Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: molaw on October 25, 2006, 10:06:04 AM

Title: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: molaw on October 25, 2006, 10:06:04 AM
For anyone who lives in Michigan...how would the passage of Proposal 2 affect UofM's admissions?  Or does their Supreme Court ruling over-rule any law that may be passed in the state?  If they  stick to their Supreme Court ruling over State law could that affect their standing as a Public university and state-funding?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 06, 2006, 10:28:43 PM
passage would mean umich could not use racial preferences. the supreme court ruled their program was constitutional, it did not mandate any such programs. california passed a smilar law a couple years ago and it's in full effect.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 07, 2006, 10:12:10 PM
It's now official...U of M cannot use Affirmative Action.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Ever on November 08, 2006, 07:47:37 AM
Expect to see massive scholarships to any minority student who applies and gains entry on the numbers/soft factors.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 08, 2006, 08:37:42 PM
I think we'll see a lot of URM acceptances before the law goes into effect in December.

Honestly, I think we're going to continue to see the exact same number of urm acceptances at the law school.

To the best of my knowledge, unlike the UG, the law school doesnt use a specific formula, so its literally impossible to prove that they're accepting/rejecting someone because of race.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 06:59:49 AM
There will be a temporary drop, and then it will climb back up but applicant quality will be higher.  That's what happened at UCBerkeley, no?

People tend to achieve at the bar you set for them.   

And diversity will still be present -- you'll have the cellist who studied at Julliard and the 4.0 student who has won statewide recognition as a painter instead of somebody who checked "African American" or "Hispanic" in a box. 

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 07:02:40 AM
And diversity will still be present -- you'll have the cellist who studied at Julliard and the 4.0 student who has won statewide recognition as a painter instead of somebody who checked "African American" or "Hispanic" in a box. 

This paragraph is lazy. Why is it a choice?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 07:07:08 AM
Well, Red, sorry to disappoint with my lazy paragraphs.

But in Michigan they can no longer use ethnicity as an admissions factor.  So they'll have to look for other ways to develop a diverse class, and I believe that can still be accomplished with an admissions process that doesn't use a check in an ethnicity box for decisions.


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 07:12:22 AM
I'm not disappointed. You said this:

And diversity will still be present -- you'll have the cellist who studied at Julliard and the 4.0 student who has won statewide recognition as a painter instead of somebody who checked "African American" or "Hispanic" in a box. 


What makes you think that the person who won statewide recognition didn't check Af Am or Hispanic in a box, or vice versa?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 09, 2006, 07:14:53 AM
you've angered the AA gods. Prepare for attack!
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 09, 2006, 07:16:37 AM
his point (or her, I don't know), if you care to read the next post, is that they DIDN't have to check the box. He/she makes no statement about what they would have checked had they been asked to. tralalallalalksjoei n
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 07:30:12 AM
Red,

As much as you'd love for me to be some bumpkin bigot, I'm not.  What you're looking for in my statement is just not there. I'm clearly saying that I think that alternate measures of diversity will succeed in creating a suitably diverse class -- and in some ways more diverse than just a check in a box as a measure of diversity.  I'm NOT saying that black people can't play the cello and Hispanics can't paint well.




Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 07:35:09 AM
Red,

As much as you'd love for me to be some bumpkin bigot, I'm not.  What you're looking for in my statement is just not there. I'm clearly saying that I think that alternate measures of diversity will succeed in creating a suitably diverse class -- and in some ways more diverse than just a check in a box as a measure of diversity.  I'm NOT saying that black people can't play the cello and Hispanics can't paint well.

Not saying you are. Not even thinking it. I'm just saying that that paragraph is badly expressed (that much is clear), and that I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

You say, "instead", and I think, hmm, false choice: I have no reason to believe that anything other than LSAT scores separates the average black or hispanic candidate from the average white candidate. I wonder if parsely knows something I don't. Do you?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 07:48:11 AM
Red,

I post on this board while at work (sh, don't tell my boss) so every once in awhile, I may not express something with the thought and care that perhaps I should.  But at any rate, I don't mean "instead" in the way you suggest.

Maybe URM and non-URM candidates a separated by more than LSAT.  But I think what separates them is pure speculation on anyone's part without seeing the applications.  And in the cases when a URM is also socioeconomically disadvantaged, there are likely to be gaps in other areas of the application as well but I would attribute that to $$ rather than race.  Which is why I favor socioeconomic AA and not race-based URM AA.


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 08:01:50 AM
Maybe URM and non-URM candidates a separated by more than LSAT.  But I think what separates them is pure speculation on anyone's part without seeing the applications.  And in the cases when a URM is also socioeconomically disadvantaged, there are likely to be gaps in other areas of the application as well but I would attribute that to $$ rather than race.  Which is why I favor socioeconomic AA and not race-based URM AA.

It's not pure speculation -- there's data, lots of it. It's not socioeconomics, it's the LSAT.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 08:08:48 AM
Care to share?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 08:59:47 AM
Google -- it's the great equalizer
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 09:06:40 AM
Red - I was wondering specifically which data YOU were referring to.


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 09:12:14 AM
Red - I was wondering specifically which data YOU were referring to.

LSAC data -- it's the only data set there is.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 09:16:33 AM
Red - LSAC data mysteriously seems to lack the applicants' LORs, GPA corresponding with undergraduate school, PS, and resumes.  Maybe mine is broken?





Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 09:20:12 AM
Quote
Gosh, but I thought being socio-economically disadvantaged wasn't a problem as long as you follow your dreams! A little Google, a little common sense, and nothing should stand in your way!

I still say there's pretty much no excuse for an empty resume.  But I have much more sympathy for someone who worked 20 hours a week working in the computer lab and still managed to get a 3.6 and hold leadership positions in three clubs.  In my dream system, a socioeconomic AA applicant should say "This is what I accomplished in spite of these specific challenges that I faced" not "I accomplished nothing, but hey, I was poor!" 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 09:24:58 AM
Red - LSAC data mysteriously seems to lack the applicants' LORs, GPA corresponding with undergraduate school, PS, and resumes.  Maybe mine is broken?

Don't be dumb. They have LSAT, GPAs matched by schools and majors, and socio-econ data. If you think resumes, LOR and PSs matter except under exceptional circumstances you must be on something illegal. It's bad for you; just say no.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 09:30:13 AM
You're right, Red.  Because it certainly wasn't your winning personality that got you into law school. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 09:33:12 AM
You're right, Red.  Because it certainly wasn't your winning personality that got you into law school. 

I don't patronize adults, especially when they try to front.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: !! on November 09, 2006, 10:00:22 AM
I'm flattered that you are all so worried about my little law school.  But let's get two things straight:

(1) It is not, nor was it ever, that hard for white people to get into this school... I got in!
(2) If people didn't get so uptight and indignant about affirmative action (both for and against), we wouldn't be in this mess.  People against AA need to understand that law school spots are not earned based on a mathematical formula; they are given.  People for AA need to understand that there were legitimate problems with AA that were not being addressed.

Red: I would have thought a few months at Yale would have made you a little less pompous.  Whoops.  I got that one wrong.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 10:06:50 AM
I got that one wrong.

Haha. Being in the right was never your strength.  :-*
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: !! on November 09, 2006, 10:08:10 AM
I got that one wrong.

Haha. Being in the right was never your strength.  :-*

Query: Do you argue like this when the prof calls on you in class?  Do you accuse people of paragraph laziness, or do you address the substance of their argument?  You don't strike me as a lawyer, Red.  It was perfectly clear what Parsley was trying to say.  If you can't argue against it in good faith, maybe just sit this one out.   :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 10:11:05 AM
Query: Do you argue like this when the prof calls on you in class?  Do you accuse people of paragraph laziness, or do you address the substance of their argument?  You don't strike me as a lawyer, Red.

Do real lawyers preface their questions with "Query:"?

I guess I'll pick that up when I start law school in the fall.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: !! on November 09, 2006, 10:13:34 AM
Query: Do you argue like this when the prof calls on you in class?  Do you accuse people of paragraph laziness, or do you address the substance of their argument?  You don't strike me as a lawyer, Red.

Do real lawyers preface their questions with "Query:"?

I guess I'll pick that up when I start law school in the fall.

Haha.  As it happens, my conlaw prof does that whenever he's about to ask a smartass question.  So I guess the answer is yes.

And I didn't realize you hadn't started law school yet.  That makes sense.  I was wondering how you managed to hold on to your principles after being in law school for a few months.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 10:15:40 AM
Query: Do you argue like this when the prof calls on you in class?  Do you accuse people of paragraph laziness, or do you address the substance of their argument?  You don't strike me as a lawyer, Red.

Do real lawyers preface their questions with "Query:"?

I guess I'll pick that up when I start law school in the fall.

Haha.  As it happens, my conlaw prof does that whenever he's about to ask a smartass question.  So I guess the answer is yes.

And I didn't realize you hadn't started law school yet.  That makes sense.  I was wondering how you managed to hold on to your principles after being in law school for a few months.

I don't have principles. I'm against AA. I just don't like stupid arguments -- it's a matter of taste, that's all.

Are you doing an LRW assignment? You seem grumpy. Where's the sparky IR kid that I once knew?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: !! on November 09, 2006, 10:18:52 AM

Are you doing an LRW assignment? You seem grumpy. Where's the sparky IR kid that I once knew?

You're smarter than I gave you credit for! I am doing an LWR assignment and I am grumpy because of it.  You win a cookie.

But now, I'm off to conlaw.  We're doing Roe v. Wade today.  Yay!  Talk to you guys later.

PS: You lose any and all "spark" around mid-October, when your first memorandum is due.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 10:38:29 AM
Quote
I just don't like stupid arguments -- it's a matter of taste, that's all.

So, is the "stupid argument" the part where I say "instead"?

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 10:42:59 AM
Quote
I just don't like stupid arguments -- it's a matter of taste, that's all.

So, is the "stupid argument" the part where I say "instead"?



No. It's the part where you don't say what you were trying to get at. Your conclusion is "socio-economic AA" not "race-based AA". Okay, how did you get there? Where are your facts and your reasoning? That's what I asked, and you came back with... I don't know what. Adhoms, I think. I'm all for pre-determined conclusions, but I think a story should come with it. Where's the story?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 09, 2006, 10:46:59 AM
Red, he did have an argument. His argument was that if you replace race AA with socioecon. AA you still get the diverse class, but the diversity is preferable because it is not JUST skin color - it has to do with background, overcoming adversity, and being very unique. They didn't just check a box, they lived a life and have experiences that MERIT special consideration.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 10:52:26 AM
Red, you jumped on me about "instead" ...

I didn't mention socioeconomic AA until my 4th post and even that was a side comment.  I said that I personally am OK with socioeconomic rather than race-based. 

My reasoning is:
1) I find race-based AA discriminatory. 
2) I think that subpar achievement for admissions is better explained by overcoming socioeconomic factors rather than "overcoming" one's race, gender or national origin. 

But those were all late-entry side arguments to the relatively benign argument I was first making: There can be a diverse class without using race as a determining factor in admissions.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 11:02:45 AM
I thought the socio-economic statements were made in support of the original conclusion, which was that there was more to diversity than race.  I didn't think it was a seperate conclusion.  Although, I didn't read too closely, because I was mostly interested in the Michigan situation specifically and not in yet another debate over the merits of AA in general.    

'There's more to diversity than race': Yup -- I followed his reasoning that far.

What I didn't get was the assumption that the black or hispanic applicant pool at Michigan shows either less or more diversity in life experience (including socio-economic variation) than does the white applicant pool. If he isn't making that assumption, I don't have any idea what his post was even roughly about. If he has data on it, even better.

All I know is that the referendum that passed said that of all the diversity factors that go into an admissions decision, race is the only factor that is not allowed to be considered. Combine that prohibition with the lower median LSAT scores of black and hispanic candidates, and the number of enrolled URMs at Michigan is going to plummet. That's what happened at Boalt, at UCLA, at Texas, etc.


Red, you jumped on me about "instead" ...

I didn't mention socioeconomic AA until my 4th post and even that was a side comment.  I said that I personally am OK with socioeconomic rather than race-based. 

My reasoning is:
1) I find race-based AA discriminatory. 
2) I think that subpar achievement for admissions is better explained by overcoming socioeconomic factors rather than "overcoming" one's race, gender or national origin. 

But those were all late-entry side arguments to the relatively benign argument I was first making: There can be a diverse class without using race as a determining factor in admissions.

See?




Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 11:04:35 AM
Quote
If he isn't making that assumption, I don't have any idea what his post was even roughly about.

Then you're lost.  Not my problem.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 11:07:49 AM
Nah. He's a pre-L
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 11:09:36 AM
I was reading the 6-word personal statements thread and had come up with clever ways to summarize mine, so I was thinking in 6-word blocks.  I just realized that I wrote that last post in the 6-word style too...

I don't get what you don't get.  I didn't say anything about the African American or Hispanic applicants or the white applicants except that merely checking the box won't be good enough.  So the identified diversity that gets people accepted won't be "black" or "Hispanic" it will be based on the other factors.  I mean, is this so controversial that you just can't let go?  Like I said, I thought it was a pretty benign point...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 09, 2006, 11:24:05 AM
Parsley...I don't want to make any statements until I'm clear about what you're saying...

So in your ideal admissions system, poor applicants would be asked to perform as well as middle-class+ candidates...to give the same output but with less input??  Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you can declare two 3.6, 173 candidates to be comparable if one worked 30 hours a week yet found time to commit to a few extracurriculars and the other had a few extracurriculars...I don't know about you, but I would think "Hey Guy2 had so much more free time and still didn't manage to do any better than Guy1. I'm gonna take Guy2."  You???...

Quote
Gosh, but I thought being socio-economically disadvantaged wasn't a problem as long as you follow your dreams! A little Google, a little common sense, and nothing should stand in your way!

I still say there's pretty much no excuse for an empty resume.  But I have much more sympathy for someone who worked 20 hours a week working in the computer lab and still managed to get a 3.6 and hold leadership positions in three clubs.  In my dream system, a socioeconomic AA applicant should say "This is what I accomplished in spite of these specific challenges that I faced" not "I accomplished nothing, but hey, I was poor!" 


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 11:38:59 AM
That's not at all what I'm saying.

I am saying:

Candidate A: 3.6, 173 candidate who did two relevant internships plus extracurriculars. OK PS.
Candidate B: 3.6, 173 candidate who financed 75% of their tuition by working 30 hours per week, economically disadvantaged and a few extracurriculars. OK PS.

Take Candidate B.

