Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: luboman411 on October 09, 2008, 02:14:52 PM

Title: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: luboman411 on October 09, 2008, 02:14:52 PM
I am no Ward Connelly (sp?), God forbid, but I do think that the racial AA status quo is just too unfair at this point.  I am a URM from an impoverished background who feels that, nowadays, the greatest barrier in this country is not race, per se, but class.  It seems like it's much harder for your average poor white kid from West Virginia to advance than for a black kid with lawyer/banker parents who lives in NYC.  I went to an elite liberal arts college in New England and found a greater number of the latter and far fewer of the former.  That struck me as patently unjust, especially since the former a) definitely represents a much larger percentage of the U.S. population as a whole and b) the latter most likely had gotten a leg up due to traditional race-based AA.  Point being, I would rather law school (or any graduate or undegrad) admissions committees emphasize far more strongly the class background of applicants and ditch, on a large scale, the racial categories that are central to their idea of "diversity".  Considering that class inequality is at its worst in this country since 1929, and that a smaller and smaller share of the student bodies at the most highly selective colleges come from middle- and lower-class backgrounds, I would love to see fewer privileged black and hispanic students and more obviously poor white and asian students at these places.  Doing this would not likely dent the number of poor hispanics and blacks at these schools because being of these races almost always means being poor in certain sections of the country.  This measure would at least preclude people who obviously don't need the help from getting it.  And I would know these colleges are doing at least something to mitigate the growing class disparity that will destabilize the U.S. sooner or later.  I also hate the whole informal AA system that legacies enjoy (i.e. I know of this white straight guy who got into Yale Law without neither winning academic honors of any kind nor having even graduated at the top 25% of my class, whereas some people didn't even get in with Phi Beta Kappas, summa cum laudes and top 5% ranks), but that's a topic for a future rant. 

 
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 11:33:58 AM
I don't think that class AA would be sufficient. If you had a white student and a black student who grew up in the same class....the black student would still have a tougher experience trying to advance.Why?? Because he is black. I think racism has been so detrimental to minorities that having class AA would be pointless. Racism is the root cause of all the issues that affect minorities today, so therefore race AA is needed. Hopefully, we can get to a point one day when it is not need at all
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: j23 on October 11, 2008, 11:36:50 AM
How about getting rid of AA altogether? The middle class seems to lose either way. I believe that people should get in based on academic ability, not hardships one has faced.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 11:40:03 AM
Pardon Johnny, what's funny is that I never even read your post. I was just responding to the OP. Ooops your bad! But nice to know we think alike.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 11:41:59 AM
How about getting rid of AA altogether? The middle class seems to lose either way. I believe that people should get in based on academic ability, not hardships one has faced.


Do you consider racism a hardship?
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Matthies on October 11, 2008, 11:54:15 AM
Being black is physiological.

Being poor is a choice.

If your family is white and you have been in this county for more than 2-3 generations and youíre still poor Ė youíre doing it wrong.    Why should we reward the spawn of folks who obviously canít achieve the American Dream with no outside pressure keeping them downtrodden by giving them a preference in education? Seems like we are valuing the wrong work ethic that way.

We donít have a caste system in the US. If your born white you have no systematic history of racism keeping you from achieving whatever you want. Your are not forced from the outside to remain poor. Baring catastrophic illness being poor and raising poor children is a CHOICE. People choose to take low paying jobs, forgo education, have children before they can afford them, not work two jobs Ė whatever that therefore results in them having less money that a similar person who made different choices. No one puts a gun to your head as says your born poor therefore you must stay poor forever. Sam Walton, Warren Buffet and many other rich Americans were born poor. In fact in the US most people were originally poor and built their wealth through generations of families putting their own rewards aside so their children could have better lives -  not because the government gave them a handout.

We donít have a landed arostoricry here. Other people, many times immigrants and minorities, choose to work two or more jobs or start their own 7-11 or whatever so their children can have it better than they do. Giving someoneís kids a leg up because they failed to make the choices in life that would allow their children to have more than they did is the not the American way. In this country we have always valued those that brought themselves up by their own bootstraps changing the system to favor those who donít do so is un-American. While you may not favor race based AA, race is at least a universal factor that is not the result of oneís choices in life.

PS. Yes I am a classist basterd.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 12:22:37 PM
Being black is physiological.

Being poor is a choice.

If your family is white and you have been in this county for more than 2-3 generations and youíre still poor Ė youíre doing it wrong.    Why should we reward the spawn of folks who obviously canít achieve the American Dream with no outside pressure keeping them downtrodden by giving them a preference in education? Seems like we are valuing the wrong work ethic that way.

We donít have a caste system in the US. If your born white you have no systematic history of racism keeping you from achieving whatever you want. Your are not forced from the outside to remain poor. Baring catastrophic illness being poor and raising poor children is a CHOICE. People choose to take low paying jobs, forgo education, have children before they can afford them, not work two jobs Ė whatever that therefore results in them having less money that a similar person who made different choices. No one puts a gun to your head as says your born poor therefore you must stay poor forever. Sam Walton, Warren Buffet and many other rich Americans were born poor. In fact in the US most people were originally poor and built their wealth through generations of families putting their own rewards aside so their children could have better lives -  not because the government gave them a handout.

We donít have a landed arostoricry here. Other people, many times immigrants and minorities, choose to work two or more jobs or start their own 7-11 or whatever so their children can have it better than they do. Giving someoneís kids a leg up because they failed to make the choices in life that would allow their children to have more than they did is the not the American way. In this country we have always valued those that brought themselves up by their own bootstraps changing the system to favor those who donít do so is un-American. While you may not favor race based AA, race is at least a universal factor that is not the result of oneís choices in life.

PS. Yes I am a classist basterd.




