Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: mikeysgirl on August 09, 2006, 11:35:46 AM

Title: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: mikeysgirl on August 09, 2006, 11:35:46 AM
By an accident of birth, I was born Hispanic.  I never held that my race or skin color should entitle me to preferential treatment for anything.  I beleived that all that should matter were my skills, talents, and abilities.  Now, that I'm older, wiser, and see how people abuse the system, I figured that being idealistic was hurting me and if illegal aliens were coming here and getting everything on a silver platter, I being a legal immigrant, law abiding, taxpaying citizen decided to play the game too.

So I checked off Hispanic and am now attending a free prep course given by law school for Disadvantage minorities. I got a scholarship while my white friend with the same LSAT score and GPA got nothing.   What a riot.  The majority of the students in the program are African American, but are the sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, ministers and other other professionals. One of my classmates comes to school in a Jaguar. 

Why should a person whose parents are upper class professionals be treated as a poor deprived underprivileged child because of their skin color or where they happen to be born?  I dont think that is what AA was designed for. 

Just my cynical observation
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: Keeshi on August 09, 2006, 11:54:20 AM
What about poor or middle class blacks and "legal" hispanics? Where do they fit in? I really don't know where you all are meeting all these rich african americans and hispanics! I know it's not like that where I come from.....
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: John Galt on August 09, 2006, 12:00:35 PM
By an accident of birth, I was born Hispanic.  I never held that my race or skin color should entitle me to preferential treatment for anything.  I beleived that all that should matter were my skills, talents, and abilities.  Now, that I'm older, wiser, and see how people abuse the system, I figured that being idealistic was hurting me and if illegal aliens were coming here and getting everything on a silver platter, I being a legal immigrant, law abiding, taxpaying citizen decided to play the game too.

So I checked off Hispanic and am now attending a free prep course given by law school for Disadvantage minorities. I got a scholarship while my white friend with the same LSAT score and GPA got nothing.   What a riot.  The majority of the students in the program are African American, but are the sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, ministers and other other professionals. One of my classmates comes to school in a Jaguar. 

Why should a person whose parents are upper class professionals be treated as a poor deprived underprivileged child because of their skin color or where they happen to be born?  I dont think that is what AA was designed for. 

Just my cynical observation

flame. Why would anyone post this on their first post?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: Keeshi on August 09, 2006, 12:05:46 PM
Plus, if you're so against AA, why would you even attend the free prep course??  Why even check off Hispanic?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: mikeysgirl on August 09, 2006, 09:41:58 PM
It's not my first post.  I have another sign in but I didnt want my school to be recognized and it would be if I signed in under my other name.

If it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their race and/or ethnicity, why is it alright to discriminate in favor of them?  I wouldn't give a rat's behind about what color or ethnic group my lawyer belongs to.  I would just care that he/she knows her stuff.

As I explained, I had enough of being noble and standing on principle while people less qualified than played the game.  I didn't write the rules of the AA game, but since I qualify because of where my mother gave birth to me, I'm joining the game.

To go to law school, one must be a college grad. So every applicant to law school, has survived college.  That's a level playing field the way I see it.

Most of my program mates are children of professionals.  That's not who AA was intended to help. 





Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: PIP on August 12, 2006, 03:55:09 PM
By an accident of birth, I was born Hispanic.  I never held that my race or skin color should entitle me to preferential treatment for anything.  I beleived that all that should matter were my skills, talents, and abilities.  Now, that I'm older, wiser, and see how people abuse the system, I figured that being idealistic was hurting me and if illegal aliens were coming here and getting everything on a silver platter, I being a legal immigrant, law abiding, taxpaying citizen decided to play the game too.

So I checked off Hispanic and am now attending a free prep course given by law school for Disadvantage minorities. I got a scholarship while my white friend with the same LSAT score and GPA got nothing.   What a riot.  The majority of the students in the program are African American, but are the sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, ministers and other other professionals. One of my classmates comes to school in a Jaguar. 

Maybe because that is their opinion.

Why should a person whose parents are upper class professionals be treated as a poor deprived underprivileged child because of their skin color or where they happen to be born?  I dont think that is what AA was designed for. 

Just my cynical observation

flame. Why would anyone post this on their first post?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: MotownSaint on August 13, 2006, 10:36:41 PM
By an accident of birth, I was born Hispanic.  I never held that my race or skin color should entitle me to preferential treatment for anything.  I beleived that all that should matter were my skills, talents, and abilities.  Now, that I'm older, wiser, and see how people abuse the system, I figured that being idealistic was hurting me and if illegal aliens were coming here and getting everything on a silver platter, I being a legal immigrant, law abiding, taxpaying citizen decided to play the game too.

So I checked off Hispanic and am now attending a free prep course given by law school for Disadvantage minorities. I got a scholarship while my white friend with the same LSAT score and GPA got nothing.   What a riot.  The majority of the students in the program are African American, but are the sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, ministers and other other professionals. One of my classmates comes to school in a Jaguar. 