How do you get that I think the exact opposite of this from the post (from another thread) that you cite?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 09, 2006, 11:41:15 AM
So you're saying that Candidate A would have to perform to a higher standard to impress you as compared with candidate B??..

How much of a GPA/LSAT increase would it take for Candidate A to trump Candidate B??...

Edit: that post I cited was from pg 2 of this thread...and I took it to its logical end...at some point the disadvantaged candidate would have to face off against non-disadvantaged candidate..unless you supported only comparing such candidates to each other...which I didn't think you did given the thrust of some of your posts...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 11:48:15 AM

Eh, here's a shot.  Haven't fully thought this through, but I'm the kind of person who thinks while I talk (or write).

I think that affirmative action (I wouldn't even call it that, but whatever) should only compensate for a gap somewhere if and only if that person has overcome serious challenges.  I think that overcoming that specific, personal challenge should count as an accomplishment in itself.  This system is not to increase racial diversity (although, because poverty and race are linked in certain areas of the country it would probably have that affect as well) but instead to evaluate candidates based on achievements.

I think "I earned a 3.8" is an achievement.  But "My mom's in jail and I had to put food on the table for my sister, and I earned a 3.8" = two major achievements.  I do not think "I am black, but I earned a 3.8" is any more of an achievement than "I earned a 3.8". 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 09, 2006, 11:59:58 AM
Point is that the two often occur together...(being URM and having to overcome some deficit in education/economics etc.)

I know there is an idea out there that middle-class+ URMS get the bump that should be "reserved" for poor URMS...but unless you're willing to believe that the children of people who managed to acheive and succeed themselves consistently underperform then it's reasonable to think that they would have gotten in regardless...

My point is that adcoms do exactly what you were doing in your CAN A/ CAN B scenario...the only diff is the numbers of the disadvantaged candidate are always so pretty...but then again this isn't an Horatio Algers story...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 12:13:10 PM
Quote
Point is that the two often occur together...(being URM and having to overcome some deficit in education/economics etc.)

Got it, and mentioned this as well.  But there are also white people who are poor. And I think they should get an equal "bump."  Race shouldn't be a factor.

Quote
adcoms do exactly what you were doing in your CAN A/ CAN B scenario...the only diff is the numbers of the disadvantaged candidate are always so pretty

OK.  If they were doing this with race (two equal candidates, accepting the person of the race you have less of) then I may be more accepting of it (but only slightly, I still find using race discriminatory).  The practice, however, of weighting it to the point of creating two entirely different standards for admissions is my problem.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: pikey on November 09, 2006, 12:27:24 PM
Quote
Point is that the two often occur together...(being URM and having to overcome some deficit in education/economics etc.)

Got it, and mentioned this as well.  But there are also white people who are poor. And I think they should get an equal "bump."  Race shouldn't be a factor.

Quote
adcoms do exactly what you were doing in your CAN A/ CAN B scenario...the only diff is the numbers of the disadvantaged candidate are always so pretty

OK.  If they were doing this with race (two equal candidates, accepting the person of the race you have less of) then I may be more accepting of it (but only slightly, I still find using race discriminatory).  The practice, however, of weighting it to the point of creating two entirely different standards for admissions is my problem.

The problem with just using SE status as an indicator is that Whites and Asians are the main beneficiaries.  That does nothing to help the historically disadvantaged groups that AA was supposed to benefit.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 12:34:59 PM
Quote
The problem with just using SE status as an indicator is that Whites and Asians are the main beneficiaries. 

Since when are whites and Asians the only poor people in America?

Quote
That does nothing to help the historically disadvantaged groups that AA was supposed to benefit.


But I don't believe that race-based AA is all that helpful to those groups... And I don't think it's good public policy.  This is just getting into another tired AA debate when all I was saying was that there are other ways of measuring diversity. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 09, 2006, 12:59:19 PM
Quote
Point is that the two often occur together...(being URM and having to overcome some deficit in education/economics etc.)

Got it, and mentioned this as well.  But there are also white people who are poor. And I think they should get an equal "bump."  Race shouldn't be a factor.

Quote
adcoms do exactly what you were doing in your CAN A/ CAN B scenario...the only diff is the numbers of the disadvantaged candidate are always so pretty

OK.  If they were doing this with race (two equal candidates, accepting the person of the race you have less of) then I may be more accepting of it (but only slightly, I still find using race discriminatory).  The practice, however, of weighting it to the point of creating two entirely different standards for admissions is my problem.


Who said anything about race...I was specifically talking about disadvantaged candidates...I merely mentioned that the two often conflate...

You yourself ascribed a value to overcoming hardship in your A/B scenario...and I made the assertion that it is that same value judgment that adcoms make again and again...
 
Now you seem to be backing down from your prior statement and reverting to the idea that there exists some model of admissions that is "fair".  There are value judgments to be made every step of the way...a major in poly sci versus one in biochemistry...178 from someone fresh from two Testmasters courses versus a 163 from someone who self-studied...there are no "completely-the-same-save-for" candidates...every application decision is a value judgment...and every sort of candidate gets an unfair advantage...people who are poor, people who can afford Testmaster's, people who had no responsibilities and had time to invest into interesting extracurriculars, people with family connections, people who happen to be good writers, native speakers of English and the list goes on and on...

Yet people choose to emphasize LSAT/GPA above all other factors and go on about meritocracy...that's easy enough to achieve...forget admissions committees altogether...the LSAC computers can do it with ease...submit your transcripts, write the LSAT, forget all that other stuff...the computers rank your index numbers and then issues acceptances (going alphabetically in case of a tiebreaker) to the top school on down (let's say according to US News)…
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 01:01:56 PM
OK, I get what you're saying now.

But I think you're trying to argue with me about a point with which I don't really disagree... 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 09, 2006, 01:14:38 PM
Most people don't disagree with my basic point, but you'd be surprised how bitter the discussions once somebody says AA...suddenly URMs are candidates who are accepted solely because of their skin color - they're completely one-dimensional...

URM status is just one more factor in the value-based admission...is it weighed more heavily than say knowing how to play the cello???...yes...but it's not as if that weight was arbitrarily assigned...but try to explain this to people who've decided that the top schools are flooded with underqualified URMs as if HYSCCN are letting in 2.6/159s left, right and center...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 01:17:16 PM
I'd rather it not be a factor, and I certainly think it should be weighted less.  But I do believe in value-based admissions -- just disagree on the values and the relative weight. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 09, 2006, 01:22:13 PM
Well you either do or you don't...you can't conditionally agree with it...if one factor is to weighed less, it means another has to weighed more...and *someone* will benefit from that reorganization...you either trust that adcoms know what they're doing or you call for a complete overhaul..anything less is approaching hypocrisy...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 01:43:09 PM
Quote
Well you either do or you don't...you can't conditionally agree with it...if one factor is to weighed less, it means another has to weighed more...and *someone* will benefit from that reorganization...you either trust that adcoms know what they're doing or you call for a complete overhaul..anything less is approaching hypocrisy...

I don't think this is entirely true...
I think that admissions should include what you describe as "value judgements" (WE vs. PS vs. resume vs. life challenges overcome) but I do not think that race should be one of those values.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 02:02:19 PM
but I do not think that race should be one of those values.

Why not?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 02:39:33 PM
I am starting wonder why Red always gets to play Socrates here.

Why don't I think race should be one of those values?

Because I don't think that a skin color is a special skill or talent.  I don't think that a skin color is an accomplishment. I don't think a skin color is a measure of ability.  I also don't think that a skin color is an obstacle to be overcome or that should be "overcome".  I don't think a skin color makes you a more interesting person, and I don't think a skin color makes you more or less deserving than anyone else of receiving a particular education.  And a skin color doesn't make you more qualified to study the law at a particular institution.

I would have voted for Proposal 2 and I think UofMich should follow the law. 

But I don't know why I'm having to defend the concept of opposition to AA when EVERYONE on here knows the arguments for or against. I don't understand why my rehashing of these arguments is interesting to anybody and would like to haul this old dead horse off to the glue factory.

All I have been trying to say is that I believe there can be diversity without race as a determining factor. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 02:58:07 PM
I think the idea, parsely, is that lots of people, including adcomms, believe that being black or hispanic is significant thing in and of itself because we still live in a racist society.

Starting from that assumption, they propose that race-based AA would have at least 3 benefits:
- it would counteract unconscious racism in the admissions process, and
- it would lead to more black lawyers, thereby reducing the prevalence of racism in the society over the long haul, and
- contributing diversity of experience to the classroom

It seems to me that in order to be aganist race-based AA, you would have to deny either the assumption or some other step in this reasoning, while preserving the integrity of your stance on socio-economic AA.

In other words, you would have to have a strong argument to deny a particular law school from excercising its judgment on this matter by saying

-- we absolutely do not live in a racist society
-- there is no danger of unconsciuos racism in the admissions process
-- there is no policy purpose that could be served by either turning out more black or hispanic lawyers or by turning them out from elite schools
-- there is nothing to be gained from having a black classmate's perspective in constitutional law classes, etc

Therefore, race-based AA is bunk and I'm against it.

Can you say any of these things?



Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: LAcreole on November 09, 2006, 03:10:40 PM


All I have been trying to say is that I believe there can be diversity without race as a determining factor. 


Wishful thinking, but very naive/unrealistic in this world. I would like to think that adcoms will not pick an applicant just because daddy is a CEO over a major F500 company, but they will. It isn't fair but it's been given to a certain group of people and it certainly isn't from my group.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 09, 2006, 03:18:31 PM
It seems to me that in order to be aganist race-based AA, you would have to deny either the assumption or some other step in this reasoning, while preserving the integrity of your stance on socio-economic AA.

or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism.


 "The Constitution abhors classifications based on race... every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all. 'Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation’s understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society.' Adarand Construction, Inc. v. Peña,, 515 U.S. 200, 240 (1995)"
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 03:23:23 PM
Red - dead horse.

I'm not stupid, and I do understand their arguments.  Some of them I do not accept as valid and the others I do not feel outweigh the damage done by the practice of affirmative action.

Also, Red, I come here because I find a lot of the people on here enjoyable. Even the ones I disagree with. I like a good debate now and then, and am more than willing to admit when I'm wrong or have made a mistaken assumption about someone.  And I like coming on to LSD because I'm waiting for my law school decisions and it's nice to commisserate with others in the same position.

That said, I don't find talking to you enjoyable.  You're rude and condescending and have apparently been given the gift of infallibility because I haven't seen you admit you're wrong on very many threads (if at all).  Because this is my leisure time, I'm going to to spend it talking to other people I enjoy about things I find interesting; and I'm more or less going to pretend you don't exist because that is what I would probably do if you wanted to spend my leisure time with me in real life.  And I'm sure you think I'm stupid and don't like me either, but hey, whatever, that happens sometimes.
 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 03:23:40 PM
or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism.

Oh, gee. You want to trade slogans.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 09, 2006, 03:25:01 PM
Quote
or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism

Oops. Someone didn't like your idea.  Obviously it can therefore be dismissed by mocking it!
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 03:25:43 PM
Red - dead horse.

I'm not stupid, and I do understand their arguments.  Some of them I do not accept as valid and the others I do not feel outweigh the damage done by the practice of affirmative action.

Also, Red, I come here because I find a lot of the people on here enjoyable. Even the ones I disagree with. I like a good debate now and then, and am more than willing to admit when I'm wrong or have made a mistaken assumption about someone.  And I like coming on to LSD because I'm waiting for my law school decisions and it's nice to commisserate with others in the same position.

That said, I don't find talking to you enjoyable.  You're rude and condescending and have apparently been given the gift of infallibility because I haven't seen you admit you're wrong on very many threads (if at all).  Because this is my leisure time, I'm going to to spend it talking to other people I enjoy about things I find interesting; and I'm more or less going to pretend you don't exist because that is what I would probably do if you wanted to spend my leisure time with me in real life.  And I'm sure you think I'm stupid and don't like me either, but hey, whatever, that happens sometimes.


Haha. Okay. I like you, anyway. Muaah.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 09, 2006, 03:32:44 PM
Taking on your premise piece by piece...

Quote
-- we absolutely do not live in a racist society

We live in a society where people are advantaged or disadvantaged every single day because of factors they cannot change. A person with a strong genetic predisposition toward alcoholism and a rough childhood is more likely to spend a good chunk of their time drinking than someone without either trait. Should they be given an automtic boost? A person with extreme social anxiety disorder is likely to have fewer extracurriculars than someone without it. Should they be given an automatic boost? Hell, there have even been studies that prove that ugly or short people are significantly disadvantaged compared to tall or attractive people in nearly every aspect of life. Should there be an automatic "hideous face" boost?

If you cannot say yes to these questions, then it is not the case that you have to agree with yours to oppose AA as it stands.

Quote
-- there is no danger of unconsciuos racism in the admissions process

This could be a valid claim, if there was any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Quote
-- there is no policy purpose that could be served by either turning out more black or hispanic lawyers or by turning them out from elite schools

Even if its accepted that AA does in fact produce more/better lawyers, why wouldn't the schools just simply admit more people? Because there's a cost to every action. By admitting an increased number of URMs, you're admitting a decreased number of whites/orms. If you want to argue that there should be more URM lawyers and less non-URM lawyers, then that's fine. But admit that rather than just couching it in the positives.

Quote
-- there is nothing to be gained from having a black classmate's perspective in constitutional law classes, etc

I don't believe that someone necessarily contributes something special simply by virtue of being X race. I think that diversity of experience is an incredibly important consideration, but I do not at all think that it specfically hews to racial lines. A second generation chinese immigrant who grew up in a poor area with a single parent most likely had a harder life and faced more racism than a rich mixed-race or latino person born and raised on the Upper East Side.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 09, 2006, 04:08:19 PM
Taking on your premise piece by piece...

Well, this is a reasonable line of questioning.

Some issues in your post I have answered here:


The other bits,

I don't remember ever having suggested that there wasn't a trade-off between the number of URMs admitted and the number of non-URMs admitted. [If I have, point it out to me. If I haven't, change your tone]. There is a trade-off, and these schools judge that it is worth it to them. This is no different from any other trade-off that they make, by the way.

You say that you don't think that diversity of experience hews to specifically racial lines. Who does? What these schools are saying is that race is an important consideration in considering a diverse class, not the only consideration, AND that it is the only aspect of diversity that cannot be currently satisfied without a lowering in the LSAT guidelines for admission. See?
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg1426394.html#msg1426394

When you have read through that thread, you can, if you like, post a response there.