I concur :)
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: j23 on October 11, 2008, 12:41:35 PM
I do not think that people can defeat racism with racism. Also, how can a school determine whether a person has been the object of racism? If you are black, does that mean you have faced discrimination? If you are white, does that mean you have not faced discrimination? I think it is absurd that some people believe that everything that is wrong in the black community is a result of racism. If AA is necessary, how long will it take before it will become unnecessary? In my opinion, AA is reverse racism. I do not think it helps to alleviate racism, but further promote it. An example of this is Clarence Thomas. Many people think that the only reason he got into Yale was because of AA, not because of his brilliance and hard work. With AA in place, many people assume that their black classmates are there as a result of AA, not a result of their talent. This needs to stop. We do not need to constantly class people by their physical characteristics. We do not need one race believing that another race owes them something, or one race thinking another has an unfair advantage just because of the color of their skin. I was born in 1986, do not hold me accountable for something SOME WHITE people subjected SOME BLACK people to long before I was born.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 12:54:56 PM
I do not think that people can defeat racism with racism. Also, how can a school determine whether a person has been the object of racism? If you are black, does that mean you have faced discrimination? If you are white, does that mean you have not faced discrimination? I think it is absurd that some people believe that everything that is wrong in the black community is a result of racism. If AA is necessary, how long will it take before it will become unnecessary? In my opinion, AA is reverse racism. I do not think it helps to alleviate racism, but further promote it. An example of this is Clarence Thomas. Many people think that the only reason he got into Yale was because of AA, not because of his brilliance and hard work. With AA in place, many people assume that their black classmates are there as a result of AA, not a result of their talent. This needs to stop. We do not need to constantly class people by their physical characteristics. We do not need one race believing that another race owes them something, or one race thinking another has an unfair advantage just because of the color of their skin. I was born in 1986, do not hold me accountable for something SOME WHITE people subjected SOME BLACK people to long before I was born.

That something that SOME white people subjected SOME Black people to was RACISM and it is still prevalent today. Don't try to down play how detrimental racism was not only to Black people, but to this nation as a whole. I wish that AA was not necessary, but the fact remains it is necessary. Try walking in a minorities shoes for a day and you'll see what it feels like to be denied something not because you were not intelligent enough, but because of the color of your skin.

Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: MauveAvenger on October 11, 2008, 01:06:08 PM
Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 01:24:09 PM
Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.

I guess now you see what we black people have suffered from for centuries.Your experience still does not compare...white people still have it much easier in our society...Explain to me why it is that even with AA the number of blacks that get accepted and attend law school is still significantly lower than that of white people? If we did not have AA...damn some of us would not even have a chance. I guess that would make you feel better.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: MauveAvenger on October 11, 2008, 01:37:22 PM
Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.

I guess now you see what we black people have suffered from for centuries.Your experience still does not compare...white people still have it much easier in our society...Explain to me why it is that even with AA the number of blacks that get accepted and attend law school is still significantly lower than that of white people? If we did not have AA...damn some of us would not even have a chance. I guess that would make you feel better.

Maybe because there ARE fewer blacks in this country. Maybe of that minority number, not as many apply to law school as whites do. Maybe there is __% of blacks because that's the percentage of the applicant pool they make up. Doesn't mean standards should be lowered, often 8+ LSAT points, just to let more in to law school.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 01:57:40 PM
Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.

I guess now you see what we black people have suffered from for centuries.Your experience still does not compare...white people still have it much easier in our society...Explain to me why it is that even with AA the number of blacks that get accepted and attend law school is still significantly lower than that of white people? If we did not have AA...damn some of us would not even have a chance. I guess that would make you feel better.

Maybe because there ARE fewer blacks in this country. Maybe of that minority number, not as many apply to law school as whites do. Maybe there is __% of blacks because that's the percentage of the applicant pool they make up. Doesn't mean standards should be lowered, often 8+ LSAT points, just to let more in to law school.



You are just oblivious to the reality that we live in. I value your opinion and I understand your frustrations, but you just don't get it. We as a race were suppressed for centuries and were prohibited from things such as reading and attending good schools. We were and still are denied access from many resources.  Having said that many African-Americans do not succeed at a rate that could succeed, because many are not given the resources to do so. That is why the bar is lowered for minorities.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Matthies on October 11, 2008, 04:31:14 PM
I do not think that people can defeat racism with racism. Also, how can a school determine whether a person has been the object of racism? If you are black, does that mean you have faced discrimination? If you are white, does that mean you have not faced discrimination? I think it is absurd that some people believe that everything that is wrong in the black community is a result of racism. If AA is necessary, how long will it take before it will become unnecessary? In my opinion, AA is reverse racism. I do not think it helps to alleviate racism, but further promote it. An example of this is Clarence Thomas. Many people think that the only reason he got into Yale was because of AA, not because of his brilliance and hard work. With AA in place, many people assume that their black classmates are there as a result of AA, not a result of their talent. This needs to stop. We do not need to constantly class people by their physical characteristics. We do not need one race believing that another race owes them something, or one race thinking another has an unfair advantage just because of the color of their skin. I was born in 1986, do not hold me accountable for something SOME WHITE people subjected SOME BLACK people to long before I was born.

And after 100 tears or so of reverse racism I think we could call it even then. I know as a whitey I would like to say, whoops sorry about that whole slavery thing, jim crow laws, not letting you into our law schools until 30 years ago and everything else we did bad, but alls forgiven now, we are equal now, I was not born then, so lets just get rid of any benifit you have no matter how small it is in comparison to the benifit we had for 200+ years, thats fair right? kthxbi.

Beside this whole conversation has nothing really to do with AA and has more to do with certain peoples sense of entitlement that they should be able to go to certain school, like they have that right, and someone is taking their spot so they are pissed. You know whoís taken your spots? Not the blacks, the damn womenz, they are are 51% of most entering classes, they should be in the home making babies. Want to blame someone for AA, women invented it, other minorities just saw what a great tool it was and picked up the banner. Mad you canít get into Yale? Blame your mother for being so uppity and demanding equal treatment they ruined it for all white males.
 