Why should a person whose parents are upper class professionals be treated as a poor deprived underprivileged child because of their skin color or where they happen to be born?  I dont think that is what AA was designed for. 

Just my cynical observation

Well, the running logic of it is that, as a minority, you're experiences in the professional world will ultimately be disadvantaged compared to whites with the same academic background.  That is, even if you are of equal socioeconomic status, attended an equally prestigious school, and attained equal grades to your white counterpart; they will still have more job opportunities and an easier time with job advancement.

Take AA arguments dealing with Asian Americans for example.  As many people are eager to note, Asian Americans are actually very well represented in the general high-paying job market across the sciences.  They sometimes make up as much as half of any given research institute's staffing.  However, critics will note that despite these vast numbers of very qualified individuals, Asian American scientists/researchers/managers are almost never elevated above the middle-management positions that they attain after a decade of work.  They are usually passed over for less qualified white males.

This is known as a "glass ceiling" and is typically true not only for racial minorities but also for women in general.  You'll find this is probably true at law firms and corporate settings as well, which all cultivate an "old boys" type of culture.

You can, of course, overcome these difficulties in a number of ways, but most people would agree that it is a particular disadvantage that you would not have to deal with if you were only born white.

AA exists in recognition of the problem described above.  Now, it is very arguable that recognition of the problem isn't an effective solution to racism in general, but that will require that you offer a better solution.  Most AA enthusiasts will note that ignoring the problem would lead to an unnecessary extension of the problem. 

To me, AA seems like a social "healing balm" which is supposed to accelerate the already natural process of healing.  Many people agree that given enough time the seamless assimilation of professionals of all colors into all professions will occur, with or without help.  However, AA supporters believe that there is an ethical obligation to not help the process along whenever possible.  Or, I should say, more precisely many believe that it is highly unethical to allow it to go on for longer than is absolutely minimum.

This is for the same reasons that Martin Luther King, Jr. criticized the white clergy in his Letter from Birmingham Jail.  Allowing injustice now and demanding patience because the problem will be fixed in the future is a terrible argument, especially when so many have waited so long.

By an accident of birth, I was born Asian and was given up for adoption, and thereafter I was raised in the American Southlands in a very poor white family.  The plight of the poor is the same all around, but the poor of a minority are indeed particularly poor.  They possess literally nothing and are often not seen as the seed of "America" in any case.

I know for a fact that I've been denied positions, jobs, etc. because I am Asian American.  I also know that the way that I look on the outside probably got me into an undergraduate institution that should have been looking at the material I produced from the inside.  But the question for this topic is as to whether I feel I should be priveleged in the selection process of a very competitive specialty set of graduate schools.

The short answer is no, but the long answer is that I don't have to feel that I am owed something to recognize the social justice played out by such a mechanism as AA.  The AA is incredibly unfair to a small minority of majority students on an individual level, but as a canvassing effect is wonderful to the potential diversification of the legal profession as a whole.

Plus, many people overemphasize the role that AA plays in the selection process.  Sure, you may have taken your friend's spot, but just how many minorities applied to the school in the first place?

I'll quote you here where you say "I never held that my race or skin color should entitle me to preferential treatment for anything.  I beleived that all that should matter were my skills, talents, and abilities."  This is precisely the thing that all minorities want at the entire spectrum of their career, from academic unto professional.  However, it is a sad reality that hard work and skills do not equate the same things to minorities as they do for white professionals.

My own family in Arkansas is remarkably racist, and most really are if you get down to it.  Racism is hardly a thing of the past, just more people are discreet about it.  I don't know a single business owner in the town I am from (and I do know them all) that would give more than a floor job to a black individual, no matter how qualified.  A law firm here would be stupid to hire on a lawyer of Middle Eastern, black, or even Asian descent because the local clientele would never trust them and would always request a different associate.  And, in that case, the law firm doesn't even have to be racist -- it's just the society in which we live.

But, as you've probably noticed, Arkansas seems to be a great deal different from where you are from.  Hispanics aren't treated with any kind of respect (save grudging), so you'd never have grown up with the idea that you are merely American and undefined by your superficial aspects.  The place where you grew up sounds like a wonderful, idyllic world full of laughter, cheer, and absurdedly rich minorities.

You would do well, I think, to recall that most places are not like that.  Indeed, most white people aren't even that rich or have that high of a percentage of doctors, lawyers, etc.  Your sample is skewed it appears, because if we take that a step forward, how many "African Americans" are doctors and lawyers?

If you live in an area where the white are on average poorer than the minorities, you live in the rarist of places.  You are absolutely correct that what you describe is *not* what AA was designed to do.  However, it is the only design which has been really produced and tested.  It *does* manage to pick up many affluent minority members as you've noticed, but just remember how rare these affluent minority members are.  If the AA inappropriately picks up 1 affluent African American for every 10,000 other non-affluent African Americans it is still a good program.  It is also the most likely of the scenarios described, because of the aforementioned rarity of affluent minorities.