A caveat -- be intellectually honest. If it just turns out that you don't like AA because you don't benefit from it, say so or keep mum. If you have concerns about it other than that kind of motivation, I'd like to hear about them. I myself am undecided about AA -- the arguments that you have attempted to deconstruct are not mine, but the schools' -- so I could maybe learn something from you.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 09, 2006, 11:16:34 PM
Taking on your premise piece by piece...
Quote
Well, this is a reasonable line of questioning.

Some issues in your post I have answered here:

link is missing?


Quote
The other bits,

I don't remember ever having suggested that there wasn't a trade-off between the number of URMs admitted and the number of non-URMs admitted. [If I have, point it out to me. If I haven't, change your tone].

God, you are so insufferably arrogant. Where on earth do you get the gall to take me to task for "my tone" simply because I pointed out that you mentioned the positive effects of having more URM lawyers without mentioning the negatives? And if you really wanted to nitpick about whose "tone" was more irritating, I would humbly submit any of your other posts in this thread as prime examples.
Quote
There is a trade-off, and these schools judge that it is worth it to them. This is no different from any other trade-off that they make, by the way.

You're right, it is a trade-off, and these schools get to make that choice. Which is why I'm not arguing in favor of banning AA. I think that if (private) schools want to enact such a program, they can/will find ways to do it. I simply don't think it's a good policy.

Quote
You say that you don't think that diversity of experience hews to specifically racial lines. Who does? What these schools are saying is that race is an important consideration in considering a diverse class, not the only consideration,

Agreed. It's one of many.

 
Quote
AND that it is the only aspect of diversity that cannot be currently satisfied without a lowering in the LSAT guidelines for admission. See?
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg1426394.html#msg1426394

Care to show me where that thread proves that race is "the only aspect of diversity that cannot be currently satisfied without a lowering in the lsat guidelines?" Unless I'm missing something, "stereotype threat" (even if assumed to be true, relatable, and sufficient to explain the gap) would hold true for other groups, such as the poor, the community college grad, or even the insecure. Each of these groups would experience it to some degree, yet none of them have a formalized admissions process by which their LSAT's are raised.

Quote
When you have read through that thread, you can, if you like, post a response there.

35 pages of posts to debate a topic that isn't really that interesting with people who will either refuse to hear any part of my argument or who will make broad sweeping generalizations? I'll pass.
Quote
A caveat -- be intellectually honest. If it just turns out that you don't like AA because you don't benefit from it, say so or keep mum.

Oh, really? Well, I'm sorry that I haven't met your standards, ma'am. From now on I'll learn to shut my mouth and keep those pesky opinions to myself.

And as a side note, if you want to talk about intellectual honesty, your assumption that because I disagree with AA as a policy it must be because I don't benefit from it is patently absurd.


Quote
If you have concerns about it other than that kind of motivation, I'd like to hear about them.

Uh, did you read my first post? The one where I laid out all the reasons why I don't believe that AA is the most effective policy, because it is both too narrow and too broad?

Quote
I myself am undecided about AA -- the arguments that you have attempted to deconstruct are not mine, but the schools' -- so I could maybe learn something from you.

From your tone and the many threads that you've argued this topic on, you certainly don't seem undecided.

And are you sure that these are the schools' arguments? I don't think that's the case. I think these are the AA supporters' arguments. From the adcoms that I've talked to about this particular issue, I don't get the feeling that AA is something they passionately support, looking at as an opportunity to truly right the wrongs of the world, but rather as something that they just do because that's what they have to do.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Ever on November 10, 2006, 12:06:13 AM
It seems to me that in order to be aganist race-based AA, you would have to deny either the assumption or some other step in this reasoning, while preserving the integrity of your stance on socio-economic AA.

or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism.


I didn't know whites were being denied access to institutions of power and wealth solely because they were white with no other factors weighting in. You're right, AA is racism. Oh wait. No.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 05:32:29 AM
God, you are so insufferably arrogant. Where on earth do you get the gall to take me to task for "my tone" simply because I pointed out that you mentioned the positive effects of having more URM lawyers without mentioning the negatives? And if you really wanted to nitpick about whose "tone" was more irritating, I would humbly submit any of your other posts in this thread as prime examples.

lol. You're quite emotional aren't you? female private part.  :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 06:50:30 AM
The problem with this thread is that the argument has been crafted that if you agree with some of these premises and follow along, then you have to reach the public policy conclusion of affirmative action.

But in public policy decisions, there is often a gap between the theoretical solution and the realistic implementation of that solution.  But in this case, I don't even buy the theoretical solution. 

Why can't I agree with all of those claims (which I don't) and then arrive at the solution of helping applicants become more equal rather than pretending no gap exists? Like fixing broken elementary schools in poor areas? Or making inner city kids take classes in logic?  Or any number of other potential solutions? The "here is a problem, here is a goal, therefore X is the way we should fix it" just doesn't hold.  One can oppose the practice of affirmative action and still care about injustice in America.  And that's not just a trade in slogans or calling someone a female body part.

But then all of that is immaterial if you are somehow affected negatively by affirmative action? 

Oh, well, in that case, I'm sure we can't hear the arguments of anyone who benefits from it either?  No person interested in the outcome of any debate can have valid opinions?    Give me a break.  When Red runs out of steam, she just mocks, ridicules and dismisses her opponent.  It works -- but it's not that honorable and it doesn't prove her point.  Just because nobody wants to argue with you anymore doesn't mean you've won.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 07:38:35 AM
I would add another problem with this whole forum: there is a distinct set of opinions that the vast majority of people here hold. They do not argue well for them, and many people with more"diverse" opinions (who disagree with the vast majority) get attacked by a mass of unrelenting self-righteous, arrogant, insulting, condescending, but very poorly structured arguments.

I have been in Parsley/HeresHopin's position. As soon as they say one word that the rabble doesn't like, they come out of the wood work - some with fair and moderately well thought out arguments, some totally misunderstanding them, and others just complete bumbling fools. They have to deal with all of these, when really, very few have even addressed what they said, and even those that did, can't string a coherent argument together. Thus, they are left the black sheep on the thread - being made to look like a fool and being told to "watch their tone." Yeah! Didn't you know you were talking to RED!!! She doesn't have to make an argument. She just asks you for data, takes you out of context, calls you names and then says to the throng behind her, "Right guys?" And they all say, "yeah, that's right! Go back to your trailer/ read some history/ re read what I said/ read this other thread/ get me some facts to back that up." What they never do - EVER - is decisively defeat or even address their opponents' argument.

 They have offered VERY well thought out, and very valid arguments. They are not even saying what EVER, Red, Brer etc are accusing them of saying. They are making VERY small and narrow claims about the relevant issue, backing it up with solid and spelled out arguments. Then, ppl simply attack them and condescend. The reason the mass is allowed to do it is because they have the majority opinion. Fine. Looks like it's not the majority opinion everywhere.


I conclude with one final observation. The real discrimination I see going on in this forum is an anti-southern discrimination. The hatred is extraordinary. Like the worst insult you can heave at someone is that they're from Alabama, The people who are far too sophisticated to go to a school any further south than Chicago, those that know vandy/ut/uva are great schools, but all those icky southern racists, driving their trucks, waving their confederate flags, watching nascar, trying to learn to read. It's disgusting, and it's wrong. People like that will argue all day for "tolerance" and "diversity" but then run from anyone with a different idea or background than theirs. It's mind boggling.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 07:42:40 AM
Oh, god. LMAO. The peasants are rebelling. Lock up your daughters.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 07:46:39 AM
By the way, I'd be interested in where you think that hereshopin was going with this comment?

First off, according to that thread, the number is 6 points when corrected for (some) outside factors. It's also proven that Latinos score on average 4 points lower, and Native Americans score 2 points lower. It's also true that Asians and Indians score higher than whites.

Do you TRULY believe that somehow LSAC has designed a test that can not only systematically discriminate against blacks, latinos, and native americans (to different degrees, at that!), while managing to give an advantage to asians and indians?

Or is it more likely that there are other reasons for the discrepancy?

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 07:48:33 AM
What do you mean?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 07:53:42 AM
Well, what are the other reasons for the discrepancy that she was alluding to?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 07:59:18 AM
I'm not her, so I can't know. That was a lazy question.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 08:06:00 AM
Sigh. They clearly mean that the gap is more likely attributable to conditions other than race.  The explanation that the test itself is racist is hollow.

You know the factors -- they're pretty obvious.  Poverty, education quality, access to preparation, etc.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 08:07:12 AM
Parsley, you're like Gimli from Lord of the Rings - when the prospects of success look bleak, you jump in there anyway. HA! He's my favorite character from those movies (which I saw for the first time last week).
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:11:09 AM
I'm not her, so I can't know. That was a lazy question.

I see. Maybe someone else will have an answer.

Model minority, numbers just low enough that getting into Harvard will be a problem, makes a comment like that, and it raises questions.


Sigh. They clearly mean that the gap is more likely attributable to conditions other than race.  The explanation that the test itself is racist is hollow.

You know the factors -- they're pretty obvious.  Poverty, education quality, access to preparation, etc.

For someone who swore to ignore me  -- "you're dead to me, red!" -- you got over it pretty quickly. Do you have a crush on me?  :)

Besides, your explanation is weak. The gap exists after accounting for GPA, Major, & UG institution. If socio-econ was the cause, these adjustments would cancel out the LSAT score gap. So, it's something else. She says so. What do you think it is that she has in mind?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Deontologist on November 10, 2006, 08:13:52 AM
Well, what are the other reasons for the discrepancy that she was alluding to?

I’ll take the bait…

She may be alluding to the idea that standardized tests correlate with IQ, and that the mean IQ scores for blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans is below the mean score for whites and Asians. Thus, this explains the differences in the results on the LSAT.

Your point?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:18:18 AM

She may be alluding to the idea that standardized tests correlate with IQ, and that the mean IQ scores for blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans is below the mean score for whites and Asians. Thus, this explains the differences in the results on the LSAT.

Your point?


She just may be saying something like that. I ask questions; I rarely make points.

parsely and bandaid -- if she is saying something like that, do you agree with it?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 08:20:35 AM
I neither agree nor disagree with anything LIKE anything. Come on, Red, stop being lazy with your wording. I cannot answer as to whether I agree or disagree with "something" LIKE "Something" someone else alluded to. Learn to word things with some manner of precision before you ask me a question. :P
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:23:35 AM
Fair enough, I was trying to give you some wiggle room because I know that you buckle easily under pressure.

Do you believe that the reason for the gap in LSAT scores after UGPA, Major, School have been accounted for exists because URMs have lower IQ?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 08:25:36 AM
Quote
If socio-econ was the cause, these adjustments would cancel out the LSAT score gap.
That's not necessarily true.

Quote
For someone who swore to ignore me  -- "you're dead to me, red!" -- you got over it pretty quickly.
Oh, I still don't like you.  But if I bail on a conversation, it's because I can't stand you anymore not because I've been cut by your wit and am off licking my wounds.

Quote
Do you have a crush on me?
This isn't the third grade.  If I say I don't like you, it's because I don't like you.


Red, I'm curious.  What do you do all day?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 08:28:52 AM
Are you talking about the LSAT score gap that exists between races? gender? region of birth? primary language? Which gap do you reference?



Do you believe that the reason for the gap in LSAT scores after UGPA, Major, School have been accounted for exists because URMs have lower IQ?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:31:00 AM
Are you talking about the LSAT score gap that exists between races? gender? region of birth? primary language? Which gap do you reference?

There's a gap by race. -6 for african americans, -4 for latinos, -2 for native americans.

Well?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 08:33:38 AM
To point out the obvious...
Accounting for UGPA, Major and School ONLY accounts for UGPA, Major and School.

Don't make it account for more than it does.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 08:39:42 AM
Well, what? Do I think that this score gap between races can be accounted for by IQ? No, because I think the LSAT is a poor IQ test. I do think it has something to do with a specific sort of intellectual skill, though. Isn't it true that whites fall somewhere behind Indians/Asians? This gap, too, would be because of a lack of that particular skill (once all these other things are taken into account). This is assuming we can isolate and "account for" all of those other factors neatly. I never admitted that we could do that in reality. I don't know.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:43:34 AM
Wightman's research found that adding a preference based on socioeconomic factors to the UGPA/LSAT criteria would not significantly increase the number of African-Americans, because among applicants with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, those self-identified as "white" significantly outperformed African-Americans on the LSAT.

Wightman, supra note 96, at 45. Wightman's study also showed that the mean LSAT score for black students was consistently seven to eight points lower than white students of the same socioeconomic class for each of the four socioeconomic classifications (upper, upper-middle, middle, lowermiddle). See id. at 42.

Indeed, the group of black law students classified as upper class-both parents had graduate or professional training and held professional jobs-had a mean LSAT score about six points lower than white law students in the lowest classification, lower-middle-neither parent was college educated and both were engaged in blue collar work. See id. at 41-42.

Wightman's findings have been further corroborated by a recent empirical study by a researcher at Testing for the Public, a nonprofit educational corporation that helps students prepare for graduate school admission examinations. William C. Kidder, Does the LSAT Mirror or Magnify Racial and Ethnic Differences in Educational Attainment? A Study of Equally Achieving "Elite" College Students, 89 CAL. L. Rav. 1055 (2001). Kidder's study used a database of 1996, 1997, and 1998 applicants to Boalt Hall from fifteen highly selective colleges and universities. Id. at 1058. For each undergraduate institution, he matched the LSAT score of each African-American, Latino, Native American, and Asian Pacific applicant with the average LSAT scores of white applicants who had comparable UGPAs. Id. at 1073. Thus, the LSAT score of a minority applicant from UCLA with a UGPA of 3.4 would be compared with the average LSAT score of all white applicants from UCLA with UGPAs ranging from 3.3 to 3.5. Id.

Kidder then calculated the average gap in LSAT score between, for example, all Latino applicants (from all fifteen undergraduate institutions) and white applicants from the same institution with comparable UGPAs. Id. His results showed that the 247 African-American applicants had an average LSAT gap of 9.2 as compared to white applicants with comparable grades at the same college or university. Id. at 1074. The LSAT gap for the 407 Latino applicants was 6.8; for the 33 Native American applicants, 4.0; and for the 1043 Asian Pacific applicants, 2.5. Id. Because the Boalt Hall application database further distinguished among various Asian Pacific nationalities, Kidder was able to determine that some Asian applicant groups had higher LSAT gap scores than the overall average Asian gap: Filipinos, 5.5 and Vietnamese/Thai/Cambodian/Laotian, 5.3. Id. at 1075. Kidder also did a second, even more precise study matching each African-American, Latino, and Asian Pacific applicant with white applicants who had comparable UGPAs and were also taking the same major. Id. at 1079. For example, a Latino applicant from UCLA majoring in political science would be compared only to white political science majors from UCLA with comparable grades. Id. The LSAT gaps did not change appreciably. Id.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:44:41 AM
Well, what? Do I think that this score gap between races can be accounted for by IQ? No, because I think the LSAT is a poor IQ test. I do think it has something to do with a specific sort of intellectual skill, though. Isn't it true that whites fall somewhere behind Indians/Asians? This gap, too, would be because of a lack of that particular skill (once all these other things are taken into account). This is assuming we can isolate and "account for" all of those other factors neatly. I never admitted that we could do that in reality. I don't know.