Otherwise STFU lifeís not fair, and thinking it is or should be is what we get for raising a generation of pampered coddled kids who got trophy just for playing in little league even though they lost every single damn game. Youíre not gifted, youíre not special, youíre not entitled to go to some school just because you work hard, no matter what your mom told you. The world does not owe you anything and you donít get rewarded just for trying hard. Sorry but thatís the breaks. Deal with it.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: j23 on October 11, 2008, 06:00:11 PM

And after 100 tears or so of reverse racism I think we could call it even then. I know as a whitey I would like to say, whoops sorry about that whole slavery thing, jim crow laws, not letting you into our law schools until 30 years ago and everything else we did bad, but alls forgiven now, we are equal now, I was not born then, so lets just get rid of any benifit you have no matter how small it is in comparison to the benifit we had for 200+ years, thats fair right? kthxbi.

Beside this whole conversation has nothing really to do with AA and has more to do with certain peoples sense of entitlement that they should be able to go to certain school, like they have that right, and someone is taking their spot so they are pissed. You know whoís taken your spots? Not the blacks, the damn womenz, they are are 51% of most entering classes, they should be in the home making babies. Want to blame someone for AA, women invented it, other minorities just saw what a great tool it was and picked up the banner. Mad you canít get into Yale? Blame your mother for being so uppity and demanding equal treatment they ruined it for all white males.
 
Otherwise STFU lifeís not fair, and thinking it is or should be is what we get for raising a generation of pampered coddled kids who got trophy just for playing in little league even though they lost every single damn game. Youíre not gifted, youíre not special, youíre not entitled to go to some school just because you work hard, no matter what your mom told you. The world does not owe you anything and you donít get rewarded just for trying hard. Sorry but thatís the breaks. Deal with it.


First of all, why argue against my argument by making my argument? Are you nuts? THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE ME ANYTHING? You are exactly right. Neither does the world owe anyone else anything based on the color of their skin. I am against the principle of affirmative action, not the people who receive the benefits of it.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Jamie Stringer on October 11, 2008, 06:47:02 PM
I do not think that people can defeat racism with racism. Also, how can a school determine whether a person has been the object of racism? If you are black, does that mean you have faced discrimination? If you are white, does that mean you have not faced discrimination? I think it is absurd that some people believe that everything that is wrong in the black community is a result of racism. If AA is necessary, how long will it take before it will become unnecessary? In my opinion, AA is reverse racism. I do not think it helps to alleviate racism, but further promote it. An example of this is Clarence Thomas. Many people think that the only reason he got into Yale was because of AA, not because of his brilliance and hard work. With AA in place, many people assume that their black classmates are there as a result of AA, not a result of their talent. This needs to stop. We do not need to constantly class people by their physical characteristics. We do not need one race believing that another race owes them something, or one race thinking another has an unfair advantage just because of the color of their skin. I was born in 1986, do not hold me accountable for something SOME WHITE people subjected SOME BLACK people to long before I was born.

The bolded is an example of racism that, according to you, still exists to this day.

Your rationale for eliminating AA (that some people have the racist tendency to think their black classmates aren't equally qualified to be in law school) isn't a good enough reason to scrap the system.  Arguably, that's enough of a reason to keep the system even longer.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on October 11, 2008, 06:56:18 PM
I'll bite, albeit very, very hesitantly.

I don't think anyone would dispute that African-Americans, as a race, have endured a great deal of discrimination throughout American history. Then again, the same case could be made for Asian-Americans (see: Japanese internment camps during WWII, Chinese Exclusion Acts, etc.), Native Americans (obviously), Hispanics, and even in more recent cases but on a more limited basis, Arab-Americans. However, many of these groups do not enjoy the same type of easily identifiable bump in the admissions process, and the idea of quantitatively trying to weigh the pain and suffering of one race over the other seems to be inherently ridiculous.

So you noted that many African-Americans are not given the resources to succeed, and I won't dispute that either. However, is this due to discrimination or a lack of economic resources, and if it is the latter, is it exclusive to lower-income families solely of African-American descent? While discrimination does still exist in this country, I would argue that it does not have a large effect on the two primary factors for admission into law schools--the LSAT and your GPA, and does not exist among the overwhelming majority of adcomms. Now, a lack of resources may have a quantifiable effect on those numbers, especially if one has to support one's self throughout college (detracting from time that could be spent studying for class or getting involved in extracurriculars), and that should certainly be taken into account. But racism alone cannot justify one applicant getting in over another, and AA cannot function as a "make-up" for the sins of past generations when it basically handicaps future generations of other races who essentially were not involved in it. I don't think that the U.S. could ever really apologize adequately for what slavery was, but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to essentially punish the applicants of the present for those sins.

Given equal resources to prepare adequately for the LSAT and do well in school, it would seem unfair for you to benefit from the hardships your ancestors suffered. After all, under such an assumption, you have been given the exact same opportunity to succeed; why should you be allowed to hurdle over another applicant with identical merits? In a slightly perverse way, it shares a common thread with the argument against legacy admits--you shouldn't be able to get an edge based on the past accomplishments of your ancestors, nor should you be able to be able to gain an edge based upon the past injustices perpetrated against them. Grades on the law school level (at least one assumes; I'm not quite there yet, but I would hope that this is a fair assumption) are solely merit-based, so why should admissions be any different?


Hispanics and Native Americans do receive affirmative action. This is a well-documented fact. Many Asians do not benefit because remedying past discrimination cannot be the sole purpose for an affirmative action program, there must be another compelling state interest (see, Bakke). Since Asians aren't underrepresented, they don't get affirmative action. Of course, Bakke doesn't apply to private institutions, but again, Asians don't appear to be underrepresented at those schools.