It would be a mistake to believe that the people who created AA did not anticipate just these kinds of things happening.  However, they chose to ride the proposal out for a reason, and it is in my opinion a valid reason.

Apologies for the long, rambling nature of this post. I'm avoiding taking another preptest.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ImVinny! on November 21, 2006, 07:04:27 PM
It's not my first post.  I have another sign in but I didnt want my school to be recognized and it would be if I signed in under my other name.

If it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their race and/or ethnicity, why is it alright to discriminate in favor of them?  I wouldn't give a rat's behind about what color or ethnic group my lawyer belongs to.  I would just care that he/she knows her stuff.

As I explained, I had enough of being noble and standing on principle while people less qualified than played the game.  I didn't write the rules of the AA game, but since I qualify because of where my mother gave birth to me, I'm joining the game.

To go to law school, one must be a college grad. So every applicant to law school, has survived college.  That's a level playing field the way I see it.

Most of my program mates are children of professionals.  That's not who AA was intended to help. 







Second that
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ImVinny! on November 21, 2006, 07:32:04 PM
What's wrong with me letting someone know I agree with what they wrote? Others do it all the time and no one gives them flack for it.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ImVinny! on November 21, 2006, 07:39:19 PM
You really changed your mind?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ImVinny! on November 21, 2006, 07:46:20 PM
I don't think i've heard that yet. But it would be interesting to hear one argument.

I thought at first that ALL AA should be done away with, but after reading different analyses (sp?) on here I decided that Socio-economic AA might be the best approach to really help people that need it. I am still against race-based AA though.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: Diecisiete on November 22, 2006, 03:01:19 AM
There are certainly some points/thoughts I'd like to bring up, even though I think this is a flame.

1) The term "Hispanic" is an ambiguous term that cannot capture the range in experiences of the various Latino groups in the United States. Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Central Americans cannot be lumped together in order to search for similarities because they are very different. I've written a thesis and 3 other significant papers (along with personal experience) so I can go into more detail if needed.   

2) I don't usually encounter many Latinos who call themselves "Hispanic."

3) The majority of immigrants, whether documented or not, pay taxes.

4) I'm curious to what constitutes the "silver platter" you are referring to

5) Having attended an Ivy League university, I knew "rich" Latino or African-American student, but these students were the exception. Most of the Latino (myself included) and African-American students came from under-resourced communities.

To the OP: You're entitled to have your opinions on the matter, but I think you are severely ill informed.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ě on November 22, 2006, 05:41:48 AM
Any system, AA included, can be abused by people who aren't really the ones intended to benefit from it. I know pretty damn well that if I had any form of system that would make it easier for me to get into a top law school, I'd take advantage of every single one of them. Maybe it isn't fair, but it's your life and you play the best card you got, anyone would.

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with an AA system, it has been debated for some time in Norway and rest of Europe as well, but the general consensus is that we don't want it. This included the minorities who would benefit from it actually. It's fairly much an agreement on people being judged by their skills and talents, not their background.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ImVinny! on November 22, 2006, 06:22:58 AM
yes, we HAVE gotten this far, shouldn't that mean anything? getting this far in itself should show that someone can do it without the AA. And if they got as far as they are WITH AA, then it needs to removed from the other areas as well.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: mae8 on November 22, 2006, 06:57:21 AM
There are certainly some points/thoughts I'd like to bring up, even though I think this is a flame.

1) The term "Hispanic" is an ambiguous term that cannot capture the range in experiences of the various Latino groups in the United States. Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Central Americans cannot be lumped together in order to search for similarities because they are very different. I've written a thesis and 3 other significant papers (along with personal experience) so I can go into more detail if needed.   

2) I don't usually encounter many Latinos who call themselves "Hispanic."

3) The majority of immigrants, whether documented or not, pay taxes.

4) I'm curious to what constitutes the "silver platter" you are referring to

5) Having attended an Ivy League university, I knew "rich" Latino or African-American student, but these students were the exception. Most of the Latino (myself included) and African-American students came from under-resourced communities.

To the OP: You're entitled to have your opinions on the matter, but I think you are severely ill informed.

we all have our own personal experiences and im not sure that qualifies as ill informed. the few urms i was close with in school were basically all from families with at least one jd/md and clearly at least upper middle class. looking at what data's out there the numbers of truly "poor" or under-resourced students at top schools is essentially neglible, most have a median family income of ~150,000 or 3 times the national average. thinking back to an economist article about inequality in the us i believe it was something like 25 rich students for every poor one.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 12:17:07 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: H4CS on November 28, 2006, 12:33:34 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.

You should write your Personal Statement about this.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 12:47:35 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.

You should write your Personal Statement about this.

Are you being sarcastic?

If you are not being sarcastic and I am wrong, I apologize for assuming so. Why though would you suggest that I write my personal statement about this? I am not disadvantaged, I am from an upper class family, in fact, so my opinion on socioeconomic AA has very little to do with my own situation.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: H4CS on November 28, 2006, 12:58:37 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.

