Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: BJWriter26 on July 23, 2008, 12:31:35 PM

Title: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?
Post by: BJWriter26 on July 23, 2008, 12:31:35 PM
See title
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: schmoo on July 24, 2008, 01:15:00 PM
I suspect that nobody knows.  Law schools don't want to discredit their affirmative action programs by disclosing that minority numbers are significantly lower than white ones.  I wouldn't call you a shoe-in at any of these, but you definitely have a shot in a way that a white applicant with your numbers would not.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLAgetting into T 14?
Post by: BJWriter26 on July 24, 2008, 02:19:19 PM
Does anyone know of any specific LSATs/GPAs of people who got into T-14s?
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: bt on July 24, 2008, 02:41:34 PM
You should make use of www.lawschoolnumbers.com

It looks like this person got into UPenn with lower stats than you http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=technicalgeek

The same person shows to have gotten into Columbia, but it looks like he might have been an exception, even among URMs. 

This person got into Georgetown with much lower GPA, 1 pt higher LSAT:

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=CaribbeanGirl



You can do more research on there, but with your current stats I'm thinking Georgetown is a target, Penn maybe, Columbia no.  You're probably gonna want 3-4 points on the LSAT to have a decent shot at Columbia.  And yeah, URM is going to help you a ton.  Were you a non-URM, there would be no chance.  Having Yale as your undergrad is going to be a significant bump too.  You should have a good cycle.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?
Post by: BJWriter26 on July 25, 2008, 01:49:45 PM
Why not CLS/Penn?
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Migrate on August 02, 2008, 04:03:05 AM
because you have a 159 and a 3.57. duh.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 02, 2008, 08:50:28 AM
because you have a 159 and a 3.57. duh.

no need to be rude.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: NoUsername on August 05, 2008, 01:43:29 PM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Jamie Stringer on August 05, 2008, 02:41:23 PM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony?
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: eruffin on August 06, 2008, 01:40:35 PM
Regarding Op's question: "does anyone know what the average LSAT scores are for minority (specifically black) applicants?"

LSAC has research reports that break down LSAT results by race, gender, region etc.

http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-Regional-Gender-Racial-Ethic-Breakdowns.pdf

This data is a bit old (from the mid-90's) but the average score for a black test taker in 1997-98 was 141.8.  This data of course encompasses all black test takers; I imagine school by school breakdowns like this would be impossible to find.  The complete breakdown by ethnic group is on page 19 of the pdf.

Not to be cheeky, but asking things like "Why not CLS/Penn?" with your stats invites posters to rail against AA.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: snarkygirl on August 12, 2008, 10:12:55 AM
oh i get it.  a legacy should get in with sub-par scores, but a URM should not?  makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Miss P on August 12, 2008, 10:26:56 PM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Pattycake on August 12, 2008, 10:58:01 PM
Except you have some EXCEPTIONAL reason why you should get into a T14 school, I don't see why you should be admitted to these schools because you are black. If you have what it takes,kudos, if you don't suck it up and move on. By the way, I'm black.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 13, 2008, 09:49:56 AM
Except you have some EXCEPTIONAL reason why you should get into a T14 school, I don't see why you should be admitted to these schools because you are black. If you have what it takes,kudos, if you don't suck it up and move on. By the way, I'm black.

Do you want a cookie?
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Pattycake on August 13, 2008, 10:25:23 AM
Except you have some EXCEPTIONAL reason why you should get into a T14 school, I don't see why you should be admitted to these schools because you are black. If you have what it takes,kudos, if you don't suck it up and move on. By the way, I'm black.

Do you want a cookie?


I'd prefer chocolate chip, please!
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: snarkygirl on August 13, 2008, 11:07:14 AM
by the way, i'm black.  that should be pattycakes new sn.  and the last line of his/her personal statement. 
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Jamie Stringer on August 14, 2008, 02:27:36 PM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt


<3 <3 <3
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: ssas on August 22, 2008, 01:27:24 AM
oh i get it.  a legacy should get in with sub-par scores, but a URM should not?  makes perfect sense.

Because an URM should get in with sub-par scores but a legacy shouldn't? Makes perfect sense.