I think you'd be wise to look at our trusts and estates system and how people pass on wealth and property to future generations. It is beyond argument that future generations benefit from the wealth, influence, and position of their ancestors. A bright young individual may think that his opportunities and success are solely a reflection of his abilities, but he's probably mistaken.

I won't go into a history of discrimination against African Americans unless you force me, but suffice to say, African Americans as a group had not been able to build significant wealth, contacts or political influence until the mid 1960s. Compare that to a group which had been building wealth for 10 or more generations. And I won't even get into housing policy or private loan discrimination which prevented significant black entrepreneurship well into the mid 1970s.

The point being is that the past discrimination has been determinative in the lack of economic resources for many Black Americans and that many young Americans today have actively benefited FROM that past discrimination even if they did not actively participate in perpetuating it.

Now, I think you gravely mis-characterize the affirmative action programs, at least how they exist today in our nation's colleges and universities. I don't think Black kids are getting in over white kids solely because of their race. If that were true, you'd have Blacks with sub-par scores getting over likely admits (in fact, affirmative action displaces white kids who probably would not have gotten in anyways). I think affirmative action works in two ways: 1) you have a small group of Black kids who are objectively qualified to get in to a particular school. Affirmative action assures that this group is admitted; and 2) you have a group of individuals are the margins and race is used as one of many factors to admit students to a class. It is my understanding that individuals admitted here must also have superior recommendations, great essays, etc. It should be noted, that some whites are also admitted with sub-par numbers. While it is true that race benefits Black applicants at the margins more than white applicants, the policy justification of diversity has been held to be constitutionally permissible. In fact, diversity positively impacts a student body in many ways that a homogeneous student body does not. This justification is separate from the remedying past discrimination rationale.

Having said all of that, the problem I have with affirmative action is that it in many cases negatively impacts African Americans economically. Because many African Americans have low entrance scores, they also (as one would expect) perform poorly in law school. Their poor performance 1) causes many Blacks to drop out of law school prior to graduation and 2)decreases the chances that they'll pass the bar.

The result is obvious. Now many of those African Americans have wasted 3 years in which they could be doing something else (an opportunity cost) and have also wasted thousands of dollars much of which are loans which they have to pay back. Obviously, this is not a problem at most elite schools, but becomes more of a problem outside of elite schools. I think schools should heavily monitor their African American retention and adjust their policies accordingly. If they are admitting students that simply aren't likely to succeed, then that does more harm than good imo.

 

Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class
Post by: eruffin on October 11, 2008, 07:54:33 PM
The below link lists LSAT scores broken down by race for Arizona, Arizona State, and Nebraska.  For these schools at least, the data suggests that many black/hispanic admits are decidedly under-qualified rather than only marginally qualified.  For example, the 75th percentile LSAT score for black applicants is below the 25th percentile for white applicants five of seven instances charted.  These numbers may not be representative of other law schools' admission practices.  However, to the extent they are representative, it seems that race is not one of many factors, but rather the determining factor for many minority admits.

This is not really an argument for or against AA;  the argument in favor might well legitimize the practice.  This does suggest, though, that it is incorrect to minimize race as a factor in admission decisions.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/arizona-arizona.html#more
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class
Post by: eruffin on October 11, 2008, 09:26:22 PM
Quote
Now, I think you gravely mis-characterize the affirmative action programs, at least how they exist today in our nation's colleges and universities. I don't think Black kids are getting in over white kids solely because of their race. If that were true, you'd have Blacks with sub-par scores getting over likely admits (in fact, affirmative action displaces white kids who probably would not have gotten in anyways). I think affirmative action works in two ways: 1) you have a small group of Black kids who are objectively qualified to get in to a particular school. Affirmative action assures that this group is admitted; and 2) you have a group of individuals are the margins and race is used as one of many factors to admit students to a class

To me, at least, this minimizes the effect of race on admissions.

As to the point about a leap of faith, it seems to really be an argument in favor of de-emphasizing the lsat instead of an argument in favor of affirmative action.  As long as law schools treat the lsat as an important proxy for law school aptitude, a candidate's lsat score is by definition a large part of what makes a candidate qualified or unqualified.  If lsat scores were less a factor in admissions, this might not be the case.

So the admissions system (writ large) uses the lsat as a measuring stick to gauge qualification for law school (I think this is true, how many times is someone told to go retake on this board?).  Your argument about prep time, money, special classes, etc. strongly contests the validity of this measure (all other things are not constant).  But saying that the measure is flawed is an argument in favor of finding a better measure. Using the lsat as the would be objective measuring stick for most candidates while insisting that certain subgroups of candidates are qualified even though they would not be if judged as other candidates are seems unfair unless the discrimination between groups is aimed at addressing the disparity in access to prep.   

Race does not strike me as a particularly effective proxy for access to prep materials. Arguing that the lsat is a flawed metric because of unequal access to prep materials and classes seems to make a stronger case for socioeconomic based AA than for race based AA--on the grounds that socioeconomic status would make a better proxy for access to prep, good high schools, good colleges, etc.


 

 
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Clayton on October 13, 2008, 05:01:25 PM
I'm against AA because of my life experience.

I went to a poor predominantly black (88%) high school. I had smart black friends and equally smart white friends. My black friends, who could not otherwise afford college, received scholarships. My white friends, who could not afford college, received no scholarships. My white friends are now stuck in relatively crappy jobs.



Just to highlight how extreme it was at my school. My friend Mike, who was white, scored a 1200 on the SAT (old score measure) 3.8gpa applied to 4 state schools, he was accepted to all but did not qualify for any scholarships. Mike is the son of single mom school teacher with 5 kids making 35k a year. He did not attend a university, while he hopes to someday too.
My other friend Dave, who was black, scored just over 900 on the SAT with a lower GPA, a low 3, applied to several schools and received a scholarship to most of them. He went to school for 2 years before dropping out.