You should write your Personal Statement about this.

Are you being sarcastic?

If you are not being sarcastic and I am wrong, I apologize for assuming so. Why though would you suggest that I write my personal statement about this? I am not disadvantaged, I am from an upper class family, in fact, so my opinion on socioeconomic AA has very little to do with my own situation.

I'm sure law schools will appreciate your unique perspective on this issue.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 01:29:37 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.

You should write your Personal Statement about this.

Are you being sarcastic?

If you are not being sarcastic and I am wrong, I apologize for assuming so. Why though would you suggest that I write my personal statement about this? I am not disadvantaged, I am from an upper class family, in fact, so my opinion on socioeconomic AA has very little to do with my own situation.

I'm sure law schools will appreciate your unique perspective on this issue.

So are you being sarcastic or not? It sounds like you're just pulling my chain, because a personal statement is supposed to be personal. But if you are not being sarcastic, then please just say one way or the other, and then we can discuss this further.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: H4CS on November 28, 2006, 01:33:12 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.

You should write your Personal Statement about this.

Are you being sarcastic?

If you are not being sarcastic and I am wrong, I apologize for assuming so. Why though would you suggest that I write my personal statement about this? I am not disadvantaged, I am from an upper class family, in fact, so my opinion on socioeconomic AA has very little to do with my own situation.

I'm sure law schools will appreciate your unique perspective on this issue.

So are you being sarcastic or not? It sounds like you're just pulling my chain, because a personal statement is supposed to be personal. But if you are not being sarcastic, then please just say one way or the other, and then we can discuss this further.

It's just so rare that upper class white people hold this opinion.  Usually, people take such simplistic views of AA.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 01:50:47 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race. This would appeal to disadvantaged people of every race and ensure that more disadvantaged people, regardless of their race, could fulfill their dreams. This would also get rid of posts like the one I am responding to in which the thread author describes a world where many African-Americans are rich and drive Jaguars, which we know is not the case. This new socioeconomic AA would still lift up a lot of racial minorities, but it would lift up other as well.

You should write your Personal Statement about this.

Are you being sarcastic?

If you are not being sarcastic and I am wrong, I apologize for assuming so. Why though would you suggest that I write my personal statement about this? I am not disadvantaged, I am from an upper class family, in fact, so my opinion on socioeconomic AA has very little to do with my own situation.

I'm sure law schools will appreciate your unique perspective on this issue.

So are you being sarcastic or not? It sounds like you're just pulling my chain, because a personal statement is supposed to be personal. But if you are not being sarcastic, then please just say one way or the other, and then we can discuss this further.

It's just so rare that upper class white people hold this opinion.  Usually, people take such simplistic views of AA.

I don't see why upper class white people would be unlikely to hold the opinion. In fact, I'd think that middle class white people would be much more likely to hold negative views of AA, because they have much more at stake. My dad already made it. He doesn't feel threatened in any way by AA. I understand that I won the genetic lottery and that poorer people have not had the educational opportunities or the upbringing that I have had. If it is socioeconomically based then I think it should be encouraged. This ensures that people who have actually been disadvantaged can have a shot at the good life. I understand that the white janitor's son needs more of a hand up than the son of Michael Jordan, just like I realize that the son of a black janitor needs more of a hand up than George Bush's son.

But how could I put this in my personal statement? Obviously it depends on what each school wants you to write about.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 04:52:27 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!


Seconded, you grouchy bastard.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 04:58:55 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 06:08:59 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: theprocrastinator on November 28, 2006, 06:14:20 PM
I don't think i've heard that yet. But it would be interesting to hear one argument.

Read Clarence Thomas' dissents in the Michigan AA cases.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: theprocrastinator on November 28, 2006, 06:17:46 PM
What about poor or middle class blacks and "legal" hispanics? Where do they fit in? I really don't know where you all are meeting all these rich african americans and hispanics! I know it's not like that where I come from.....

I'm from Fairfax County/Alexandria VA and grew up with plenty of them.

That being said, I in no way mean to imply that these groups as a whole do not suffer from the socio-economic problems. After all, anacostia is just across the bridge from Alexandria.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 06:18:46 PM
I don't think i've heard that yet. But it would be interesting to hear one argument.

Read Clarence Thomas' dissents in the Michigan AA cases.

Don't even try to reason with Vinny.  It's a lost cause.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: theprocrastinator on November 28, 2006, 06:21:58 PM
I don't think i've heard that yet. But it would be interesting to hear one argument.

Read Clarence Thomas' dissents in the Michigan AA cases.

Don't even try to reason with Vinny.  It's a lost cause.


Ehhh, I'm not trying to reason with anybody, just pointing out that one doesn't have to go far to find an anti-AA argument made by an african american.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 06:26:09 PM
I don't think i've heard that yet. But it would be interesting to hear one argument.

Read Clarence Thomas' dissents in the Michigan AA cases.