Let's all play the circular logic game. Or maybe figure out that one ridiculous standard doesn't make another ridiculous standard acceptable.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: ssas on August 22, 2008, 01:29:43 AM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Miss P on August 22, 2008, 05:35:14 AM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: ssas on August 22, 2008, 07:42:14 AM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 22, 2008, 07:45:34 AM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

Actually, a phenomena that no one talks about is the fact that unqualified whites are let in over more qualified asians routinely. Nobody ever talks about this though.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: MauveAvenger on August 22, 2008, 07:58:57 AM
phenomena is plural. i think you meant phenomenon  ;D
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Miss P on August 22, 2008, 01:21:08 PM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

My "argument," if that, was merely that people who complain about their rejections when they don't have the standard credentials for admission are unjustifiably positioning themselves as victims.  Doing so displays a sense of entitlement.  This assessment may have been unsolicited, perhaps even slightly rude, but it is in no way "fallacious" or "reactionary." 

Moreover, I question your assumptions about the relative strengths of legacy and race-based affirmative action "boosts."  My (possibly cynical but widely held) perspective is that law school admissions are largely guided by rankings.  If I am correct, law schools have no particular incentive to value a higher LSAT score over a lower LSAT score when choosing between candidates whose scores are definitively below the target 25th percentile, as long as each candidate appears to meet minimal qualifications of likely bar-passage and employability.  Schools are much more likely to base marginal admissions on non-numerical credentials such as personal attributes (legacy, diversity, "fit"), admissions essays, work history, personal accomplishments, dedication to public service, etc.   

The fact that one black marginal candidate was admitted while one white legacy marginal candidate was not evinces no preference for black students over white legacies.  These were just two candidates who brought different sets of attributes and experience to the table.  Assuming that the black student got in merely because of his/her race reveals a tremendous amount of bias.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

Affirmative action is not an "ends-based philosophy"; it is a policy.  Policy-making is all about tailoring means to particular ends.  If it is the ends you question, just say that racial diversity in the profession is not important to you.  That way, we can have a more honest discussion of the issues. 

The kinds of extra consideration some racial minorities receive in admissions would not benefit most Asian American applicants and are unnecessary to ensure that critical masses of Asian American (particularly East Asian and South Asian) students attend most law schools.  Applicants from some Asian American subpopulations, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and other national-ethnic groups that immigrated as refugees, likely do receive some form of extra consideration. 

I do agree with you about one thing: Asian Americans probably face more discrimination than people generally acknowledge.  I don't see how this is an argument against race-based affirmative action.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: ssas on August 24, 2008, 10:22:47 PM

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.


Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

Actually, a phenomena that no one talks about is the fact that unqualified whites are let in over more qualified asians routinely. Nobody ever talks about this though.

Yes, Legacy is probably almost as bad and probably serves just as little purpose. Unfortunately, it's not quite as much of a hot-button topic, it's technically race-blind (besides opportunity to acquire it) and fighting against both legacy admissions and AA is probably asking to be beaten down, not that fighting one is much better.

However, the existence of legacy isn't a rationalization for affirmative action's necessity or morality.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: ssas on August 24, 2008, 10:53:55 PM
My "argument," if that, was merely that people who complain about their rejections when they don't have the standard credentials for admission are unjustifiably positioning themselves as victims.  Doing so displays a sense of entitlement.  This assessment may have been unsolicited, perhaps even slightly rude, but it is in no way "fallacious" or "reactionary." 
It’s fallacious and reactionary because making that your sole argument implies that the basis of his argument is that “I am entitled to admission and AA screwed me over” and precludes other logical explanations like the one I provided. While he may not be a candidate worth admitting into UVA, his rejection with better stats DOES illustrate the profound effects of AA on admission. Too often AA has been aggressively defended by using legacy as a cover. No, neither should be used in admissions but it’s equally illogical to not properly consider the situation because the other is in action.

Moreover, I question your assumptions about the relative strengths of legacy and race-based affirmative action "boosts."  My (possibly cynical but widely held) perspective is that law school admissions are largely guided by rankings.  If I am correct, law schools have no particular incentive to value a higher LSAT score over a lower LSAT score when choosing between candidates whose scores are definitively below the target 25th percentile, as long as each candidate appears to meet minimal qualifications of likely bar-passage and employability.  Schools are much more likely to base marginal admissions on non-numerical credentials such as personal attributes (legacy, diversity, "fit"), admissions essays, work history, personal accomplishments, dedication to public service, etc.   
The same situation would apply to undergraduate admissions where median/percentiles for GPA and SAT can be massaged in the same manner. If you want to question the exact methodology of the Princeton AA study, feel free to but I see no reason why its basic premise is any less valid for law school admissions when law school admissions are (believed) to be more of a numbers game. I have yet to see extensive regression analysis on admissions factors for either besides a claimed “60-70%” of admissions being determined by LSAT.