With state undergrad institutions, I have issue with the awarding of scholarship money based on race. With grad schools, I have issues with basically every aspect. Grad school admittance and scholarship offers should be merit based.

Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: zippyandzap on December 10, 2008, 08:58:43 AM
I'm against AA because of my life experience.

I went to a poor predominantly black (88%) high school. I had smart black friends and equally smart white friends. My black friends, who could not otherwise afford college, received scholarships. My white friends, who could not afford college, received no scholarships. My white friends are now stuck in relatively crappy jobs.



Just to highlight how extreme it was at my school. My friend Mike, who was white, scored a 1200 on the SAT (old score measure) 3.8gpa applied to 4 state schools, he was accepted to all but did not qualify for any scholarships. Mike is the son of single mom school teacher with 5 kids making 35k a year. He did not attend a university, while he hopes to someday too.
My other friend Dave, who was black, scored just over 900 on the SAT with a lower GPA, a low 3, applied to several schools and received a scholarship to most of them. He went to school for 2 years before dropping out.

With state undergrad institutions, I have issue with the awarding of scholarship money based on race. With grad schools, I have issues with basically every aspect. Grad school admittance and scholarship offers should be merit based.



disgusting.
shameful.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: LawDog3 on January 06, 2009, 12:31:55 AM
I'm against AA because of my life experience.

I went to a poor predominantly black (88%) high school. I had smart black friends and equally smart white friends. My black friends, who could not otherwise afford college, received scholarships. My white friends, who could not afford college, received no scholarships. My white friends are now stuck in relatively crappy jobs.



Just to highlight how extreme it was at my school. My friend Mike, who was white, scored a 1200 on the SAT (old score measure) 3.8gpa applied to 4 state schools, he was accepted to all but did not qualify for any scholarships. Mike is the son of single mom school teacher with 5 kids making 35k a year. He did not attend a university, while he hopes to someday too.
My other friend Dave, who was black, scored just over 900 on the SAT with a lower GPA, a low 3, applied to several schools and received a scholarship to most of them. He went to school for 2 years before dropping out.

With state undergrad institutions, I have issue with the awarding of scholarship money based on race. With grad schools, I have issues with basically every aspect. Grad school admittance and scholarship offers should be merit based.



disgusting.
shameful.

First, why are you speaking of your black "friend" in that manner? Dropping out doesn't equate with failure. The last time I checked, students could go back to school, and most students do not finish within the prescribed four-year time frame.

As a URM, I have struggled mightily with the AA issue. I once naively believed that replacing race-based AA with economic/class-based AA would benefit the good of society. But I want to offer this Amicus Brief/Amici Curiae for Grutter v. Bollinger, (created by HYS students) for thought:

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/News_&_Events/BLSA_Amicus_Brief.pdf

Below is an excerpt from that brief:

ALTERNATIVE RACE-NEUTRAL ADMISSIONS
POLICIES CRITICALLY DIMINISH THE NUMBER
OF BLACK STUDENTS AT ELITE LAW
SCHOOLS AND ARE NOT EFFECTIVE SUBSTITUTES
FOR CURRENT RACE-CONSCIOUS
ADMISSIONS POLICIES


As discussed above, elite law schools fulfill their
public missions by providing racially diverse academic
environments and training attorneys to improve the legal
profession and serve the public. These law schools cannot
continue to realize their missions if they are not able to
consider race as one factor in admissions decisions.

The 21 leading approaches that have been touted as viable race-neutral
alternatives to current law school admissions
policies that take race into account are not in fact
effective, workable or desirable with respect to elite law
schools. Abandoning race-conscious admissions at elite law
schools would lead to a catastrophic reversal of the incremental
progress toward greater racial inclusiveness that
these schools have made. For black students, a shift to a
color-blind or race-neutral admissions system would lead
to admissions results that are tantamount to ďthe inexorable
zero.Ē

Cf. Johnson v. Transp. Agency, 480 U.S. 616,
656-57 (1987) (OíConnor, J., concurring) (quoting International
Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324,
342 n.23 (1977)) (discussing prima facie evidence of discrimination
under Title VII).

The race-neutral alternatives discussed below are demonstrably
inferior to raceconscious
policies in achieving racial diversity because
they cannot ensure that black students will be represented
in meaningful numbers at most, if not all, of the elite law
schools. Consequently, such alternatives would also
exclude black students from access to gateways to some of
the most prestigious positions in the legal profession.

Accordingly, the benefits gained from employing race-conscious
admissions policies are distinct from, and
greater than, those provided by race-neutral alternatives.11
11 Moreover, even if an effective race-neutral alternative could be
implemented, the mere availability of such an alternative would not
provide a justification for forgoing the use of race-conscious measures.
In fact, race-neutral alternatives cannot fairly be characterized as more
narrowly tailored than carefully crafted race-conscious policies. If race-neutral
alternatives are as effective as the policies they replace, then
these race-neutral policies ďtrammelĒ the expectations of third parties...

Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Norlan on January 11, 2009, 11:22:09 AM
What is URM?
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: LawDog3 on January 11, 2009, 12:00:54 PM
What is URM?

Under-Represented Minority (URM)
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: r6_philly on January 22, 2009, 07:18:14 PM
Well my view is that the lower economic and social classes consist of primarily URM's were put in those lower classes by the racist policies and practices of the not so distant past. So some sort of remedy has to be enacted to try to help the groups that were discriminated against. I do not yet see that the impact of the past policies has been completed reversed or remedied, so AA is still required. Although I do not agree with all the specific of the AA practices, I do believe it is necessary and needs to continue.