What is that particular intellectual skill?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 08:46:37 AM
States can barely cobble together a meaningful measure of graduation rates.  (And most can't at all.)

I don't think LSAC has developed a magical way of controlling for hundreds of socioeconomic factors by "accounting" for three questionable factors to determine the actual gap by race.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ananse on November 10, 2006, 08:47:34 AM
 
2) I think that subpar achievement for admissions is better explained by overcoming socioeconomic factors rather than "overcoming" one's race, gender or national origin. 

How so? I think Red's point is that you're making these statements based on nothing more than a gut-feel. How would you know that being black in and of itself does not present challenges to overcome, socio-economic obstacles aside? I speak from a personal perspective, and offer my own case as a counter-example to your premise. So take it for what it's worth.

I am black, grew up in Africa where black is neutral.  Then I came here to attend college, and realized that I was consistently "assumed stupid until proven otherwise." If you think that's nothing to overcome, imagine our courts system operating on a premise of "assumed guilty until proven innocent."  I can fill a book with examples of how this impacted my work -- from TA's who presumed I was incapable of quality work even when they had proof to the contrary in front of them, to classmates who wouldn't partner with me on projects despite my ranking in the top 8th of my class.

Amongst blacks, I don't believe my experiences are unique.  What you're asking adcoms to do is to assume that this bias does not exist. 

Regardless of how well I did in school, I KNOW I would have done better if I had been given the benefit of the doubt.  People assume you're going to fail just because of your skin color and this affects their attitude towards your work; it affects how much effort they are willing to expend to help you understand a concept.  For every class, I had to prove that I was capable just to get the same benefit of the doubt accorded everyone else.  Try dealing with that pressure in addition to school work.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 08:49:15 AM
States can barely cobble together a meaningful measure of graduation rates.  (And most can't at all.)

I don't think LSAC has developed a magical way of controlling for hundreds of socioeconomic factors by "accounting" for three questionable factors to determine the actual gap by race.


I thought you were in favor of a socio-econ based AA system? How would that work if they couldn't account for it?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 08:56:07 AM
I prefer a theoretical socioeconomic based affirmative action to a theoretical race-based affirmative action as more of a compromise position.

In truth, I don't support affirmative action at all.  If you got a sob story, tell it in the PS or show it in the resume and let that be the only really subjective measures. 

I'm much more in favor of efforts to fix a sinking system rather than pretending the leaks don't exist and trying to bail water out when people are 22.

I think the studies you cite are interesting and I'd seen at least one of them before, but they're also superficial and not at all conclusive. You know that.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 08:59:04 AM
You also never answered my question -- what do you do all day?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 09:00:54 AM
Quote
I conclude with one final observation. The real discrimination I see going on in this forum is an anti-southern discrimination. The hatred is extraordinary. Like the worst insult you can heave at someone is that they're from Alabama, The people who are far too sophisticated to go to a school any further south than Chicago, those that know vandy/ut/uva are great schools, but all those icky southern racists, driving their trucks, waving their confederate flags, watching nascar, trying to learn to read. It's disgusting, and it's wrong. People like that will argue all day for "tolerance" and "diversity" but then run from anyone with a different idea or background than theirs. It's mind boggling.

This is 100% true.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 09:03:27 AM
Ananse: just so you know we're not ignoring your story - the problem with addressing it in this conversation is that it is an isolated example and we are talking about the interplay of broad generalizations. If you can link up (with very precise fats) your story to the broader alleged problem, please do.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 09:06:19 AM
Quote
and realized that I was consistently "assumed stupid until proven otherwise."

I know how you feel. I have a Southern accent.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 09:07:29 AM
Red what do you think accounts for the gap in LSAT scores between Afr. Americans and whites assuming that the aforementioned relevant factors have been accounted for? Do you think it's IQ?

To answer your question about specific intellectual skill - it is a certain quick and sophisticated command of the English language along with a fast and deductively inclined mind (off the top of my head).
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 09:10:55 AM
Yeah, I'm a victim, too. I was verbally/physically abused as a kid.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 10, 2006, 09:33:49 AM
even if one agrees with racial preferences in general, the problem specifically at law schools is adcomms are dishonest (at best) by accepting people with little or no chance of becoming practicing attorneys. first time bar passage rates for law students as a whole are 88%. for blacks that number is 61%. 22% of black law students will not have passed the bar after FIVE attempts, so how exactly did aa benefit them? it gave them the opportunity to waste three years of tuition and greater opportunity costs spanning 8 years? well meaning support of aa is carried to this ridiculous conclusion, hurting everyone including the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Ever on November 10, 2006, 09:38:37 AM
Only someone unfamiliar with the bar would equate a person's score with their functionality as a lawyer...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 10, 2006, 09:40:56 AM
im sure firms and judges have great faith in someones functionality after failing five times. the gap in law school grades is larger, is that an illegitimate measure as well?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 09:44:40 AM
haha - this is hilarious.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Ever on November 10, 2006, 09:53:30 AM
im sure firms and judges have great faith in someones functionality after failing five times. the gap in law school grades is larger, is that an illegitimate measure as well?


Five failures doesn't mean much. You could go and take a bar course today, as a prelaw student, and have a reasonable chance at passing the bar; I *&^% you not. So the question is then; are bar passage rates an indication of mental capacity or is there a level of economic influence due to whites, more often then not, being able to afford expensive prep courses? If you want a law school to teach you to pass the bar on the first try, and by your reasoning establish yourself as a better lawyer than another who must retake the test, Thomas Cooley is accepting applications and I hear wonderful things about them.

Is a student's GPA an illegitimate measure of their ability? No, but the bar is, which was the thrust of your last post and the point which I then addressed.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 09:57:47 AM
I prefer a theoretical socioeconomic based affirmative action to a theoretical race-based affirmative action as more of a compromise position.

I think the studies you cite are interesting and I'd seen at least one of them before, but they're also superficial and not at all conclusive. You know that.


lol.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 10:00:01 AM
alright, EVER, then what about the legitimate measure (According to you), GPA? Mae8 says that the gap is LARGER there. It is the thrust of this post - so please respond.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 10:04:28 AM
To answer your question about specific intellectual skill - it is a certain quick and sophisticated command of the English language along with a fast and deductively inclined mind (off the top of my head).

Okay. So you think that URMs, on average, are less deductively-inclined and have a lesser command of English?

Hard to explain the Asian-White score gap if that's true, but never mind. Hard to explain the variations in the results that we see depending on the background environment against which each group takes the test, but never mind that too.

Basically, you think that blacks and hispanics are dumber and/or more inarticulate than whites and Asians. It would have been much better for all of us if you'd just said so at the beginning.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 10:05:53 AM
even if one agrees with racial preferences in general, the problem specifically at law schools is adcomms are dishonest (at best) by accepting people with little or no chance of becoming practicing attorneys. first time bar passage rates for law students as a whole are 88%. for blacks that number is 61%. 22% of black law students will not have passed the bar after FIVE attempts, so how exactly did aa benefit them? it gave them the opportunity to waste three years of tuition and greater opportunity costs spanning 8 years? well meaning support of aa is carried to this ridiculous conclusion, hurting everyone including the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system.

Oh, yes. The 'blacks at Harvard will fail to get a job' argument. Well done for bringing that up.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Ever on November 10, 2006, 10:12:44 AM
alright, EVER, then what about the legitimate measure (According to you), GPA? Mae8 says that the gap is LARGER there. It is the thrust of this post - so please respond.

Well, you're not going to like me because I'm going to continue to argue, in part, the same economic forces I alluded to in prep courses. I expect your side would counter that this would more honestly support your belief that an economic status standard would be more beneficial than one based on race; to which I would argue that such a standard ignores the weight of historical influences on race relations in this country and the social imbalance between wealthy whites and wealthy nonwhites. Which then brings us back to the point of AA being an effort to artificially create a new balance between the races in terms of wealth and access so as to counter the artificially created imbalances that all whites enjoy today and all nonwhites suffer under today.

But that would just be going around in circles, and I'd have to start acting like red. by being amused by the people who don't get it.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 10:13:36 AM
RED: haha. Wow, there's a completely worthless argument.

If you'll recall, this is assuming that we can isolate all other variables. I never said we could. If you could isolate all those variables, and were SURE that they were not the relevant factor (or some combo of them), then yes, I think that it would appear that the skill required for the LSAT - whatever that is - is lacking from whatever group is scoring lower. Obviously there is a relevant skill set here. I don't know exactly what it is. I just hazarded a guess. Blacks/hispanics are obviously not "dumber" or less articulate than whites/asians.

As to the Asian gap, I would say that if all of the assumptions hold as we've said (which I am not at all pretending they do), then whites would appear to have less of that skill in general.

I never said anything about articulate. You are truly incredible - in a very bad way.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 10:15:31 AM
Ever . . . your analysis is spot on. I won't go in circles. You're right - I don't "get it."
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 10:20:38 AM
RED: haha. Wow, there's a completely worthless argument.

If you'll recall, this is assuming that we can isolate all other variables. I never said we could. If you could isolate all those variables, and were SURE that they were not the relevant factor (or some combo of them), then yes, I think that it would appear that the skill required for the LSAT - whatever that is - is lacking from whatever group is scoring lower. Obviously there is a relevant skill set here. I don't know exactly what it is. I just hazarded a guess. Blacks/hispanics are obviously not "dumber" or less articulate than whites/asians.

As to the Asian gap, I would say that if all of the assumptions hold as we've said (which I am not at all pretending they do), then whites would appear to have less of that skill in general.

I never said anything about articulate. You are truly incredible - in a very bad way.

So, wait a minute.

First you doubt that empirical evidence exists even though it's in front of you and that I've pasted in this thread.

Then, you get hysterical when I repeat what you've said? What's the difference between 'facility with the English langage' and being 'articulate'?

In any case, you say, you're just hazarding a guess. Okay, fair enough. That brings up the next question, If you don't know the facts and you have no ideas as to how to reconcile the facts put in front of you, how is it that you can be against AA? How can you have an opinion on it one way or another?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Ever on November 10, 2006, 10:22:11 AM
Ever . . . your analysis is spot on. I won't go in circles. You're right - I don't "get it."

You do not argue against the idea that a economic status standard would be defensible, right? If so, go back and examine the institutionalized entitlement of whites throughout this country's history, which only ended roughly 30 years ago. Try and anticipate what impact that has had on future opportunities as a nonwhite and what that means for your children as a non white. You have been forced into a lower economic status based on nothing more than your racial status as a non white. Affirmative Action is an imperfect and overly simplistic attempt to correct that; that it possessed those lesser qualities though does not negate its merits.

Does that make more sense, or is this a repeat of what others have already said?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 10, 2006, 10:23:17 AM
even if one agrees with racial preferences in general, the problem specifically at law schools is adcomms are dishonest (at best) by accepting people with little or no chance of becoming practicing attorneys. first time bar passage rates for law students as a whole are 88%. for blacks that number is 61%. 22% of black law students will not have passed the bar after FIVE attempts, so how exactly did aa benefit them? it gave them the opportunity to waste three years of tuition and greater opportunity costs spanning 8 years? well meaning support of aa is carried to this ridiculous conclusion, hurting everyone including the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system.

Oh, yes. The 'blacks at Harvard will fail to get a job' argument. Well done for bringing that up.

"the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system."

this was obviously referring to harvard students, not the bottom quarter of black aa "beneficiaries." gee thanks, aa helped me get into a law school where 40%+ of blacks are in the bottom decile of their class (the national average), this will surely help end racial stereotypes! i will be 4-6 times more likely than my peers to pass the bar, but judges wont care and hear my arguments because they believe in my functionality as an attorney. dont be stupid, my argument was clearly about the least qualified urm students and how aa *clearly* benefits them. it does not, and a race-blind admissions system would still allow the vast majority of urms to go to law school, just a law school where they're equally qualified and equally likely to succeed against their peers. but that would be racist.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 10:24:56 AM

"the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system."

this was obviously referring to harvard students, not the bottom quarter of black aa "beneficiaries." gee thanks, aa helped me get into a law school where 40%+ of blacks are in the bottom decile of their class (the national average), this will surely help end racial stereotypes! i will be 4-6 times more likely than my peers to pass the bar, but judges wont care and hear my arguments because they believe in my functionality as an attorney. dont be stupid, my argument was clearly about the least qualified urm students and how aa *clearly* benefits them. it does not, and a race-blind admissions system would still allow the vast majority of urms to go to law school, just a law school where they're equally qualified and equally likely to succeed against their peers.

Well, kid, I hate to tell you this, but you're kind of off-topic. Check the title of the thread.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 10:36:30 AM
RED: haha. Wow, there's a completely worthless argument.

If you'll recall, this is assuming that we can isolate all other variables. I never said we could. If you could isolate all those variables, and were SURE that they were not the relevant factor (or some combo of them), then yes, I think that it would appear that the skill required for the LSAT - whatever that is - is lacking from whatever group is scoring lower. Obviously there is a relevant skill set here. I don't know exactly what it is. I just hazarded a guess. Blacks/hispanics are obviously not "dumber" or less articulate than whites/asians.

As to the Asian gap, I would say that if all of the assumptions hold as we've said (which I am not at all pretending they do), then whites would appear to have less of that skill in general.

I never said anything about articulate. You are truly incredible - in a very bad way.

So, wait a minute.

First you doubt that empirical evidence exists even though it's in front of you and that I've pasted in this thread.

Then, you get hysterical when I repeat what you've said? What's the difference between 'facility with the English langage' and being 'articulate'?

In any case, you say, you're just hazarding a guess. Okay, fair enough. That brings up the next question, If you don't know the facts and you have no ideas as to how to reconcile the facts put in front of you, how is it that you can be against AA? How can you have an opinion on it one way or another?