The fact that one black marginal candidate was admitted while one white legacy marginal candidate was not evinces no preference for black students over white legacies.  These were just two candidates who brought different sets of attributes and experience to the table.  Assuming that the black student got in merely because of his/her race reveals a tremendous amount of bias.
Because of the size of the data set is 1, the comparison, in this case, is of limited value. However, until we see larger meta-analysis of law school admissions statistics (which may never happen because law schools know exactly what the analysis will say) it’s reasonable to suggest that there are similar advantages as in undergraduate admissions. I believe it is ludicrous at this point to claim that merely checking a different box when asked for race doesn’t affect your chances of admission. I would, like you I hope, like to see analysis done on the marginal value of that single decision.

Affirmative action is not an "ends-based philosophy"; it is a policy.  Policy-making is all about tailoring means to particular ends.  If it is the ends you question, just say that racial diversity in the profession is not important to you.  That way, we can have a more honest discussion of the issues. 
Affirmative action is an ends-based philosophy in college admissions. We are utilizing blatant racial preferences for the sake of rectifying “past injustices” and to even “disparities of opportunities.” In other words, we are using racism to fix racism. Great, if you replaced racism with mass murder, you’d recognize that as a Machiavellian, ends-based philosophy.

Furthermore, it’s more ends-based because it determines the specific need for racism by looking at the results. Asians are successful so they don’t need AA. Blacks are poor and have lower test scores so they do.  They are using the end result as a proxy for determining the degree of the original problem.  Do Asians and poor Caucasians not face adversity as well?  Maybe the NBA should give Asians an AA boost during the draft because we are underrepresented in the NBA.

The fundamental premise of AA is irrational, immoral, and, when applied in any other situation to other races, would seem absolutely untenable.  If anything, affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class and should be based on the inputs and not the outputs. Punishing certain groups because they have managed to overcome adversity is a poor choice.

The kinds of extra consideration some racial minorities receive in admissions would not benefit most Asian American applicants and are unnecessary to ensure that critical masses of Asian American (particularly East Asian and South Asian) students attend most law schools.  Applicants from some Asian American subpopulations, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and other national-ethnic groups that immigrated as refugees, likely do receive some form of extra consideration. 

I do agree with you about one thing: Asian Americans probably face more discrimination than people generally acknowledge.  I don't see how this is an argument against race-based affirmative action.
This shouldn’t be about just ensuring critical masses of Asian Americans in law schools; if we want racial parity in every industry, then I will be demanding my NBA contract. Schools should not be using a fundamentally unethical system to “solve” this problem. Moreover, some people can’t seem to accept that, maybe, the fundamental culture experienced by urban Blacks, is not adequate or suited for the modern economy. If they want to be NBA superstars and rappers, I don’t see why I should be punished for having the sense to pursue a professional career.

The destruction of individual responsibility and the weakening of the incentive structure system when you have AA is a much longer argument and my lunch break is almost up. :(
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 25, 2008, 09:10:53 AM
My "argument," if that, was merely that people who complain about their rejections when they don't have the standard credentials for admission are unjustifiably positioning themselves as victims.  Doing so displays a sense of entitlement.  This assessment may have been unsolicited, perhaps even slightly rude, but it is in no way "fallacious" or "reactionary." 
It’s fallacious and reactionary because making that your sole argument implies that the basis of his argument is that “I am entitled to admission and AA screwed me over” and precludes other logical explanations like the one I provided. While he may not be a candidate worth admitting into UVA, his rejection with better stats DOES illustrate the profound effects of AA on admission. Too often AA has been aggressively defended by using legacy as a cover. No, neither should be used in admissions but it’s equally illogical to not properly consider the situation because the other is in action.

Moreover, I question your assumptions about the relative strengths of legacy and race-based affirmative action "boosts."  My (possibly cynical but widely held) perspective is that law school admissions are largely guided by rankings.  If I am correct, law schools have no particular incentive to value a higher LSAT score over a lower LSAT score when choosing between candidates whose scores are definitively below the target 25th percentile, as long as each candidate appears to meet minimal qualifications of likely bar-passage and employability.  Schools are much more likely to base marginal admissions on non-numerical credentials such as personal attributes (legacy, diversity, "fit"), admissions essays, work history, personal accomplishments, dedication to public service, etc.   
The same situation would apply to undergraduate admissions where median/percentiles for GPA and SAT can be massaged in the same manner. If you want to question the exact methodology of the Princeton AA study, feel free to but I see no reason why its basic premise is any less valid for law school admissions when law school admissions are (believed) to be more of a numbers game. I have yet to see extensive regression analysis on admissions factors for either besides a claimed “60-70%” of admissions being determined by LSAT.