A class based AA is not going to hit the mark because some of the lower class citizens did not end up in that class because of discrimination based on race. Thats why a racial AA is in place. Although it is certainly not right morally to be discrimnated based on social economical class, it is justified in a capitalist society. So to enact AA policies to benefit the poor as a whole - without consideration for racial background (and that the hardship is a result of it) - would make AA policies socialist, which most of this country oppose.

I guess I still believe that economical natural selection should still be allow to take place, however ones who were put in a disadvantage based on their race should be brough up to speed. And because our racism past has reaching reprecussions - and consider that the civil rights movement isn't as far in the past as slavery - the reprecussions are still alive and well and may take another 5 generations to erase. so AA policies should rightfully go on.

for all the non-URM's who are now having an issue with AA. Remember the AA policies are not supposed to benefit a specific individual, it is meant for the whole group of people. of course some people are going to over achieve, but individual achievement does not discount the hardship of the people as a whole, and neither should it negate any benefit that AA would have rightfully bestow upon that person.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: SamE397 on January 23, 2009, 09:38:40 AM
class AA?  goodness gracious.  talk about exacerbating the problem.

with the possible exception of the T14, what you would be doing is letting persons with lesser academic/cognitive ability (lower GPA/LSAT) compete against objectively smarter students for class rank/jobs.  so if you have a school that's mostly 168s, and a socioeconomically disadvantaged person gets in with a 162, not only is the 162 intellectually over-matched, but he's also probably saddled with more debt than the rest of the class (so will suffer even more when he finds himself below median and without career prospects--as a result of competing against kids who are just plain smarter).

not a great idea, on the whole.  those from disadvantaged backgrounds would have more prestigious JDs than they might otherwise, but it sure wouldn't be advantageous to them.  (the obvious exceptions, of course, are the top schools at which everyone is employable.)
The problem is

1. I don't think someone who scores in the top twelve-ten percent of the test is significantly less intelligent than someone scores in the top five-three percent of the test but the process treats people this way. If you don't believe me look at the emprical evidence.
 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1184302

2. While intelligence is certainly important it's not the only factor that determines success. Does someone who scores a 162 on the LSAT really not have the raw intelligence to be highly successful lawyer? I don't think so.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: LawDog3 on January 23, 2009, 10:40:38 PM
class AA?  goodness gracious.  talk about exacerbating the problem.

with the possible exception of the T14, what you would be doing is letting persons with lesser academic/cognitive ability (lower GPA/LSAT) compete against objectively smarter students for class rank/jobs.  so if you have a school that's mostly 168s, and a socioeconomically disadvantaged person gets in with a 162, not only is the 162 intellectually over-matched, but he's also probably saddled with more debt than the rest of the class (so will suffer even more when he finds himself below median and without career prospects--as a result of competing against kids who are just plain smarter).

not a great idea, on the whole.  those from disadvantaged backgrounds would have more prestigious JDs than they might otherwise, but it sure wouldn't be advantageous to them.  (the obvious exceptions, of course, are the top schools at which everyone is employable.)

"Intellectually overmatched?!" Are you serious? So a person with a larger penis is necessarily better in bed? A person who bench-presses more weight can automatically fight better? That's your logic.

Even the LSAC will tell you that. First of all, there is statistically no difference between a 162 LSAT taker and a 165. The LSAT is good, but not THAT good. That's why the LSAC admonishes schools to use "score bands" in decision-making, advice which is all too often ignored.

Q: How is it that Howard Law's Moot Court Team (LSAT's: 145-160) whips the pants off Harvard and Yale (LSAT's: 167-175) every year? I mean...they are intellectually overmatched, according to LSAT scores, right? So...why the repeated incompetence from the kings and queens of the universe?  

Standardized exams DO NOT MEASURE INTELLECT...THEY MEASURE PRAPARATION AND THAT IS IT. Nobody who knows anything about education will tell you different. The fact that people can raise their scores over time proves this.

And the reason URM's typically do not see the jumps in score that white and Asian students do is a lack of access to resources. URM's are more likely to have less free time to prepare for these exams b/c they are more likely to work during school, share in expenses, live on their own or in situations in which the survival of the household depends on their bringing in and contributing an income, their family situations usually entail more catastrophes such as sudden illnesses and deaths that interfere with their studies.

URM's (and people from lower socioeconomic classes) are invariably less likely to have disposable income that allows for expensive test prep courses (which has also been substantiated by the LSAC survey...the one you fill out before the exam), they are less likely to re-take standardized exams due to fewer available funds and free time (which is a real disadvantage now that the ABA requires only the highest score(s), they are less likely to have a relative or direct contact in the field, and at predominantly white undergraduate institutions, they typically get shoddy, less attentive pre-law counseling.

And the situation is nearly as bad for SOME non-URM members of the lower socioeconomic classes.

This creates a huge advantage for a frat-boy whose lawyer parents pay for everything and he takes two quarters off of school to prepare intensively with a tutor and all of the best materials, while his competition tries to do a game or two while still in school and working full-time.

Moreover, the people with the best numbers do not always make the best lawyers; in fact, many find that they are grossly unsuited for the practice.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Matthies on January 24, 2009, 09:03:18 AM
class AA?  goodness gracious.  talk about exacerbating the problem.

with the possible exception of the T14, what you would be doing is letting persons with lesser academic/cognitive ability (lower GPA/LSAT) compete against objectively smarter students for class rank/jobs.  so if you have a school that's mostly 168s, and a socioeconomically disadvantaged person gets in with a 162, not only is the 162 intellectually over-matched, but he's also probably saddled with more debt than the rest of the class (so will suffer even more when he finds himself below median and without career prospects--as a result of competing against kids who are just plain smarter).

not a great idea, on the whole.  those from disadvantaged backgrounds would have more prestigious JDs than they might otherwise, but it sure wouldn't be advantageous to them.  (the obvious exceptions, of course, are the top schools at which everyone is employable.)