1. I don't doubt that empirical evidence exists. I doubt your quick and silly interpretation of it. You assume that all of these factors are "accounted for." You make no argument to show the connection between those facts and that conclusion. I don't pretend to know things I don't.
2. I didn't get hysterical, and you didn't repeat me. You said I think this or that race is dumber than whites. I never said that. In fact, I denied the LSAT as an IQ test. I deny that the facts you cite can "account for" the gap. I never said or assumed any of those things. So lazy today you are . . .
3.Difference between command of the language and articulate is - among other things - a person may be very articulate and have no command over THE language. For instance, a Brazilian writer, may be very articulate and at the same time have no command over THE language relevant to the LSAT (english). There are other differences, but this is a decent one that I think you may be able to understand if you try REAL hard.
4. I am not against AA in terms of your yet to be proven relevant facts. I am against it as a policy. I think it does more harm than good both for those it discriminates for and for those it discriminates against. My views on the subject are public on other threads, and I have to go work now. Try again, but this time, change your tone and don't be lazy.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:01:11 AM
1. I don't doubt that empirical evidence exists. I doubt your quick and silly interpretation of it. You assume that all of these factors are "accounted for." You make no argument to show the connection between those facts and that conclusion. I don't pretend to know things I don't.



2. I didn't get hysterical, and you didn't repeat me. You said I think this or that race is dumber than whites. I never said that. In fact, I denied the LSAT as an IQ test. I deny that the facts you cite can "account for" the gap. I never said or assumed any of those things. So lazy today you are . . .


3.Difference between command of the language and articulate is - among other things - a person may be very articulate and have no command over THE language. For instance, a Brazilian writer, may be very articulate and at the same time have no command over THE language relevant to the LSAT (english). There are other differences, but this is a decent one that I think you may be able to understand if you try REAL hard.


4. I am not against AA in terms of your yet to be proven relevant facts. I am against it as a policy. I think it does more harm than good both for those it discriminates for and for those it discriminates against. My views on the subject are public on other threads, and I have to go work now. Try again, but this time, change your tone and don't be lazy.

I assume nothing, bandaid, and have made no conclusions. What I have done is pasted the results of 2 studies that show that:

a) when you match GPAs, Majors and schools of candidates to a particular school, there's an LSAT gap by race; and that

b) upper class black kids had LSAT scores lower than lower-income white kids.

I then asked you if you could account for this. You said, 'wild guess: they may have weaker deductive skills and weaker facility with the English language'.

Fine. How do you account for the fact that their UGPAs are matched, then? In other words, the 6 point gap exists among people who have the same college GPA. How come? Does an white kid with a GPA of 3.6 in English Lit have a greater 'facility with the language' tha a hispanic kid with a 3.6 in English lit from the same school? Does the black engineer with a 3.4 GPA have lesser deductive skills than the white engineer with the same UGPA from the same school? If you think so, explain what makes you think so.

I have no clue what the underlined means, so I'll skip it.

Don't forget what you complaint was when you were tugging at my skirt earlier on. You were whining that I wasn't taking your argument (read: you) seriously. Well, I am now. I'm paying close attention. I await your answers.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 11:09:10 AM
Your empirical evidence leaves a lot to be desired.  Laughing at me doesn't address that concern.

You love to point out all of the fallacies in someone's arguments, but you engage in plenty of your own.  You mischaracterize other's arguments, you ridicule, you dismiss your opponent as inferior (the peasants are engaging in an uprising?) so you don't have to respond, ignore the strong parts of other's arguments while going for the jugular on their weakest examples that are clearly tangential to the main thrust of their argument, you criticize other's data but then laugh when someone suggests that a study of LSAT scores controlling for very few factors isn't definitive...

Red, you're about 10% substance and 90% smoke and mirrors.  And on top of that, you're just plain mean and nasty.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:12:49 AM
Nobody was tugging at your skirt. If I were as arrogant as you - thinking the entire world revolves around me - I, too, might make such a mistake.

I make no claim when you pull your assumptions away and bring in other factors. I only played along with your ridiculous and ungrounded hypothetical. "Hypothetically, if we took every relevant criteria away so that it was just race vs. race, and one race unquestionably did worse at something, would you dare so they are actually worse at something? Yes, I would. The something is taking the LSAT. IT doesn't make them dumber, and it's not even realistic, because there is no such set of circumstances. There are many factors that play into this. I waited for about an hour for you to give me a precise question. Since you went through all that work, I rewarded you with an answer. However, truth is, I think the study, your conclusions based on it (there must be some other factor determining things because of this study), and your way of putting words in my mouth (like, you think blacks/hispanics are dumber than whites/asians) are all blatant examples of ridiculous, arrogant, lazy, and fruitless brand of argumentation.

 I think it is honestly difficult to tell (at least for my puny southern, lost in a world of bud light and nascar mind to "apply the learnin my daddy spent on me" that far). Sorry
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:24:36 AM

I only played along with your ridiculous and ungrounded hypothetical. "Hypothetically, if we took every relevant criteria away so that it was just race vs. race, and one race unquestionably did worse at something, would you dare so they are actually worse at something? Yes, I would. The something is taking the LSAT. IT doesn't make them dumber, and it's not even realistic, because there is no such set of circumstances. There are many factors that play into this. I waited for about an hour for you to give me a precise question. Since you went through all that work, I rewarded you with an answer. However, truth is, I think the study, your conclusions based on it (there must be some other factor determining things because of this study), and your way of putting words in my mouth (like, you think blacks/hispanics are dumber than whites/asians) are all blatant examples of ridiculous, arrogant, lazy, and fruitless brand of argumentation.

Listen, I understand that it's hard to be confronted with facts that don't ft your world view. I sympathize. But really, you mustn't say that it's a hypotheical that's ridiculous and ungrounded: I'm telling you that these are real numbers from real applicants, not only at Boalt (in the case of one study), but also from all applicants at all ABA schools (the Wightman study). It's about as grounded and sensible a starting point as we're going to get.

Take away socio-economic factors (parental level of education, household income), and there's a gap. Take away academic achievement as reflected in UGPA/Major/School, and there's a gap. These are facts.

Not suprisingly, you don't have an explanation. Significantly, you have never thought to ask for an explanation. Crucially, you have a ready-made answer that is resistant to the evidence before you.

Ananse provided you with some personal testimony. I suggest that you chew on that, think about whether it may be generalizable, whether it may consitute a plausible explanation for the disparity that you see, and come to your own conclusions the honest way.

kisses.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 11:29:34 AM
Anyone as manipulative as you should probably stop preaching the gospel of "honesty", intellectual or otherwise...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:30:11 AM
Red what do you think accounts for the gap in LSAT scores between Afr. Americans and whites assuming that the aforementioned relevant factors have been accounted for? Do you think it's IQ?
To answer your question about specific intellectual skill - it is a certain quick and sophisticated command of the English language along with a fast and deductively inclined mind (off the top of my head).

Look at the quote above: I didn't ask for an explanation??? To quote you red, you say, "Significantly, you have never thought to ask for an explanation." Probably the most blatant proof yet that you don't pay attn. Those facts aren't necessarily contrary to my view. You have yet to connect them to your conclusions. You also project a conclusion that I have never made onto me, because you think you're so much superior that you can just put words in my mouth and bat me around. nuh uh. I have been steadfast in throwing that crap back at you. Those facts are facts. They do not resist my world view. I have not offered up an alternate interpretation yet, because you haven't offered an intriguing one yourself.

I answered ananse. Isolated and coming from the mouth of the one experiencing it = not credible enough to a)be applied generally b)unearth everything I think about the world c) even apply at all to this discussion. kisses
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:38:48 AM
What's this?

"The way I see it, life got better for African Americans when they came to the US from Africa. I certainly do not say that as a justification for slavery, only as point of fact. I mean no one was rushing back, even when opportunities were freely offered. Today, African Americans in the US have an undeniably better standard of living, education, and opportunity than the people of Africa. So, what's the point? How were they worse off then? How are they worse off now?"


lol
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:39:55 AM
that's the truth. I even researched it some more the other night. I talked with my US hist prof. (a black man who is an expert on US hist. up to the civil war) about it. What's your argument against that?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:41:54 AM
You're really reaching now. I never claimed my opinions are popular, but I wouldn't push this one too far. I feel very strongly that I have the historical support for this particular issue now. And, why do you always take it to singling someone out? you can't win the original argument, so point to an opinion of mine that is unpopular. Again, hoping to intimidate and get me to back down. Weak.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 10, 2006, 11:44:56 AM
What's this?

"The way I see it, life got better for African Americans when they came to the US from Africa. I certainly do not say that as a justification for slavery, only as point of fact. I mean no one was rushing back, even when opportunities were freely offered. Today, African Americans in the US have an undeniably better standard of living, education, and opportunity than the people of Africa. So, what's the point? How were they worse off then? How are they worse off now?"


lol


Did he actually say this?  ::)

"When the opportunities were freely offered?"  When did that happen?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 10, 2006, 11:45:36 AM
Wait...was this thread always on the Affirmative Action board??...damnit I swore I was avoiding this board this cycle...foiled again...

And honestly bandaidstick are you that green???...no one was rushing back??...lol
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:46:35 AM
You're really reaching now. I never claimed my opinions are popular, but I wouldn't push this one too far. I feel very strongly that I have the historical support for this particular issue now. And, why do you always take it to singling someone out? you can't win the original argument, so point to an opinion of mine that is unpopular. Again, hoping to intimidate and get me to back down. Weak.

lol!


Man, I have a 167 and a 3.81 and they didn't give me a fee waiver . . . that's messed up if it's cuz of my skin color. Jeez, it's the year 2006!! Am I gonna have to sit at the back of the bus too?


So, you don't have a world view, huh?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: pikey on November 10, 2006, 11:47:38 AM
What's this?

"The way I see it, life got better for African Americans when they came to the US from Africa. I certainly do not say that as a justification for slavery, only as point of fact. I mean no one was rushing back, even when opportunities were freely offered. Today, African Americans in the US have an undeniably better standard of living, education, and opportunity than the people of Africa. So, what's the point? How were they worse off then? How are they worse off now?"

After slavery ended, when the majority of Black people in the US had absolutely no connection to Africa because slavery eradicated their entire connection with their history.  Of course they'd want to go back to a continent they know nothing about when they don't even know what country/culture they should be going to, don't speak the language, etc.  That's great evidence that they though slavery made them better off.
lol


Did he actually say this?  ::)

"When the opportunities were freely offered?"  When did that happen?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 10, 2006, 11:47:55 AM
You're really reaching now. I never claimed my opinions are popular, but I wouldn't push this one too far. I feel very strongly that I have the historical support for this particular issue now. And, why do you always take it to singling someone out? you can't win the original argument, so point to an opinion of mine that is unpopular. Again, hoping to intimidate and get me to back down. Weak.

She's showing that you have a pattern...it's relevant if someone who argues that women are innately less smarter than men  commented elsewhere that "birthing babies and cooking vittles" is the reason God created women isn't it?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:49:02 AM
Waiting for your point. . . of course I have a world view. Never said that I don't There were offers made throughout the nineteenth century - of course only to specific ppl at specific times.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 10, 2006, 11:49:39 AM
What's this?

"The way I see it, life got better for African Americans when they came to the US from Africa. I certainly do not say that as a justification for slavery, only as point of fact. I mean no one was rushing back, even when opportunities were freely offered. Today, African Americans in the US have an undeniably better standard of living, education, and opportunity than the people of Africa. So, what's the point? How were they worse off then? How are they worse off now?"

After slavery ended, when the majority of Black people in the US had absolutely no connection to Africa because slavery eradicated their entire connection with their history.  Of course they'd want to go back to a continent they know nothing about when they don't even know what country/culture they should be going to, don't speak the language, etc.  That's great evidence that they though slavery made them better off.
lol


Did he actually say this?  ::)

"When the opportunities were freely offered?"  When did that happen?

That's exactly what I was thinking. 

You have to wonder, if the first generation of slaves had been given the choice, how many of them would NOT have chosen to go back.

I'm guessing not many.  ::)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:49:58 AM
Not sure how it compares.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:50:12 AM
I'm just playin', bandaid. It cracks me up when people lie about their motives.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 11:50:25 AM
Red has a pattern of tossing in red herrings, insulting her opponents, and laughing off arguments hoping they'll go away... but you don't seem bothered by that?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:53:10 AM
The point of the historical is that the Muslims and then the Portugese were not the first to participate in the salve trade. Central and western African societies started it and enslaved eachother with more vigor than the europeans. On top of that, they actively cooperated in the slave trade. In this way, it appears a choice of where to be a slave? Africa or America. My point is that in America generally, they were better off. Simple.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:53:42 AM
To what? I don't think you said anything inconsistent with my view. Skin color doesn't have anything to do with number gaps. . . these other adversities maybe . . .that's what they should look at. I don't think you and I ever disagreed. but, since I agree wiht you, if you'd be happier feeling like you convinced me of all of it, sure - i convert. I do think you said it well, and you made points i hadn't ever thought of.

red herring, you say?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:54:51 AM
I agree. . . what's your point in all this? come out with it, please, instead of quoting me out of context.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 11:56:00 AM
I am not lying about my motives at all - not in the least. I said I was against AA. I don't think it's a good policy. What are you getting at?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 10, 2006, 11:57:31 AM
You're human garbage. I'm through with you. Clear?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 11:58:20 AM
Red has a pattern of tossing in red herrings, insulting her opponents, and laughing off arguments hoping they'll go away...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 12:00:06 PM
No. I think you should have to give a reason for calling someone human garbage.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 12:00:52 PM
I think you're probably pulling some pretty incorrect conclusions from these posts your quoting. Man, you really went personal with this one.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: pikey on November 10, 2006, 12:01:15 PM
The point of the historical is that the Muslims and then the Portugese were not the first to participate in the salve trade. Central and western African societies started it and enslaved eachother with more vigor than the europeans. On top of that, they actively cooperated in the slave trade. In this way, it appears a choice of where to be a slave? Africa or America. My point is that in America generally, they were better off. Simple.

That's simply not true.  Most of those people would not have been slaves if the demand In N/S America and Europe for African slaves wasn't so high.  Raiding parties would wipe out entire villages to procure enough slaves.  
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 10, 2006, 12:02:24 PM
The point of the historical is that the Muslims and then the Portugese were not the first to participate in the salve trade. Central and western African societies started it and enslaved eachother with more vigor than the europeans. On top of that, they actively cooperated in the slave trade. In this way, it appears a choice of where to be a slave? Africa or America. My point is that in America generally, they were better off. Simple.