The fact that one black marginal candidate was admitted while one white legacy marginal candidate was not evinces no preference for black students over white legacies.  These were just two candidates who brought different sets of attributes and experience to the table.  Assuming that the black student got in merely because of his/her race reveals a tremendous amount of bias.
Because of the size of the data set is 1, the comparison, in this case, is of limited value. However, until we see larger meta-analysis of law school admissions statistics (which may never happen because law schools know exactly what the analysis will say) it’s reasonable to suggest that there are similar advantages as in undergraduate admissions. I believe it is ludicrous at this point to claim that merely checking a different box when asked for race doesn’t affect your chances of admission. I would, like you I hope, like to see analysis done on the marginal value of that single decision.

Affirmative action is not an "ends-based philosophy"; it is a policy.  Policy-making is all about tailoring means to particular ends.  If it is the ends you question, just say that racial diversity in the profession is not important to you.  That way, we can have a more honest discussion of the issues. 
Affirmative action is an ends-based philosophy in college admissions. We are utilizing blatant racial preferences for the sake of rectifying “past injustices” and to even “disparities of opportunities.” In other words, we are using racism to fix racism. Great, if you replaced racism with mass murder, you’d recognize that as a Machiavellian, ends-based philosophy.

Furthermore, it’s more ends-based because it determines the specific need for racism by looking at the results. Asians are successful so they don’t need AA. Blacks are poor and have lower test scores so they do.  They are using the end result as a proxy for determining the degree of the original problem.  Do Asians and poor Caucasians not face adversity as well?  Maybe the NBA should give Asians an AA boost during the draft because we are underrepresented in the NBA.

The fundamental premise of AA is irrational, immoral, and, when applied in any other situation to other races, would seem absolutely untenable.  If anything, affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class and should be based on the inputs and not the outputs. Punishing certain groups because they have managed to overcome adversity is a poor choice.

The kinds of extra consideration some racial minorities receive in admissions would not benefit most Asian American applicants and are unnecessary to ensure that critical masses of Asian American (particularly East Asian and South Asian) students attend most law schools.  Applicants from some Asian American subpopulations, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and other national-ethnic groups that immigrated as refugees, likely do receive some form of extra consideration. 

I do agree with you about one thing: Asian Americans probably face more discrimination than people generally acknowledge.  I don't see how this is an argument against race-based affirmative action.
This shouldn’t be about just ensuring critical masses of Asian Americans in law schools; if we want racial parity in every industry, then I will be demanding my NBA contract. Schools should not be using a fundamentally unethical system to “solve” this problem. Moreover, some people can’t seem to accept that, maybe, the fundamental culture experienced by urban Blacks, is not adequate or suited for the modern economy. If they want to be NBA superstars and rappers, I don’t see why I should be punished for having the sense to pursue a professional career.

The destruction of individual responsibility and the weakening of the incentive structure system when you have AA is a much longer argument and my lunch break is almost up. :(



WOW.


Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: SwEep on September 09, 2008, 02:51:22 PM
I'm a black history major at Yale with a 3.57 and a 159. Though I'm taking the LSAT again in October, do you know what chances I have currently to get into a T 14 (preferably Columbia, UPenn, and Georgetown)? Also, does anyone know what the average LSAT scores are for minority (specifically black) applicants?

u r black.

in at all
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: SwEep on September 09, 2008, 02:55:00 PM
I'm a black history major at Yale with a 3.57 and a 159. Though I'm taking the LSAT again in October, do you know what chances I have currently to get into a T 14 (preferably Columbia, UPenn, and Georgetown)? Also, does anyone know what the average LSAT scores are for minority (specifically black) applicants?
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on September 17, 2008, 08:30:59 PM
I'm a black history major at Yale with a 3.57 and a 159. Though I'm taking the LSAT again in October, do you know what chances I have currently to get into a T 14 (preferably Columbia, UPenn, and Georgetown)? Also, does anyone know what the average LSAT scores are for minority (specifically black) applicants?

I'm not even going to bother to read this thread b/c I have zero tolerance for the asinine comments I'm sure your post elicited.    I think your LSAT is low, and you definitely need to re-take with serious exam prep.  This is not an intelligence test; you can totally learn the tricks to master the exam.  How are you prepping?  I recommend Powerscore.  (Search the board for more info.)  Self-study was my route, but if I had been an undergraduate student when I applied to LS, I definitely would've used all that extra time and energy (which I know you think you don't have, but trust me, you do) to take the course. 