Seriously I donít get why the argument comes up over and over again, you people want to be lawyers but you just gloss over a huge missing part of the puzzle as a non factor: extensive prep for the LSAT. Iíve been on here long enough to see lots of minority posters go through the cycle, one thing that is common with many of them is that they donít have the resources, time, or money to take expensive classes, buy all the books and dedicate 5 hours a day to exam prep for six months.

Likewise I have seen many, many white posters (or people I assume to be white posters) who do have the ability to prep like that, many who have diagnostics in the low 150s who end up, after months of extensive prep scoring in the high 160s or low 170 (many of their second attempt at the test).

This 162 vs. 168 argument though, simply ignores that fact all together and assumes that your LSAT score is relative and equal weather you prep or not. Thatís bogus. I know people who scored 170+ cold on the LSAT and who prepped that high in my class, you can tell who the natural 170 is by talking to them for five minutes, those folks are incredibly bright, but they are also very, very rare.

However, now, with all the tools we have, the chance to take the test over without it hurting your chances to get in, the prep classes and the tests sold by LSAC a lot of people who might have scored 150s or low 160s if they took cold are instead scoring in the high 160s or low 170s. I know some pretty bad law stundents with high prepped LSATs. I don't know any bad law students who took it cold and scored simularly. Granted my clas is a small sample, but ist waht I have observed here.

The fact of the matter is half of any class will end up below the median. I really think itís unwise to just make blankest statements that 168s are smarter than 162s, therefore inferring those with 162s will be at the bottom of the class of ďsmarterĒ 168s. In fact I would be willing to argue that a cold 162 is possible smarter than a heavily prepped 168. Maybe the 162 does not need six months to get one subject so therefore does better on the five subjects tested in three months in law school. The fact of the matter is your not comparing apples to apples with this assumption, some folks score 168 cold, some need a bunch of help to get there, itís not some static number like your trying to make it out to be. In the end I would caution anyone from thinking they are smarter than anyone else based on thier LSAT score, even more so if you needed a lot of help to get there. Your classmates will be doubting themslves more and working harder than you, and that 162 could end up kicking your over confidant ass.

It would be great in LSAC would do a better correlation study on extensive prep to LS GPA, but I donít think they will, if it turned out to be like I describe above, then it would be bad for the reliability of the test, and bad for LSAC because they make a lot of money selling and licensing prep tests to prep companies. 
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class
Post by: SamE397 on January 24, 2009, 02:51:37 PM
As for the 162/168 differential, if this sort of AA would be treated like URM AA, then the actual disparity would typically be greater.  And in any event, since we're talking about this on the macro level, the class of students with lower LSATs/GPAs will not perform as well as the majority with higher numbers against whom they are competing. 

It's not about whether X, a 162, can compete against Y, a 168.  It's about whether making a policy of pitting 162s against 168s (or 158s against 168s, or whatever) is actually advantageous to the lower scorers as a class.  The study you link to acknowledges that a general correlation exists.  I mean, it does.  Otherwise the test wouldn't exist.

Now, if admissions departments could find some way to look at the economic AA 162 candidates and pick out the ones that are more likely to succeed when pitted against 168s, maybe that would mitigate the actual GPA/LSAT differential.  But that effect (resume strength, PS strength, whatever) is already normalized into the admissions process.  So again, we can only judge these candidates meaningfully on their scores, and their scores are the best predictors of performance.

As for whether 162 X or 168 Y would be a better lawyer, I surely don't know that.  But the issue, again, is whether we would be affording the class of disadvantaged 162s better career opportunities.  By mixing in 5,000 Xs into 100,000 Ys, are you helping X in the long run?  Forcing those people to compete against "objectively smarter" people for rank/jobs is surely not the way to do it.
Well, UofI which is one of the more aggressive schools when it comes to pushing diversity has a 166 or 167 average LSAT and a 25% LSAT of 160. The bell curve distribution of LSAT scores means that is actually a bigger gap than the 162/168 split. As far as I know, UofI doesn't have problems with students being outmatched intellectually by their peers. I don't want to become one of those guys who's tries to say that testing doesn't account for anything but the simple fact of the matter is that if you look at the numbers the testing doesn't account for as much the ABA would like you to think. The reason the LSAT has become the defining criteria for admissions is because of The US News and World Reports rankings which are based heavily on the LSAT of incoming classes.
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class
Post by: Matthies on January 24, 2009, 05:15:31 PM
As for the 162/168 differential, if this sort of AA would be treated like URM AA, then the actual disparity would typically be greater.  And in any event, since we're talking about this on the macro level, the class of students with lower LSATs/GPAs will not perform as well as the majority with higher numbers against whom they are competing. 

It's not about whether X, a 162, can compete against Y, a 168.  It's about whether making a policy of pitting 162s against 168s (or 158s against 168s, or whatever) is actually advantageous to the lower scorers as a class.  The study you link to acknowledges that a general correlation exists.  I mean, it does.  Otherwise the test wouldn't exist.

Now, if admissions departments could find some way to look at the economic AA 162 candidates and pick out the ones that are more likely to succeed when pitted against 168s, maybe that would mitigate the actual GPA/LSAT differential.  But that effect (resume strength, PS strength, whatever) is already normalized into the admissions process.  So again, we can only judge these candidates meaningfully on their scores, and their scores are the best predictors of performance.

 I don't want to become one of those guys who's tries to say that testing doesn't account for anything but the simple fact of the matter is that if you look at the numbers the testing doesn't account for as much the ABA would like you to think. The reason the LSAT has become the defining criteria for admissions is because of The US News and World Reports rankings which are based heavily on the LSAT of incoming classes.