That's simply not true.  Most of those people would not have been slaves if the demand In N/S America and Europe for African slaves wasn't so high.  Raiding parties would wipe out entire villages to procure enough slaves. 

Isn't it also true that African slavery was qualitatively different in that it generally wasn't a lifelong condition?  I think I read that somewhere but I can't source it so I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 12:03:43 PM
Shouldn't those posts be redirected to whatever board the original discussion - in context - was on?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: FredJohnson on November 10, 2006, 12:06:13 PM
I like Red because shes cool.

 ;D
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 12:07:14 PM
annab - yes. You're right about that. However, it wasn't always forever here either. MoniLi .. . my facts come essentially from bringing this matter up to a prof of mine who is black. I read my college hist book the other night on the subject as well. I realize demand skyrocketed when the europeans got involved, but would contend that that would have remained the case with or without America. The exact numbers are hard to locate on the matter, but my point is about comparing conditions of slaves in Africa to those in America - thats all. Nothing more. It was part of another thread on a completely different subject. Red just wants to defame me to get out of this argument. It worked as usual. I know that opinion isn't popular, and I'd love to talk about it with ppl who know more than I do about it. It is irrelevant to this topic though. whatever.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: pikey on November 10, 2006, 12:07:39 PM
The point of the historical is that the Muslims and then the Portugese were not the first to participate in the salve trade. Central and western African societies started it and enslaved eachother with more vigor than the europeans. On top of that, they actively cooperated in the slave trade. In this way, it appears a choice of where to be a slave? Africa or America. My point is that in America generally, they were better off. Simple.

That's simply not true.  Most of those people would not have been slaves if the demand In N/S America and Europe for African slaves wasn't so high.  Raiding parties would wipe out entire villages to procure enough slaves. 

Isn't it also true that African slavery was qualitatively different in that it generally wasn't a lifelong condition?  I think I read that somewhere but I can't source it so I'm not sure.

This was true in some cultures, but it's a mistake to use the term "African slavery" like it's homogenous.  African slavery was a varied as the continent.  In Egypt alone there were some areas that had huge plantations and others where the slaves' welfare was often better than the non-slaved peasants.  There were some areas where a slave's children were free and others where they became slaves.  I could go on, but needless to say there is no "African" slavery.

A key difference to point out is that slavery in Africa generally wasn't based on racial lines the way it was in the "West".
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 10, 2006, 12:08:53 PM
The point of the historical is that the Muslims and then the Portugese were not the first to participate in the salve trade. Central and western African societies started it and enslaved eachother with more vigor than the europeans. On top of that, they actively cooperated in the slave trade. In this way, it appears a choice of where to be a slave? Africa or America. My point is that in America generally, they were better off. Simple.

That's simply not true.  Most of those people would not have been slaves if the demand In N/S America and Europe for African slaves wasn't so high.  Raiding parties would wipe out entire villages to procure enough slaves. 

Isn't it also true that African slavery was qualitatively different in that it generally wasn't a lifelong condition?  I think I read that somewhere but I can't source it so I'm not sure.

This was true in some cultures, but it's a mistake to use the term "African slavery" like it's homogenous.  African slavery was a varied as the continent.  In Egypt alone there were some areas that had huge plantations and others where the slaves' welfare was often better than the non-slaved peasants.  There were some areas where a slave's children were free and others where they became slaves.  I could go on, but needless to say there is no "African" slavery.

A key difference to point out is that slavery in Africa generally wasn't based on racial lines the way it was in the "West".

I should qualified that one but was writing in a hurry.  Sorry.  :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 12:09:00 PM
And I'm sure Red will like you Fred, as long as you keep sucking up to her. :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 12:12:21 PM
Great information. I'll go study it some more. It was just my thought based on what I learned of the subject in college and my recent interest/ convos with my prof. I appreciate those of you who don't think I'm too much of human garbage to talk to anymore. Red can get pretty outlandish with the tactics.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: pikey on November 10, 2006, 12:14:05 PM
annab - yes. You're right about that. However, it wasn't always forever here either. MoniLi .. . my facts come essentially from bringing this matter up to a prof of mine who is black. I read my college hist book the other night on the subject as well. I realize demand skyrocketed when the europeans got involved, but would contend that that would have remained the case with or without America. The exact numbers are hard to locate on the matter, but my point is about comparing conditions of slaves in Africa to those in America - thats all. Nothing more. It was part of another thread on a completely different subject. Red just wants to defame me to get out of this argument. It worked as usual. I know that opinion isn't popular, and I'd love to talk about it with ppl who know more than I do about it. It is irrelevant to this topic though. whatever.

A couple of comments.  Just because your professor is Black doesn't make him/her an expert on American slavery vs "African" slavery (which is a misnomer).

I disagree that this would have been the case without America (which was one of the last "Western" countries to abolish the Mid-Atlantic slave trade and slavery within the country).

I don't think the argument of African vs American slavery is relevant because of two of the issues that I have mentioned (many African wouldn't have been slaves and there was no "African" slavery), but I'll leave it alone.  But yeah, further study never hurts.  ;)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 10, 2006, 12:16:39 PM
I think Red fails to realize that many of us are just "trying out" different perspectives on this board... which is one of the benefits of online discussions with intelligent peers. 

There's the opportunity for failure in intellectual risk-taking, which could be why Red just tends to attack the views of others rather than putting her own ideas up for scrutiny.  May have to admit she's wrong, and that's just an unpleasant thing to be avoided at all costs.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: bandaidstick on November 10, 2006, 12:21:10 PM
i wasn't saying he was black to conclude from that isolated fact taht he's an expert. I was saying it because he's an expert but didn't want ppl thinking he was some couky historian with no sensitivity to the plight of African Americans. I would give his name so you could check his credentials, but I think that would be unethical. I don't have his permission to be waving his name around and projecting my opinions onto him.

I can't believe it, but it feels really eerie being called human garbage. I've never had something like that said to me before (except by my parents, but that doesn't count - that's how they say I love you). I wish you'd retract that, Red.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 11, 2006, 09:12:40 AM
You're confusing a functional lawyer with a good lawyer. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 11, 2006, 09:23:15 AM
Being a good lawyer means anticipating the moves of others and incorporating that into your response.  It means thinking creatively.  It means storing knowledge and then being able to call upon which rules will help you when (gasp! like a logic game???) and to apply that knowledge creatively.  It means crafting a strong argument and taking advantage of loopholes. 

And, even if you think that someone who is not intelligent but a hard worker can somehow learn all of those things, intelligent people can do all of that with half the effort.  You get much more bang for your buck with an intelligent lawyer than you do with one who is not.

And if you have been involved in the court system, even in the most "average" of cases in the most "average" you will see how badly lawyers who are not intelligent can muck up someone's life.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ananse on November 11, 2006, 10:37:45 AM
Being a good lawyer means anticipating the moves of others and incorporating that into your response.  It means thinking creatively.  It means storing knowledge and then being able to call upon which rules will help you when (gasp! like a logic game???) and to apply that knowledge creatively.  It means crafting a strong argument and taking advantage of loopholes. 

And, even if you think that someone who is not intelligent but a hard worker can somehow learn all of those things, intelligent people can do all of that with half the effort.  You get much more bang for your buck with an intelligent lawyer than you do with one who is not.

And if you have been involved in the court system, even in the most "average" of cases in the most "average" you will see how badly lawyers who are not intelligent can muck up someone's life.

and what does that have to do with AA or being a minority?  The only law school admission factors that AA de-emphasizes are GPA and LSAT, which you admit do not measure intelligence (correct me if I'm wrong).  So why will someone admitted under AA be any less capable as a lawyer?  Please help me understand, what's the point of your argument? 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 11, 2006, 11:44:48 AM
I'm challenging your statements that you don't need intelligence to be a good attorney.  It's entirely separate from affirmative action.

Quote
A very minimal level of "ability" is truly needed to be a competent attorney.  It's really, really, not that hard.  Differences in intellectual ability are absurdly unimportant.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 11, 2006, 03:18:40 PM
A few of things:

1. There may be (and there probably is) some reason to look hard at either the ABA-approval or the teaching practices of lower-ranked schools, especially those that have low bar passage rates.

2. I think that we can all agree that someone attending a T4 expecting to get a job in the NY BigLaw market needs to be cautioned before they take the plunge and are saddled with debt.

3. This, however, has nothing to do with affirmative action. Especially at the higher-ranked schools. The 'AA hurts black law students' argument is therefore a red herring. Most people who fail the bar multiple times and have a hard time gaining employment are white. It is true that URMS have a lower rate of 1st time bar passage, but the solution for that problem is not to get rid of AA at Michigan or any comparable school; it is instead to make sure that URMs and non-URMs at lower-ranked schools in particular are given a fair and encouraging environment in which to learn.

4. Any discussion about AA must start from the facts. One fact is that URMs admitted to law schools have lower index scores than whites and Asians. But that is not the only fact that we have access to. Building and defending an entire policy position based on selective use of facts is unproductive. Here are some other facts:

We also know that after adjusting for UG performance and socio-economics, URMs score lower on the LSAT, and that lower LSAT score is responsible for the entirety of the discrepancy between the adjusted index scores of URMs and others. So, a conclusion can be drawn: there is something wrong with the LSAT as a testing instrument.

Remember what the LSAT is supposed to be for: it is supposed to provide a uniform standard against which academic achievement can be measured. In other words, it is supposed to do the equivalent of what would otherwise be cumbersome work: adjusting each applicant's GPA by school, by major, by department, and across time. There is no question that it fails to do this, and there is no question that it systematically tilts against URMs to varying degrees.

Now, what does one do in the face of a testing instrument that has this kind of systematic bias? [If we were in the arena of employment, it would be illegal to use it at all -- a civil rights violation.] One option, the best one, would be to get rid of it altogether and find some other test that would not have a systematic bias, but would accurately reflect academic achievement. The ABA, LSAC and the law schools have chosen -- for whatever reason -- not to do that. Instead, they have decided that they will use a two- (or actually 3-) track system: to discount the LSAT scores of blacks by the amount of the LSAT bias for them (6-7 points) and to discount the LSAT scores of hispanics and native americans by 2-4 points for the same reason.

Is it an ugly way to go about things? You bet. For the angry white male with borderline credentials, it is likely to be highly irritating. For the African American or Hispanic applicant who has to put up with the rants of the kid who thinks that he might have to go to Columbia instead of Harvard, it is no less irritating.

But what in the world is the alternative? Not to discount for the systematic errot in the LSAT? Can you imagine a situation in which law schools -- law schools, mind you --know that they are using a test that discriminates hugely by race, and yet do nothing about it? No fair-minded person on a sober day would coutenance such a thing. That is the kind of discrimination that in housing, employment, traffic stops, and every other sphere of life, we have deemed as unacceptable and uncivilized and racist.

So, if we are to frame the issue as one of race-neutral admissions policies, we must start first with the fact that the principal element in our application files is itself not race-neutral. The adjusted LSAT gap by definition tells us nothing about the true qualifications of white, asian, black or latino applicants. A race-neutral admissions policy is one that corrects for that bias, not one that hides it or exacerbates it. And AA is a rough attempt at correcting for that gap.

Now, I know for a fact that the heat generated about this topic is not about whether blacks should attend Thomas Jefferson or Vermont Law School. This is about YHSCCNMP etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that URMs graduating from these schools fare worse as lawyers or have bleaker career prospects than whites or Asians. In fact -- and there is only one data set on this, from Michigan itself -- they do just as well by the usual metrics by which these things are judged. The only difference is in pro bono contributions, where URMs outstrip non-URMs.

So, please. We can agree to disagree, we can debate alternatives, we can critique it, etc, but let's start from the facts, and have our positions be responsive to them.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 11, 2006, 04:14:02 PM
A few of things:

1. There may be (and there probably is) some reason to look hard at either the ABA-approval or the teaching practices of lower-ranked schools, especially those that have low bar passage rates.

2. I think that we can all agree that someone attending a T4 expecting to get a job in the NY BigLaw market needs to be cautioned before they take the plunge and are saddled with debt.

3. This, however, has nothing to do with affirmative action. Especially at the higher-ranked schools. The 'AA hurts black law students' argument is therefore a red herring. Most people who fail the bar multiple times and have a hard time gaining employment are white. It is true that URMS have a lower rate of 1st time bar passage, but the solution for that problem is not to get rid of AA at Michigan or any comparable school; it is instead to make sure that URMs and non-URMs at lower-ranked schools in particular are given a fair and encouraging environment in which to learn.

4. Any discussion about AA must start from the facts. One fact is that URMs admitted to law schools have lower index scores than whites and Asians. But that is not the only fact that we have access to. Building and defending an entire policy position based on selective use of facts is unproductive. Here are some other facts:

We also know that after adjusting for UG performance and socio-economics, URMs score lower on the LSAT, and that lower LSAT score is responsible for the entirety of the discrepancy between the adjusted index scores of URMs and others. So, a conclusion can be drawn: there is something wrong with the LSAT as a testing instrument.

Remember what the LSAT is supposed to be for: it is supposed to provide a uniform standard against which academic achievement can be measured. In other words, it is supposed to do the equivalent of what would otherwise be cumbersome work: adjusting each applicant's GPA by school, by major, by department, and across time. There is no question that it fails to do this, and there is no question that it systematically tilts against URMs to varying degrees.

Now, what does one do in the face of a testing instrument that has this kind of systematic bias? [If we were in the arena of employment, it would be illegal to use it at all -- a civil rights violation.] One option, the best one, would be to get rid of it altogether and find some other test that would not have a systematic bias, but would accurately reflect academic achievement. The ABA, LSAC and the law schools have chosen -- for whatever reason -- not to do that. Instead, they have decided that they will use a two- (or actually 3-) track system: to discount the LSAT scores of blacks by the amount of the LSAT bias for them (6-7 points) and to discount the LSAT scores of hispanics and native americans by 2-4 points for the same reason.

Is it an ugly way to go about things? You bet. For the angry white male with borderline credentials, it is likely to be highly irritating. For the African American or Hispanic applicant who has to put up with the rants of the kid who thinks that he might have to go to Columbia instead of Harvard, it is no less irritating.

But what in the world is the alternative? Not to discount for the systematic errot in the LSAT? Can you imagine a situation in which law schools -- law schools, mind you --know that they are using a test that discriminates hugely by race, and yet do nothing about it? No fair-minded person on a sober day would coutenance such a thing. That is the kind of discrimination that in housing, employment, traffic stops, and every other sphere of life, we have deemed as unacceptable and uncivilized and racist.