How have you been studying since your first exam?  If you haven't been on a serious plan, I suggest you postpone the Oct. test and take it in....December? (the details of the LSAT seem like a distant memory now that I'm a 2L).  As for your GPA, it's decent enough that you should have options if you can up your LSAT.  The GPA is not stellar, but you are at Yale.  Unless Yale has serious grade inflation issues (a subject on which I'm uninformed), your 3.57 isn't the equivalent of that same score at some other institutions.

Anyway, good luck to you with your re-test and law school admissions cycle!
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?
Post by: BJWriter26 on September 17, 2008, 08:45:45 PM
Okay. Yeah, I've basically been doing practice exams and study books every day since the beginning of September. Do you have any specific suggestions for how to study/organize my time? Also, do you mind me asking what your stats were to get into HLS (you can PM me if you want).
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on September 17, 2008, 09:01:52 PM
As for structuring your time, I'm sure there are good posts up here about that.  I've probably written one at some point.  I will try to find it and link it to you b/c it's too late to try and type all that out right now.  If I don't send it to you by tomorrow, remind me.  Basic gist: At this point, make sure you're taking timed tests.  Block out the 3? hrs. and sit down with your timer and take the test in one sitting under real conditions (e.g. no tv, radio, interruptions, etc.)  Most importantly -- go over every single answer you got wrong and figure out *why.*  Practice, practice, practice.  Review, review, review.  That's my basic advice in a nutshell.  The night before the test, don't stress.  Do very little studying if any at all.  Get a good night's sleep, have a good breakfast in the a.m., and go rock that test!!!!

As for stats, I don't share personal info over the internet.  I wouldn't spend your time worrying about who got what and who went where though.  You're going to find black students below the 25th percentile and above the 75th percentile at every competitive law school.  And contrary to what the hype on this board would lead you to believe, you're also going to find white students below the 25th percentile and above the 75th percentile at every major law school, too.  At this stage in the game, just focus on upping your LSAT and putting together a really strong application.  If you do, you will have great options!
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 159 from Yale getting into T 14?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 17, 2008, 11:22:29 PM
In re-reading my posts, I just realized that I didn't give the OP any advice.

I'm glad to hear that you're retaking.

Basically, logical reasoning tests six different skills (i.e., finding the assumption, strengthening the argument, weakening the argument, etc). The most important thing is reading the question, understanding what skill is being tested and applying the strategies to attack the question type. So if I were you, I'd get the logic reasoning bible and learn the question types and how to attack the questions. Also, I had a problem with time on logical reasoning when I initially started taking the test. The problem was that the end of the section would always have the last 3 or 4 questions be really hard and I'd run out of time. What I did to remedy the problem was to do the LR section backwards. I'd start with the last question and work my way down to the first question.  This had two benefits: 1) I had enough time and 2) I started with the most difficult questions so my brain immediately was prepared to think about the questions at a high level. Indeed, mastering logical reasoning is simply a matter of learning strategies and applying them while figuring out the best way to manage the time limitations you are faced with. Easier said than done, but practice + the bible will help.

I loved reading comprehension, but this is where time really matters. You have to attack science passages in a certain way, you have to attack humanties passages in a certain way, history passages in a certain way, etc. When you practice, look for the similarities in the question types in the science passages for example. They are recurring. I can't explain it now, but if you search for some 2006 RC threads, there's lots of advice that a bunch of us compiled about RC.

Ok, games...games was my weakest section when I started and it became my strength at test time. What I did was make 10 copies of every single game ever tested and I did them all the time. Over and over and over and over again. Eventually, I knew the right answers to the questions, but the focus wasn't on the right answer...it was on the process to get the right answer. How to diagram quickly and correctly. How to see the relationships and make inferences. Practicing games over and over again will make it second nature. When I started practicing the LSAT, I'd routinely run out of time and get something like 15 or 16 out of 24 wrong. When I took the test, I had something like 10 minutes to spare and didn't miss any.

Oh and with your current stats, you'll probably get into UVA, Northwestern, Cornell and maybe Georgetown. You're going to want to get into the mid 160s to have a shot at Umich, Harvard, Columbia, NYU, etc.
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?
Post by: william1900 on July 26, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
User has been banned due to spamming

-PJC
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?
Post by: exgratia on December 14, 2010, 02:03:11 PM
An AA with those numbers, provided that everything else is in order, will likely get into Yale. The question is should you go somewhere where your numbers aren't as 75% of the students. How are you going to make top-10%?
Title: Re: Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?
Post by: ipscientific on February 13, 2012, 08:45:25 PM
See title

I think they are great numbers. You should get in.