Don't even try to reason with Vinny.  It's a lost cause.


Ehhh, I'm not trying to reason with anybody, just pointing out that one doesn't have to go far to find an anti-AA argument made by an african american.


True.  Not that it makes any real difference.  hahahaha
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 06:33:51 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 28, 2006, 06:34:55 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


@#!* all of ya'll, I made an A+ on my LSAT, and with the bonus questions, I got a 120. Suck it.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 06:44:22 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.


No.  It's a pointed question.


I ask because you either made an unwarranted assumption about halfie's claim, or you're attacking a strawman.  Either way, these are classic fallacies that even a bit of preparation for the LSAT should've enlightened you to.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 06:50:39 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.


No.  It's a pointed question.


I ask because you either made an unwarranted assumption about halfie's claim, or you're attacking a strawman.  Either way, these are classic fallacies that even a bit of preparation for the LSAT should've enlightened you to.


No,, you're wrong.

This is the portion of "halfie's" post that I was responding to:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic."

Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor. People with money can afford to live in wealthier areas with a larger property tax base and better schools. I was saying that race is indeed a social factor but there are other significant ones as well, and that it would be fairer to everyone if the focus focused on non-racial social and economic attributes.

As for your LSAT question, I have not taken it yet. But if you must know, my strongest sections are the LR sections(I am very good at these) and my weakest section is the LG section. And obviously logic games have nothing to do with this discussion. Your post would still be construed by most as a personal attack, an AD HOMINEM fallacy. So do not talk to me about fallacies and do not talk down to me.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 07:08:49 PM
Quote
Quote

Did you fail the LSAT?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.


No.  It's a pointed question.


I ask because you either made an unwarranted assumption about halfie's claim, or you're attacking a strawman.  Either way, these are classic fallacies that even a bit of preparation for the LSAT should've enlightened you to.


No,, you're wrong.

This is the portion of "halfie's" post that I was responding to:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic."

Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor. People with money can afford to live in wealthier areas with a larger property tax base and better schools. I was saying that race is indeed a social factor but there are other significant ones as well, and that it would be fairer to everyone if the focus focused on non-racial social and economic attributes.

As for your LSAT question, I have not taken it yet. Your post would still be construed by most as a personal attack, an AD HOMINEM fallacy. So do not talk to me about fallacies and do not talk down to me.


No f-ing *&^% it's an ad hominem fallacy.  Only I didn't misrepresent your argument -- I let you @#!* it up twice, yourself.


You're making a mistaken reversal.  Halfie argues that if race is present, then socio- must be present.  You're interpreting him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio- must not be present.

This means that you're either putting words in his mouth, or you're attacking a strawman.


If this is the sentence you had trouble with:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables..."

then you're still hijacking his point for your own purposes (or just being irrelevant), since he clearly states that economic considerations are based on money.  That may be obvious, but that's exactly his problem (and mine): why would people argue for purely economic considerations -- as they often do, but not as you do -- and then call them "socioeconomic" considerations (which may still suggest connection to race).


Halfie's argument is far more refined than you assumed, and yet you jumped all over it like a bulldog on a kitten.  I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm saying your points are beyond the scope of the debate, and do a disservice to the person you're addressing.

 
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 07:27:29 PM
Quote from: MaraudingJ


No f-ing sh*t it's an ad hominem fallacy.  Only I didn't misrepresent your argument -- I let you @#!* it up twice, yourself.


You're making a mistaken reversal.  Halfie argues that if race is present, then socio- must be present.  You're interpreting him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio- must not be present.

This means that you're either putting words in his mouth, or you're attacking a strawman.


If this is the sentence you had trouble with:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables..."

then you're still hijacking his point for your own purposes (or just being irrelevant), since he clearly states that economic considerations are based on money.  That may be obvious, but that's exactly his problem (and mine): why would people argue for purely economic considerations -- as they often do, but not as you do -- and then call them "socioeconomic" considerations (which may still suggest connection to race).


Halfie's argument is far more refined than you assumed, and yet you jumped all over it like a bulldog on a kitten.  I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm saying your points are beyond the scope of the debate, and do a disservice to the person you're addressing.

 

So you just admitted to using an ad hominem fallacy to attack me, while admonishing me for supposedly using logical fallacies when presenting my argument. Did you fail the Hypocrite test?

Half attacked my post by quoting it and asking while people make an apparently common mistake by including money as a social factor. Halfie is wrong because income is considered by sociologists to be both a social and economic factor, as I've already shown. So it makes perfect sense to say that you want AA to have a socioeconomic focus. Right now it has a racial focus, and while race is a social factor, it's only one of many. Families and incomes are two others. He/she took a very simplistic view of the entire matter and now you are launching ad hominem attacks at me.

You stated that I interpreted him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio must not be present. I never said that socio must not be present if race is present. OF course it must be present! Race is a social factor, after all. MY problem with his post was that he fails to realize that money can be both a social and an economic variable, because social and economic factors are often intertwined.

