discrimanated aganist, went to less than desirable pulic schools for our formal educations, etc. Many of us also have single parents who are not highly educated or wealthy. Many White americans went to great high schools in their neighborhoods, they have educated parents who are financially stable, etc. So on average whites have a much better quality of life in America. There is also a psychological problem that minorities must face in America. I challenge any white American to walk into a department store and have a security guard follow them everywhere they go. What do you think that does to minorites psychologically? Minorities have an advantage in one aspect of life and whites are jealous. It is extremely sad and ignorant for anyone to be aganist affrimative action.  Especially, when you consider that African Americans received no reparation for slavery in America. Can whites at least compensate minorites with an opportunity to get a education. It is somewhat comical, whites don't want to support minorites when it comes to social programs and they also don't want to support minorities when it comes to education. One of the ways to help alleviate the amount of money spent on welfare and other social programs, is to give minorities the opportunity to secure a education.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on December 26, 2005, 10:10:35 PM
Dude, is this a flame?

Did you read some of the AA threads on this board?  All your points have been addressed numerous times. 

It is not ignorant for anyone to be against affirmative action; there are real reasons to oppose its legality.

However, as an ideal, and as a pragmatic program for change, affirmative action remains a positive contribution to society.

I won't beat this any further than I already have.  I just suggest you bother reading some of what's already been said.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: zacharyl20 on December 27, 2005, 01:22:50 AM
Dude, is this a flame?

Did you read some of the AA threads on this board?  All your points have been addressed numerous times. 

It is not ignorant for anyone to be against affirmative action; there are real reasons to oppose its legality.

However, as an ideal, and as a pragmatic program for change, affirmative action remains a positive contribution to society.

I won't beat this any further than I already have.  I just suggest you bother reading some of what's already been said.



No my post was not a flame. I could not understand if you were arguing for affriminative action or not. Actually, I did not understand the reason for your post at all. The only argument that I received from your post was that my points were addressed numerous times. Are you implying that because others have suggested my points that I do not have the right to state them. That is clearly aganist my constitutional rights. If you are interested in attending, or if you go to law school I suggest that you get familiar with the constitution. Amendment one gives me freedom of speech, so I can post whatever I want. It does not matter if someone stated it already or not. Your ignorance is blatantly shown in your post.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: FossilJ on December 27, 2005, 01:45:41 AM
 :D

If you want to be redundant, that's your problem.  I'm just letting you know you're not really contributing to the debate, since it really has been discussed numerous times.  It's more a warning than anything else.  Your points have seen a myriad cogent counterarguments on this board.  I'm just saying you should probably look through some of them before someone who does oppose AA jumps all over you.

If you're being sincere (and it appears you are), I should let you know that my initial retort was more aimed at provoking a flame-baiter.  Since you don't seem to be that, don't take any of it to heart.  I'm fishing for trolls, and you're not a troll, so it's all good.

The only point in your post which I do take exception to (if you really want to debate something) is this:

Quote
It is extremely sad and ignorant for anyone to be aganist affrimative action. 

This just suggests that you're not taking the validity of "the other side" seriously.  And, while I do support your end of the argument, there are strong and legitimate arguments opposing affirmative action.  You can't just summarily dismiss them by calling them ignorant if you don't address them.

Also, one more thing.  I don't know how you jumped to this conclusion:

Quote

Are you implying that because others have suggested my points that I do not have the right to state them. That is clearly aganist my constitutional rights.

No.  This is a debate.  I am telling you that you're being redundant.  I'm telling you that you're open to a variety of counters to which you seem brutally exposed right now.  Furthermore, I don't know why you would invoke your constitutional rights when I have absolutely no coercive power over you.  Why be so over-defensive?  How does this have anything to do with rights?  It's simply a conversation.

Anyway, if you do feel like debating AA, start a new thread.  dwtraybi or whatever his name is and I pretty much hijacked this one.  I'd be happy to converse in a "clean" environment.  hahahaha

Hope none of this smacks of aggression.  I'm truly only discussing this. 
 :)
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: Jontor on December 30, 2005, 02:52:23 PM
When I got my score, 166, I danced around the living room in my underwear.  However, after spending time on this site and LSN, I feel like a moron.
I totally agree with you...feel the same
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: jorge on January 10, 2006, 02:12:17 AM
This article also digs waaaay back into history to try and prove it's "aa for whites" theory. What's prevented any minority of the last generation from getting a good job and owning a house?

Wealth differences (not necessarily income differences) produced by years of discrimination, specifically and recently red-lining and the commensurate divestment from urban areas/investment in suburban areas, blockbusting, etc. etc. Lots of things involving mortgages, real estate, and public housing.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: gameswizard on January 10, 2006, 02:26:40 AM
you could be like Michael Jackson, I mean there is always surgery.
to the OP
If you are really adimitt about anti-AA then you would prob. agree that the schools are only hurting themselves by not taking an equally or more qualified canidate like yourself.  Afterall future job placement and success helps determines a school's ranking.  Anyway don't be mad at the individual, this post warrants  that you would not agree with these school's policies anyway.  Why would you want to attend?
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: ImVinny! on April 21, 2006, 02:20:12 PM
I guess in the end it all comes down to wanting to get into the "best school" but even that is different among individuals.
Title: Re: Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist
Post by: norcaldude on April 21, 2006, 02:30:36 PM
I've always considered myself a pretty liberal guy and have supported AA, but I must say that being on this side of the equation sucks.

Feelin gloomy.  Should I wait and see if Bush makes AA illegal?  I've always despised American conservativism but at this rate of anger I'll be a Republican by 30.

Welcome to The Savage Nation!