I think this is exactly why its stayed around even with mounting evidence that its not a great predictor. Although, its LSAC not the ABA that touts the test. LSACís own correlation studies say GPA alone is a poor predictor of 1L law school GPA, likewise they say LSAT alone is a poor predictor of 1 LS GPA, the only thing they claim is a decent predictor is GPA and LSAT combined out of the three things they track, GPA alone, LSAT alone, and GPA/LSAT combined. And the last study I looked at had that at .25. Then we throw in prepping and I think the whole picture changes, to the point that making claims like 156 vs. 166 are just arbitrary if we donít know anything about how those people prepared for the exam.

Iím sort of in a unique situation in that in my class, part-time, we have a much wider spread of LSAT scores than the closer bands of my schools FT program. We have 148s and 175s all competing against each other. Iím friends with most of the people in the top of the class, and other than the one guy who took the test cold and scored a 175 there is very little correlation between LSAT and rank in the top 25 people or so, including some very low LSAT scores. 

My personal hunch is this: the LSAT was originally designed to test ability (your score w/o prep), not performance (your score after learning the test). Thus those that take it cold and score very high have a natural predictivness to do well that the exam does a good job of pointing out. However, now that the vast majority of folks prep, many of them very extensively, the test has morphed into a performance exam, he who preps best wins. But the test its self has not changed. Therefore one of two things could be going on, either itís not really that great of a predictor unless you take it cold, or its less of a predictor now that most people prep higher than their abilities would normally get them to score.

What we need to end this debate is a correlation study that specifically tracks the level of prep for the exam and first year LS GPA. Currently the exam sheet only asks did you prep and makes you choose one type of prep, (book, pratice test, class) not all that apply. It could easily be changed to choose all that apply and then add a range of hours spent prepping. But my hunch is LSAC would not like to see what that does to their old .25 correlation of LSAT and GPA. Anyway, thats my theory and I'm sticking to it, at least that's how I have seen it, it would be easier to ingor if my class all scored within 10 point of each other, but they did not and thier LSAT to GPA has not been preditive. 
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: LawDog3 on January 24, 2009, 05:55:05 PM
The ability to prep extensively is a compelling argument; it hadn't occurred to me.  It seems plausible that those whore are economically disadvantaged person might spend less time or money on prep (again, we have to speak in great generalities here; I'm sure there are plenty disadvantaged kids who took a prep course or put in the hours, and plenty of rich kids who didn't).

So, you two are almost certainly right about that, with the caveat that choosing candidates who truly couldn't afford to prep and choosing candidates who half-assed it would be difficult.  I would imagine that we could view GPAs on similar terms.

I'm still not sure about the whole scheme, though.  If these kids are smarter (or whatever) than their numbers indicate, then they should thrive at a school full of students with those numbers (though, of course, I do see the general social good that is born from putting them in higher-ranked schools).  But I just wonder whether (new numbers!) a class-AA 156 should want to compete against 166s for his livelihood, when only, say, 1/3 of that class will have the full breadth of career and earning opportunities.  I suppose we could make it the 156's choice (by giving him the AA admit to take or not take).


"Intellectually overmatched?!" Are you serious? So a person with a larger penis is necessarily better in bed? A person who bench-presses more weight can automatically fight better? That's your logic.


Also, I'm not ready to cast off the idea that numbers don't matter.  My logic isn't that a larger penis means you're better in bed; my logic is that when you're dealing with large classes of persons (entire applicant pools across all the law schools in the nation), you need a barometer to prospectively gauge expected performance.  The LSAT and the GPA aren't perfect--for all the reasons stated.  But they're the best indicator that we have, and, as I understand it, are in fact correlated to law school performance.  Again, it's not whether X could beat Y, but whether 10,000 Xs will enjoy success against 100,000 Ys.  Anyway, I don't mean to sound like an numbers-centric ideologue or whatever, but gosh, these things aren't irrelevant.  (Yeah, a 162 and a 165 are the same thing, in a sense--but if we're playing with score bands, to say that the 162 and the 165 are the same, those same people could be a 159 and a 168.  On a macro level, you've got to play the cards you're dealt.)

First, I believe numbers ARE "useful"...but not "definitive"; there's a difference. You sound like many people, including me at times. We all do it. I think it's human to want to categorize and quantify things because it's the easiest and safest way to live - which is why this dialogue is so important. These tendencies have held mankind back, creating divisions between us in every way possible.

As for the score bands? You are right. But what the test-makers say is, do not make that jump. The 159 and 162 are the same, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. The 162 and 165 are the same, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL; and that last phrase is the missing cog, here. This means that if two candidates look the same in respects outside of the LSAT, and the LSAT is the only disparity between them, you should not take their score differences as "definitive", i.e., as an indication that the higher scorer is likely a "better" candidate. But in making the statement that two scorers of the same band are equal, we must control for the other aspects of the profile.

Based on that supposition, how likely is it that a 165 test-taker and a 159 test-taker have the same profile? And how likely is it that if they took the exam again, they'd be in the same score band? And how about after three sittings each? Not highly likely, but it happens often enough for the LSAC to say that schools put too much emphasis on the LSAT. Statistically, it happens more often between test-takers within 3 points of each other. This is why the schools are misusing the test scores. They are taking scores literally, which is exactly what the LSAC says they shouldn't do.

We must simply expand the way we think, because, obviously, none of us has had it correct...and that means nobody...ever. This dialogue is important, and you are an important part of it. 
Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?
Post by: Miss P on January 24, 2009, 07:17:13 PM
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913411

http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/courses.LAPSYoon.pdf

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/AyresBrooksResponse.pdf

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/sanders_rebuttal_final.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=729384

Title: Re: I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class
Post by: SamE397 on January 25, 2009, 12:14:10 PM

What we need to end this debate is a correlation study that specifically tracks the level of prep for the exam and first year LS GPA.


We agreed simultaneously.
I'll third that :)