Here is a portion of Half's post:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic."

In no point in his/her post does Halfie make the point that money(income, etc) can be a social variable AS well as an economic variable. So there is nothing wrong with me saying that I want AA to have a socioeconomic basis. Right now it does not.

I am not attacking a straw man. I made it clear in my original post in this thread that I want the focus to move to other social factors besides race, and I want it to include economic factors as well.

As for why I'd argue for purely economic considerations and call them socioeconomic, well I never argued for purely economic considerations; I merely gave one example in my original post of what I think should happen with AA in the future. I believe in wider diversity in academia.

I am happy to have this discussion with you but please stop swearing at me and personally attacking me. I have not intentionally disrespected you so there is no reason for you to intentionally disrespect me. That said, I have not screwed anything up, and most people who read this thread will realize that I am in the right.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 07:29:53 PM
*shakes head*
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 07:32:14 PM
*shakes head*


You're going to  have to do better than that. How about rebutting the points in my post? You may regard me as an intellectual lightweight and a dunce, what with your question that you posed to me pertaining the LSAT. Well, fine. If that makes you feel better about yourself then go right ahead.

I also am curious as to why you removed my detailed comments about my LSAT practice experience from your post that quoted mine: "But if you must know, my strongest sections are the LR sections(I am very good at these) and my weakest section is the LG section. And obviously logic games have nothing to do with this discussion". They appear to be the only sentences that you ommitted.

Simply put,

I objected to Halfie taking offense at my post when he clearly doesn't understand that money can be both a social and economic factor.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 28, 2006, 07:54:18 PM
Maurauding J v. JTG (2006)

[ten pages of irrelevant notes]

The Court rules that the subcomponent "socio-" in the word "socioeconomic" does not pertain solely to race. On the other hand, it does not, for our purposes, accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the defendant submits; this would, in our opinion, reflect an overly redundant usage of the term which would necessitate, for purposes of clarity, the substitution of the unmodified term "economic." However, the defendant notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim. Therefore, we conclude that the word "socioeconomic" was properly used in the instant case.

This ruling should in no way connote substantive agreement with the defendant in regard to the specific issue of affirmative action. The Court will not delve into this matter today. Remanded for further review.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 07:57:10 PM
JTG v. Maurauding J (2006)

[ten pages of irrelevant notes]

The Court rules that the subcomponent "socio-" in the word "socioeconomic" does not pertain solely to race. On the other hand, it does not, for our purposes, accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submits; this would, in our opinion, reflect an overly redundant usage of the term which would necessitate, for purposes of clarity, the substitution of the unmodified term "economic." However, the plaintiff notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim.

This ruling should in no way connote substantive agreement with the plaintiff in regard to the specific issue of affirmative action, which the Court will not delve into today. Remanded for further review.

This was amusing to read, but I never stated that I believed that the term "socioeconomic" should be applied to "purely economic substance". In fact, I said quite the opposite. So please don't put words in my mouth, Your Honor.

Earlier quote from plaintiff affirming his position:

"You stated that I interpreted him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio must not be present. I never said that socio must not be present if race is present. OF course it must be present! Race is a social factor, after all. MY problem with his post was that he fails to realize that money can be both a social and an economic variable, because social and economic factors are often intertwined."

Edit: Oh my god. You just changed your entire poster, Zen. You switched me from plaintiff to defendant. Wtf?

I never submitted that socioeconomic should apply to purely economic substance because as I stated NUMEROUS TIMES in this thread, I want other social and economic factors to be examined as well.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 28, 2006, 08:02:51 PM
JTG v. Maurauding J (2006)

[ten pages of irrelevant notes]

The Court rules that the subcomponent "socio-" in the word "socioeconomic" does not pertain solely to race. On the other hand, it does not, for our purposes, accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submits; this would, in our opinion, reflect an overly redundant usage of the term which would necessitate, for purposes of clarity, the substitution of the unmodified term "economic." However, the plaintiff notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim.

This ruling should in no way connote substantive agreement with the plaintiff in regard to the specific issue of affirmative action, which the Court will not delve into today. Remanded for further review.

This was amusing to read, but I never stated that I believed that the term "socioeconomic" should be applied to "purely economic substance". In fact, I said quite the opposite. So please don't put words in my mouth, Your Honor.

Earlier quote from plaintiff affirming his position:

"You stated that I interpreted him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio must not be present. I never said that socio must not be present if race is present. OF course it must be present! Race is a social factor, after all. MY problem with his post was that he fails to realize that money can be both a social and an economic variable, because social and economic factors are often intertwined."

JTG's statement that, "Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor," is taken by the Court to mean that issues that deal only with money, to the absence of other social factors, could be construed as "socioeconomic," a premise that we do not accept.

A revised edition of the decision is currently being circulated.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 08:10:31 PM
Quote from: Zen Master K[/quote
JTG's statement that, "Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor," is taken by the Court to mean that issues that deal only with money, to the absence of other social factors, could be construed as "socioeconomic," a premise that we do not accept.