So, if we are to frame the issue as one of race-neutral admissions policies, we must start first with the fact that the principal element in our application files is itself not race-neutral. The adjusted LSAT gap by definition tells us nothing about the true qualifications of white, asian, black or latino applicants. A race-neutral admissions policy is one that corrects for that bias, not one that hides it or exacerbates it. And AA is a rough attempt at correcting for that gap.

Now, I know for a fact that the heat generated about this topic is not about whether blacks should attend Thomas Jefferson or Vermont Law School. This is about YHSCCNMP etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that URMs graduating from these schools fare worse as lawyers or have bleaker career prospects than whites or Asians. In fact -- and there is only one data set on this, from Michigan itself -- they do just as well by the usual metrics by which these things are judged. The only difference is in pro bono contributions, where URMs outstrip non-URMs.

So, please. We can agree to disagree, we can debate alternatives, we can critique it, etc, but let's start from the facts, and have our positions be responsive to them.



this lsat race bias argument would be interesting if it was at issue in grutter. your same argument could be applied to the bar exam itself and any such challenges have rightly failed. michigans argument was use of race as a factor was needed to create a "critical mass" of urms at the school. this is questionable as boalt has as many urms today as in 1996, even more shocking as those students would still be aa beneficiaries at other schools and still chose boalt. was aa (violation of the equal protection clause) needed at cal to maintain the diversity of its class? no. is this mentioned in the majority opinion in grutter? of course not.

scotus narrowly decided that michigans breach of the fourteenth amendment would be justified in service of a "compelling state/governmental interest" for a maximum period of 25 years. whether or not the government of michigan has a compelling interest in training diverse attorneys destined for nyc biglaw is again highly questionable but perhaps another issue.

“whenever the government treats any person unequally because of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury that falls squarely within the language and spirit of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” 515 U.S., at 229—230.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 11, 2006, 04:26:03 PM
Okay, mae -- you're one of the anti-AA obssessives this season. I get it.

You say that it wasn't at issue. That's not true. It was. Michigan took a scattershot approach to their defense, and what stuck with the court was 'diversity'. Why? Probably because there was precedent for it, from Bakke.

You say that there are URMs at Boalt. You'll also notice that Boalt had to change it's GPA/LSAT mix in order to make that happen over a number of years. High GPAs, relatively low LSATs. That way they can minimize the distortive effects of the LSAT on URMs and give them a fair shot at admission.

The rest of it is quoting legal stuff. If your point is that it is unconstitutional or illegal, I'm not interested in that debate. The law is what it is. Whatever. No doubt you'll pwn me in court some day.

If you want to approach AA honestly, however, and that precludes (and is not consistent with) a legal argument, you should give the facts a fair turn, think about it, and reconcile yourself that it may, after all, be fair that URMs as a group are given equal opportunity to be admitted to the law schools that they'd like to attend.

Thanks
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 11, 2006, 04:42:17 PM

We also know that after adjusting for UG performance and socio-economics, URMs score lower on the LSAT, and that lower LSAT score is responsible for the entirety of the discrepancy between the adjusted index scores of URMs and others. So, a conclusion can be drawn: there is something wrong with the LSAT as a testing instrument.


How on earth did you get a 176 with such poor reasoning ability?

Do you actually believe that the only possible explanation for a gap between the races in LSAT performace (after being adjusted for GPA/socioeconomics) is that the test is biased? If that's the case, then how do you explain the fact that asians do better than whites? Is the test somehow designed to favor those of asian descent over whites? You deny that there could be ANY other factors, other than socioeconomics or GPA?

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 11, 2006, 04:51:26 PM
How on earth did you get a 176 with such poor reasoning ability?

Do you actually believe that the only possible explanation for a gap between the races in LSAT performace (after being adjusted for GPA/socioeconomics) is that the test is biased? If that's the case, then how do you explain the fact that asians do better than whites? Is the test somehow designed to favor those of asian descent over whites? You deny that there could be ANY other factors, other than socioeconomics or GPA?

See the bolded? You've entirely misundertood. Read my post again.

I am telling you -- and I have cited evidence, the only evidence there is -- that when GPAs are matched and when socio-economic indicators (parental education, household income, parental professions) are matched, there is an LSAT gap. That is fact, not speculation. It has been taken from actual applications to actual law schools, and that pattern holds true across multiple application cycles and tens of thousands of applicants.

Start from that. What is your explanation for it? Mine, by the way is not what you have characterized it to be: I am not saying that the LSAT was designed with an inherent bias.

I repeat: what is your explanation for this gap?

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 11, 2006, 05:51:55 PM
Okay, mae -- you're one of the anti-AA obssessives this season. I get it.

You say that it wasn't at issue. That's not true. It was. Michigan took a scattershot approach to their defense, and what stuck with the court was 'diversity'. Why? Probably because there was precedent for it, from Bakke.

You say that there are URMs at Boalt. You'll also notice that Boalt had to change it's GPA/LSAT mix in order to make that happen over a number of years. High GPAs, relatively low LSATs. That way they can minimize the distortive effects of the LSAT on URMs and give them a fair shot at admission.

The rest of it is quoting legal stuff. If your point is that it is unconstitutional or illegal, I'm not interested in that debate. The law is what it is. Whatever. No doubt you'll pwn me in court some day.

If you want to approach AA honestly, however, and that precludes (and is not consistent with) a legal argument, you should give the facts a fair turn, think about it, and reconcile yourself that it may, after all, be fair that URMs as a group are given equal opportunity to be admitted to the law schools that they'd like to attend.

Thanks


if you subscribe to this opinion that diversity can be achieved by changing lsat/gpa goals, why is this not a better solution to the issue than aa? one raises serious issues of government sponsored racial discrimination, lacks public support in states where it's been put to a vote, and creates/encourages stigma against urms as well as resentment among non-urms. bias against people with low gpas seems 100 times preferable to me but i'd be interested to hear if anyone disagrees with this.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 11, 2006, 09:54:50 PM
How on earth did you get a 176 with such poor reasoning ability?

Do you actually believe that the only possible explanation for a gap between the races in LSAT performace (after being adjusted for GPA/socioeconomics) is that the test is biased? If that's the case, then how do you explain the fact that asians do better than whites? Is the test somehow designed to favor those of asian descent over whites? You deny that there could be ANY other factors, other than socioeconomics or GPA?

See the bolded? You've entirely misundertood. Read my post again.

I am telling you -- and I have cited evidence, the only evidence there is -- that when GPAs are matched and when socio-economic indicators (parental education, household income, parental professions) are matched, there is an LSAT gap. That is fact, not speculation. It has been taken from actual applications to actual law schools, and that pattern holds true across multiple application cycles and tens of thousands of applicants.

Start from that. What is your explanation for it? Mine, by the way is not what you have characterized it to be: I am not saying that the LSAT was designed with an inherent bias.

I repeat: what is your explanation for this gap?



No, you've misunderstood. I'm aware that the evidence you cite claims that when socioeconomic and GPA are matched, there is an LSAT gap. What I do not concede (and what you refuse to consider) is that those are not the ONLY factors that could cause the LSAT gap. You make the unsupported assumption that they are. That is where your argument is fatally flawed.

And since you seem so bent on having me offer some possibilities, here are some:

-Cultural differences that affect the ways children are raised and taught to value education.
-Natural genetic differences in standardized test taking.
-And yes, there is the possibility that the LSAT is somehow flawed in that it gives asians a boost and harms blacks, hispanics, and native americans.


You assume that the last option is the only possibility without any evidence. That's the problem. Because I do not have evidence that explains it, I cannot claim to know why the gap exists, and neither can you.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 12, 2006, 11:57:15 AM
Okay, mae -- you're one of the anti-AA obssessives this season. I get it.

You say that it wasn't at issue. That's not true. It was. Michigan took a scattershot approach to their defense, and what stuck with the court was 'diversity'. Why? Probably because there was precedent for it, from Bakke.

You say that there are URMs at Boalt. You'll also notice that Boalt had to change it's GPA/LSAT mix in order to make that happen over a number of years. High GPAs, relatively low LSATs. That way they can minimize the distortive effects of the LSAT on URMs and give them a fair shot at admission.

The rest of it is quoting legal stuff. If your point is that it is unconstitutional or illegal, I'm not interested in that debate. The law is what it is. Whatever. No doubt you'll pwn me in court some day.

If you want to approach AA honestly, however, and that precludes (and is not consistent with) a legal argument, you should give the facts a fair turn, think about it, and reconcile yourself that it may, after all, be fair that URMs as a group are given equal opportunity to be admitted to the law schools that they'd like to attend.

Thanks

Just a couple of points...

1. When it comes to AA I am truly undecided about the issue. I believe that race does not account for discrepancies in LSAT and GPA, etc. and that socio-economic AA would be a more efficient and fair policy (also acknowledging there is some correlation between socio-economic status and race). So I favor socio-economic AA instead of race-based AA. However, I also would not favor race-blind admissions because I do believe that diversity is a crucial part of the learning experience and race contributes to that. I think both this positions have the potential to be harmonized.

2. When it comes to Grutter v. Bollinger, Red you should not make assumptions about how or why Michigan LS argued their case. I have met J. Lehman and chatted with him. Michigan LS argued for diversity not because of scattershoot approach but because that was what they believed. The LSAT race bias was not an issue in the case.

3. As for the studies posted by Red that show differences in scores by race when accounting for other factors I submit the following: Red, what do think the difference can be attributed to? And if race is the sole reason then it might be true that one race can have better numbers than  another so therefore it would be fair to say that one race can be better lawyers than others? (note: I do not agree with this statement, just posting it as food for thought.)

4. I have not seen people here argue for the fact that there are several minorities who have shown that even through hardship, racism and other obstacles have obtained amazing credentials only to be questioned later on if they actually got those credentials through their own work or due to AA. That is certainly one negative aspect of AA.

5. On a final note, I was reading this thread to see what people reactions were about Prop 2 and its effect on the admissions in this cycle. Sadly it got diverted into a general AA thread but more sad is that people (more like just Red) resulted to their usual name-calling and dismissive arguments without addressing those of others that differ.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 12, 2006, 03:37:00 PM
Schools should just get rid of the self identification thing and use race as a criteria for admission anyways.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 12, 2006, 10:27:16 PM
I know, I know!  The phallus!
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 12, 2006, 10:27:42 PM
-Natural genetic differences in standardized test taking.

This is the best formulation of racist biology on this board yet.  It's not that one race is genetically inferior, it's just genetically worse at taking the LSAT. 

I'M IN UR GENES, MESSING UP UR LOGIC GAMEZ!

Thank you, I was starting to get worried that no a-hole would jump in, skip over 7 pages of actual discussion, take one line of what I said out of context, imply that that was what I actually thought rather than one of many possible explanations I was listing, and then use it to call me a racist.

You've truly surpassed expectations. Proud day for you and your family.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 12, 2006, 11:15:40 PM
Thank you, I was starting to get worried that no a-hole would jump in, skip over 7 pages of actual discussion, take one line of what I said out of context, imply that that was what I actually thought rather than one of many possible explanations I was listing, and then use it to call me a racist.

You've truly surpassed expectations. Proud day for you and your family.

And thank you for lowering yourself from your proud posting heritage to talk to someone from a family such as mine.  Like it or not, you are espousing a central tenet of racist biology, that there are "natural genetic differences" among the races that affect intelligence.  Instead of going old-school anthropometry on us and measuring cranial capacity, you're measuring LSAT scores, which is almost cute.

Really? It's "racist" to say that genetic factors might play a part in the ability of a standardized test to measure that persons ability?

Here's a question for you. I think we can all agree that everyone is born with a different set of genetic traits. Some people are more artistic or creative than others, while perhaps others are more linear or systemic in their thinking. That whole left/right brain thing.

It is also true that there are many people for whom standardized tests are poor predictors of performance in that they consistently underrepresent their abilities, such as those in the first group mentioned above. So, is it really that hard to believe that there could be underlying reasons why certain groups of people underperform on the LSAT (or any other standardized testing measure) not because they are any less intelligent, but because they do not happen to think in the exact way that that specific test happens to measure performance?

But no, go ahead. It's much simpler to have a knee-jerk reaction to characterize anyone who even hypothesizes anything that you don't immediately agree with as a racist. Don't let me spoil your fun.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: hereshopin on November 12, 2006, 11:48:26 PM

When you generalize across a race, then yes.  That's the definition of racism.  You are arguing that there is a genetic difference between races that makes one less intelligent/capable than another.  There you go.

If you can show me where I actually said that any one race is less intelligent than another, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Try to make your arguments on the merits, rather than by smearing the person you're arguing with.

Quote

You are not-so-slyly moving away from your original proposition that there is a genetic difference between races and discussing something entirely noncontroversal and uninteresting.
 

Really? You sure that it's not just that you're not finding the omgsecretracism! that you jumped at in my argument, and are instead resorting to creating it in order to make it look like you're right?

Quote
Back to groups, which you, not-so-slyly, aggregated poorly.  Claiming that the LSAT doesn't adequately measure group X's ability, where X is a significant factor in the testtaking is trivial.  Races aren't collections of left-brain thinkers, but let's run with it, because why stop now?

If I understand correctly, you're arguing that certain racial groups, through genetic variation, have exact thought patterns, divorced from intelligence, which leads to a discrepency on the LSAT.  Maybe I'm not thinking Hispanic enough to understand where on earth you could possibly get such an idea, but you might want to call up Penn and see if Samuel George Morton is still teaching, I'm sure he'd love to have you.

Good, good, continue to make snarky comments that consist solely of namecalling and then avoid addressing the actual points that I'm making. That's certainly making your argument stronger.

Here's what I originally said, in context:
Quote
And since you seem so bent on having me offer some possibilities, here are some:

-Cultural differences that affect the ways children are raised and taught to value education.
-Natural genetic differences in standardized test taking.
-And yes, there is the possibility that the LSAT is somehow flawed in that it gives asians a boost and harms blacks, hispanics, and native americans.

I listed three of the many possible reasons that could contribute to the disparity in LSAT scores. You then took one, claimed that I personally was arguing that it was the ONLY reason, and then completely distorted it in order to make it seem like I was claiming that certain races were superior to others. That's shittastic critical reading, pisspoor analysis, and downright disingenuous debate. Between you and reds performace in this thread, I'm embarassed for your side of the argument.

Have a good day, I'm done with this.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Deontologist on November 13, 2006, 08:38:33 AM

When you generalize across a race, then yes.  That's the definition of racism.  You are arguing that there is a genetic difference between races that makes one less intelligent/capable than another.  There you go.

If you can show me where I actually said that any one race is less intelligent than another, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Try to make your arguments on the merits, rather than by
smearing the person you're arguing with.