A revised edition of the decision is currently being circulated.

Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.

It was amusing at first but now it's irritating me. Can you please stop perverting what I say?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 28, 2006, 08:12:51 PM
Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.


Which is why I agreed with you. Don't argue with a favorable ruling.  :D
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 08:16:38 PM
Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.


Which is why I agreed with you. Don't argue with a favorable ruling.  :D

At least the court agrees with me, and hopefully Marauder can see that I was right. Thanks Your Honor. I just took the "accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submit" to mean that I said that it could ever be applied in that matter. I'm thoroughly confused because I've been both the plaintiff and the defendant so my head is spinning.

*Does a courtroom victory dance*

Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 28, 2006, 08:25:38 PM
Well you took the statement the wrong way. Anyone who bothered to read all of my posts in the thread would realize that I discussed taking other clearly social factors into account, like family upbringing and circumstances.


Which is why I agreed with you. Don't argue with a favorable ruling.  :D

At least the court agrees with me, and hopefully Marauder can see that I was right. Thanks Your Honor. I just took the "accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submit" to mean that I said that it could ever be applied in that matter. I'm thoroughly confused because I've been both the plaintiff and the defendant so my head is spinning.

*Does a courtroom victory dance*



Yeah, I know, didn't realize this thread was moving so quickly. Would have made more sense if I had left it the way it was.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 08:54:59 PM
I have the incredible foresight to avoid arguments that are going to get circular real fast.  Hence me just shaking my head.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 09:01:33 PM
I have the incredible foresight to avoid arguments that are going to get circular real fast.  Hence me just shaking my head.


You lose, Marauder. You can get back to pillaging now.  ;D
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 09:05:13 PM
I have the incredible foresight to avoid arguments that are going to get circular real fast.  Hence me just shaking my head.


You lose, Marauder. You can get back to pillaging now.  ;D

Well done.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 09:07:22 PM
I have the incredible foresight to avoid arguments that are going to get circular real fast.  Hence me just shaking my head.


You lose, Marauder. You can get back to pillaging now.  ;D

Well done.


Quote from the Judge:

"However, the defendant notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim. Therefore, we conclude that the word "socioeconomic" was properly used in the instant case."

The Judge was an unbiased observer, and he/she agreed with me that the word was properly used. The now infamous "Halfie" attacked my use of the word, and you criticized me and my intellectual capacity. Suffice it to say that you have been owned.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 09:13:17 PM
This is precisely the issue.


You're STILL fighting this strawman.  I'm telling you, this is going to get more viciously circular the more we talk about it.  You'll continue to beat your dead horse, and I'll continue to tell you it's a dead horse, to which you'll respond, "IT'S NOT A DEAD HORSE, YOU DON'T KNOW ME," while still beating it. 


1.  "We" did not attack your use of the word.  Until you misread Halfie, there was no attack whatsoever.
2.  If you think a joke barb like "did you fail the LSAT" constitutes "criticizing" your "intellectual capacity", then you need to grow a thicker skin.
3.  Don't use words that you don't understand.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 09:27:37 PM
This is precisely the issue.


You're STILL fighting this strawman.  I'm telling you, this is going to get more viciously circular the more we talk about it.  You'll continue to beat your dead horse, and I'll continue to tell you it's a dead horse, to which you'll respond, "IT'S NOT A DEAD HORSE, YOU DON'T KNOW ME," while still beating it. 


1.  "We" did not attack your use of the word.  Until you misread Halfie, there was no attack whatsoever.
2.  If you think a joke barb like "did you fail the LSAT" constitutes "criticizing" your "intellectual capacity", then you need to grow a thicker skin.
3.  Don't use words that you don't understand.


1. How did I misread? Halfie's post, again:

"Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!"

Halfie was addressing ME. He did quote my post in his response to the thread, after all.  He said that if you want it based on money, and want to remove race from the equation, you want economic variables. When he asked why people constantly do "this", he was referring to me using the term socioeconomic in the fashion and context that I DID. He obviously views this a mistake. It is not a mistake, as I've pointed out, because money can be both a social and an economic variable. Furthermore, by saying I want it "based on money", he's not-so-subtly implying that this is the only subvariable I want AA based on, which as I've already proven is not the case.

2. Considering my interactions with some people on this board(namely you), I'd tend to agree with your recommendation.

3. What words don't I understand?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 28, 2006, 10:09:54 PM
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 10:11:20 PM
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.


This is way too lame to be a flame war.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 10:18:24 PM
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.


This is way too lame to be a flame war.


please answer the points in my previous posts.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: FossilJ on November 28, 2006, 10:22:27 PM
(http://people.umass.edu/wgrigg/Dead%20Horse.jpg)
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 10:31:34 PM
(http://people.umass.edu/wgrigg/Dead%20Horse.jpg)


(http://www.80stees.com/images/products/My_Little_Pony_Love-Jr-Tee.jpg)

Even if she is dead. But I don't think she is, because we never resolved our argument. If you're going to accuse me of beating a dead horse then you should apologize for being wrong about what I said, and then we can consider it closed. Until then, this isn't done.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 11:16:55 PM
Simply put,

I objected to Halfie taking offense at my post when he clearly doesn't understand that money can be both a social and economic factor.

I object to your continued existence in my universe, but you don't see me whining about it, do you?

Also, what J said.

Awww halfie. Makes a little appearance not to refute any points, but just to attack. Sorry halfie.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 28, 2006, 11:40:37 PM
Simply put,

I objected to Halfie taking offense at my post when he clearly doesn't understand that money can be both a social and economic factor.

I object to your continued existence in my universe, but you don't see me whining about it, do you?

Also, what J said.

Awww halfie. Makes a little appearance not to refute any points, but just to attack. Sorry halfie.

You seriously think you've said anything here that needs and deserves refuting?

Yes, Haffeee. You totally misinterpreted my words and perverted the intentions of my post. You then did not return to explain yourself except to personally attack me. pathetic.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 29, 2006, 12:33:00 AM
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.


This is way too lame to be a flame war.


It's kind of funny how this thread has been hijacked, though, by a minor definitional issue. And then suddenly everyone's screaming at each other. You'd think that on an AA thread it would at least be screaming over unfair advantages.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 29, 2006, 03:42:05 AM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


@#!* all of ya'll, I made an A+ on my LSAT, and with the bonus questions, I got a 120. Suck it.

I wonder if anyone actually does get a 120 on it. I'm sure some must but damn. I mean getting  15 questions right still gets you the lowest score possible on the test. Kinda ridiculous.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 29, 2006, 11:39:17 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


@#!* all of ya'll, I made an A+ on my LSAT, and with the bonus questions, I got a 120. Suck it.

I wonder if anyone actually does get a 120 on it. I'm sure some must but damn. I mean getting  15 questions right still gets you the lowest score possible on the test. Kinda ridiculous.

If it's really normalized, should be about the same as the number who make 180s.

No, what seems bizarre to me are the people who can answer questions right to the point of getting 130ish, but no more. It's better than just guessing, but it's like...huh?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on November 29, 2006, 11:54:45 PM
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


@#!* all of ya'll, I made an A+ on my LSAT, and with the bonus questions, I got a 120. Suck it.

I wonder if anyone actually does get a 120 on it. I'm sure some must but damn. I mean getting  15 questions right still gets you the lowest score possible on the test. Kinda ridiculous.

If it's really normalized, should be about the same as the number who make 180s.

No, what seems bizarre to me are the people who can answer questions right to the point of getting 130ish, but no more. It's better than just guessing, but it's like...huh?

Well yes it SHOULD be, but when you consider that getting 15 right out of 100 still gets you an 100, it seems to me that there would be more people getting <=15 right out of 100 than there are people getting 99 or 100 out of 100( typical requisite scores for the 180), right?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: Jwebony956 on November 30, 2006, 12:23:06 PM
(http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/images/troll.jpg)

PLEASE IGNORE THE TROLLS PEOPLE.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: guyminuslife on November 30, 2006, 12:46:37 PM
Well yes it SHOULD be, but when you consider that getting 15 right out of 100 still gets you an 100, it seems to me that there would be more people getting <=15 right out of 100 than there are people getting 99 or 100 out of 100( typical requisite scores for the 180), right?

Nah, self-selected bias and all. I figure the 120s are the people who go take the LSAT, spontaneously decide they don't really want to be lawyers, and neglect to cancel their scores. It's the 121s I don't get.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: ImVinny! on December 03, 2006, 05:49:17 PM
Wouldn't you get 120 for just showing up and putting your name on it? Or if you get NONE right, what score would you get?
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: JTG on December 04, 2006, 01:29:20 AM
Wouldn't you get 120 for just showing up and putting your name on it? Or if you get NONE right, what score would you get?

You get a 120 guaranteed just for showing up and putting your name on it. You can answer 0 questions and get that score. To get to 121, you typically have to answer like 14+ questions correctly.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: Big Bossman on December 08, 2006, 12:47:35 PM
(http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/images/troll.jpg)

"Nothing is more beautiful than the black woman"

That's why so many black men go for women of other races, right?  Black women are definitely at the bottom of the totem pole.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: John Galt on December 08, 2006, 07:31:04 PM
(http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/images/troll.jpg)

"Nothing is more beautiful than the black woman"

That's why so many black men go for women of other races, right?  Black women are definitely at the bottom of the totem pole.

tell that to white men.
Title: Re: I have to chuckle at AA
Post by: dbgirl on December 08, 2006, 07:32:41 PM
(http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/images/troll.jpg)

"Nothing is more beautiful than the black woman"

That's why so many black men go for women of other races, right?  Black women are definitely at the bottom of the totem pole.

tell that to white men.

Yep.