You're incredible.  You include the quote in your own post and then ask me to show you where you said it.  You stipulated that a possible reason why one race would perform worse than another on an aptitutde test is because of "Natural genetic differences in standardized test taking."  This stipulation was in counterpart to a position that claimed that the test was biased in the way that it measured capability.  Try as you want to weasel out of it, but you said it.  I'm not even making an argument, so drop this high-handed bull, I am merely calling you out for something you said. 

And as far as putting words in mouths goes, nice job of dropping the word capable from my accusation.  Furthermore, I never claimed that you were making only that argument, but that the argument itself was racist.  Your need to defend it is something for you to deal with, not me.

I'M IN UR ARGUMENT, EXPOSING UR LIEZ!

Closeted racists always have the worst sense of humor.

It is unfair and bullying to automatically hurl a charge of racism at a person who has the audacity to defy the PC orthodoxy you apparently subscribe to wholeheartedly. She offered a hypothesis; if you do not agree with it, why not try combating her assertion with facts and evidence instead of impugning her character?  Frankly, it seems to me that she is jumping through hoops to avoid saying what is patently obvious to anyone who cares to investigate the matter—namely, that differences in mean intelligence do exist between the races. However uncomfortable to acknowledge, blacks do score one standard deviation (15 points) below the mean white IQ of 100. Asians (on average) score some five to seven points higher than whites. Evidence suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may have mean IQs anywhere from ½ to one full standard deviation (107 to 115) higher than gentile whites. We can also state with authority that there is indeed a strong genetic component to intelligence. What remains undecided is to what degree genetics and/or environment play a role determining these differences, although most of the evidence points to genetics accounting for anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of the difference in the mean IQ scores among individuals.

It is not racist to state a fact; it is honesty. Before you read me the riot act, do your homework. After the brouhaha following the publication of the Bell Curve in 1994, the American Psychological Association commissioned a task force to summarize the pertinent research findings related to the study of intelligence. The APA task force published its report in 1995; the report confirmed many of the basic assertions outlined by Herrnstein and Murray. Here are the report’s conclusions taken verbatim from the text:

1. Differences in genetic endowment contribute substantially to individual differences in (psychometric) intelligence, but the pathway by which genes produce their effects is still unknown. The impact of genetic differences appears to increase with age, but we do not know why.

2. Environmental factors also contribute substantially to the development of intelligence, but we do not clearly understand what those factors are or how they work. Attendance at school is certainly important, for example, but we do not know what aspects of schooling are critical.

3. The role of nutrition in intelligence remains obscure. Severe childhood malnutrition has clear negative effects, but the hypothesis that particular “micronutrients” may affect intelligence in otherwise adequately-fed populations has not yet been convincingly demonstrated.

4. There are significant correlations between measures of information-processing speed and psychometric intelligence, but the overall pattern of these findings yields no easy theoretical interpretation.

5. Mean scores on intelligence tests are rising steadily. They have gone up a full standard deviation in the last 50 years or so, and the rate of gain may be increasing. No one is sure why these gains are happening or what they mean.

6. The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

7. It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures.

Before the vultures start circling, let me explain my own interest in IQ. I am the legal guardian for my two younger siblings. One child tests in the gifted range, the other child is afflicted with an autism spectrum disorder and tests in the moderately retarded range. I began reading the literature on IQ for my own edification because I know first-hand how IQ can circumscribe or expand the options available to any individual. 

I agree this is not the place to have a discussion on IQ; it makes a great many people uncomfortable. But, if you want to avoid having to contend with these ideas, stop baiting people to come up with “some reason,” “any reason” a gap in performance exists on the LSAT or any standardized test besides internal test bias. Someone might just call your bluff.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 09:38:57 AM
See?

Probe a little bit and you can get people to tell you what they really think. That's worth it, I think. I know that it makes a lot of people squeamish, but really, it's is hard to understand the pervasiveness and the forms of racism in American today without understanding how they attempt to mask it. And it's hard to understand affirmative action without understanding both the racism and the masking.


parsley and mae8 -- this is an opportunity for you to say whether you agree with hereshopin and deontologist, or whether you don't.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Deontologist on November 13, 2006, 10:35:31 AM
See?

Probe a little bit and you can get people to tell you what they really think. That's worth it, I think. I know that it makes a lot of people squeamish, but really, it's is hard to understand the pervasiveness and the forms of racism in American today without understanding how they attempt to mask it. And it's hard to understand affirmative action without understanding both the racism and the masking.


parsley and mae8 -- this is an opportunity for you to say whether you agree with hereshopin and deontologist, or whether you don't.

Pathetic. Now I'm a racist too. parsley and mae8, in the interest of full discolsure, you should probably know that I am Black woman, who was raised in a  single-parent home. My mother died suddenly four years ago, and I am now raising my two brothers on my own. I was identified as gifted in middle school and tracked thereafter, which means I spent a large swath of my formative years in classes with privileged white children from--for the most part--two parent homes. I can remember having to speak at times for all black Americans when discussions would turn to race or discrimination in America.

I am keenly aware that racist attitudes still exist in America. On the school bus a few weeks ago, my sweet, good-natured little bother (the one identified as gifted) was called a n-word by the 12-year old sister of one his friends. I was angry, but I did not seek to crucify this child or her family.  I comforted my brother and alerted the principal. The girl was reprimanded, and she apologized.  My brother is not traumatized; he is resilient and has bright future ahead of him. Some silly epithet uttered by a child with poor impulse control and behavioral problems cannot alter this.  He is universally commended on his maturity, kindness, and respectfulness; he performs consistently at a high level academically—in class and on standardized tests.  I have no doubt that when his time comes, he will be eligible for and be recruited by any number of elite schools in the U.S.  What I do not want him to contend with is the latent suspicion that he got into X school because of his race.  This is why I have grown to have serious reservations about affirmative action.  But, of course, because I do not subscribe to black victimhood or choose to ignore the marshalled evidence, I am a racist.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 10:54:15 AM
Makes no difference to me whether you're black or white or drinking the  Model Minority Kool-Aid. Your argument, such as it is, is flawed to the point of disbelief.

You have posted a screed on differences in IQ between individuals. You quote from the APA report to do what it cannot and does not do: say that black and hispanic applicants with GPAs that are the same as those their white and Asian peers are nevertheless dumber. What are we supposed to believe? That the son or daughter of black lawyers who has earned a 3.8 GPA in Economics from Chicago is -- on average -- dumber than his white or Asian peer from that background, that school, and that GPA? Does that make sense to you? Does the evidence that you cite come even within the ballpark of saying something along those lines? Of course not. You've been reading Sowell and The Bell Curve and it's thrown you off -- it hasn't edified you at all.

Think before you post, silly.

If you have a way of reconciling the facts as they are, I'll be more than willing to entertain them. If not, grow the hell up. Being a black woman is not a shield from charges of either racism or stupidity.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Deontologist on November 13, 2006, 11:25:23 AM
Makes no difference to me whether you're black or white or drinking the  Model Minority Kool-Aid. Your argument, such as it is, is flawed to the point of disbelief.

You have posted a screed on differences in IQ between individuals. You quote from the APA report to do what it cannot and does not do: say that black and hispanic applicants with GPAs that are the same as those their white and Asian peers are nevertheless dumber. What are we supposed to believe? That the son or daughter of black lawyers who has earned a 3.8 GPA in Economics from Chicago is -- on average -- dumber than his white or Asian peer from that background, that school, and that GPA? Does that make sense to you? Does the evidence that you cite come even within the ballpark of saying something along those lines? Of course not. You've been reading Sowell and The Bell Curve and it's thrown you off -- it hasn't edified you at all.

Think before you post, silly.

If you have a way of reconciling the facts as they are, I'll be more than willing to entertain them. If not, grow the hell up. Being a black woman is not a shield from charges of either racism or stupidity.


What I am suggesting is that we need to control for one additional factor--IQ--before we can assume that the test is biased. If the gap remains once all of the potential factors--UGPA, SES, major, school, and IQ--are controlled for, then I will assume that there is indeed some flaw/bias within the test. Do you have some evidence that takes this critical factor (IQ) into account?

I'll chose to ignore the personal attacks. People are extremely brave when they are cloaked in anonymity.



 

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 13, 2006, 12:06:27 PM
It's ok. Red is just upset that she has not been able to come up with a reasonable argument to counter the flaws of AA so she tries to mask her own short-comings by pointing out those of others and insulting them. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why the design itself of the LSAT is racist?

PS I do not oppose AA, although I think it could be improved. I just think it is funny that some people who support it can not come up with substantive arguments or data arguing in its favor except for calling those who oppose it "racists."
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 12:29:24 PM
Deontologist -- I'll come back to your question.

contiki -- http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.510.html


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 13, 2006, 12:30:09 PM
Okay, mae -- you're one of the anti-AA obssessives this season. I get it.

You say that it wasn't at issue. That's not true. It was. Michigan took a scattershot approach to their defense, and what stuck with the court was 'diversity'. Why? Probably because there was precedent for it, from Bakke.

You say that there are URMs at Boalt. You'll also notice that Boalt had to change it's GPA/LSAT mix in order to make that happen over a number of years. High GPAs, relatively low LSATs. That way they can minimize the distortive effects of the LSAT on URMs and give them a fair shot at admission.

The rest of it is quoting legal stuff. If your point is that it is unconstitutional or illegal, I'm not interested in that debate. The law is what it is. Whatever. No doubt you'll pwn me in court some day.

If you want to approach AA honestly, however, and that precludes (and is not consistent with) a legal argument, you should give the facts a fair turn, think about it, and reconcile yourself that it may, after all, be fair that URMs as a group are given equal opportunity to be admitted to the law schools that they'd like to attend.

Thanks


if you subscribe to this opinion that diversity can be achieved by changing lsat/gpa goals, why is this not a better solution to the issue than aa? one raises serious issues of government sponsored racial discrimination, lacks public support in states where it's been put to a vote, and creates/encourages stigma against urms as well as resentment among non-urms. bias against people with low gpas seems 100 times preferable to me but i'd be interested to hear if anyone disagrees with this.

hi red, i guess this is off-topic now but i'd still like an answer to the above question...





speaking to the current conversation, does any of the evidence showing an lsat race bias look into differences in preparation? it seems entirely possible to me for example that nonurms in the aggregate take more practice test than urms. if true, this does not seem the type of bias that would demand corrective government racial preferences for some groups over others.

finally, i'd like to know the obvious faults in my reasoning because im not following: allegedly the lsat discriminates against urms, in an effort to counteract that we discount urm scores between 4-10 points in the admissions process. the lsat together with gpa predicts first year grades. urms disproportionately get bad first year grades to the point where 40% of black students are in the bottom decile of their class. the fault in the lsats predictive value is where exactly? isnt this exactly what would be predicted by discounting someones lsat 3 sds?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 12:39:35 PM
if you subscribe to this opinion that diversity can be achieved by changing lsat/gpa goals, why is this not a better solution to the issue than aa?

speaking to the current conversation, does any of the evidence showing an lsat race bias look into differences in preparation? it seems entirely possible to me for example that nonurms in the aggregate take more practice test than urms. if true, this does not seem the type of bias that would demand corrective government racial preferences for some groups over others.

finally, i'd like to know the obvious faults in my reasoning because im not following: allegedly the lsat discriminates against urms, in an effort to counteract that we discount urm scores between 4-10 points in the admissions process. the lsat together with gpa predicts first year grades. urms disproportionately get bad first year grades to the point where 40% of black students are in the bottom decile of their class. the fault in the lsats predictive value is where exactly? isnt this exactly what would be predicted by discounting someones lsat 3 sds?

Thank you for asking questions, rather than citing slogans.

These 3 questions I'll also come back to answer.

Ask questions, and I'll answer to the best of my knowledge about the subject-matter, and of ability to explain. Hopefully, you'll honestly consider the answers that I give in your evaluation of the postitives and negatives of AA.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 13, 2006, 01:21:31 PM
Deontologist -- I'll come back to your question.

contiki -- http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.510.html

Hi Red. Thanks for pointing me to that thread but you didn't point out those arguments here. What you did was insult those that differed from your opinion.

Anyway I still have not obtained a clear answer as to why is the LSAT test design inherently racist? You and others have referred to the so called and misinterpreted "stereotype threat." So here is a link to an article about how such theory might not account for the differences in scoring in completely, if at all.

http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 02:49:42 PM
Deontologist -- I'll come back to your question.

contiki -- http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.510.html

Hi Red. Thanks for pointing me to that thread but you didn't point out those arguments here. What you did was insult those that differed from your opinion.

Anyway I still have not obtained a clear answer as to why is the LSAT test design inherently racist? You and others have referred to the so called and misinterpreted "stereotype threat." So here is a link to an article about how such theory might not account for the differences in scoring in completely, if at all.

http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf

1. Show me where I did that. With a link to the actual post(s).

2. The LSAT design issue -- I have not ever argued that the LSAT test design is inherently racist. Not once.

a) If you had indeed read the thread that I pointed you to, you would have seen where I exlicitly said -- in response to a post by someone who is pro-AA -- that I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is racist by design. [I keep an open mind about it: 'I have seen no evidence to suggest..' is not the same as 'Such evidence doesn't exist'

b) if you had read through this thread with care, you would have seen that I again deny that I have made such a claim. This is the third time that I am denying it, and the last.

3. The widely misinterpreted Steele and Aronson study. Why don't you tell us in your own words what it says and how I have misused it in this discussion? That would be helpful. Thanks.

4. You made a claim earlier that the Michigan didn't involve a presentation of the stereotype threat argument. You said I was assuming such things, and that I should not assume. You had lunch with someone and you categorically know that they exclusively used a diversity defense, because they believe in diversity.
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg1544136.html#msg1544136
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/grutter/gru.trans/gru2.09.01a.html
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/grutter/gru_fin.reply.html


I know that you prefer civil discourse, which is why I'm mildly surprised that you would mistakenly attribute to me opinions that I have not held, that you would make so many misstatements of fact.

I don't need an apology, but I would be interested in an answer to each of these points. You know, to clear the air.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 13, 2006, 04:43:25 PM
Red... you issue orders to other posters.

"Go to this thread... Post on this thread... Show me where I did this... Respond to this argument... Provide proof for this..."

Unless you revel in the fact that you're a bully... you may want to try using "please" now and again?

Some of us dumb country bumpkins can't wrap our minds around directives unless they come with some pleasantry attached.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 13, 2006, 04:43:51 PM
I'll pretend you didn't write that TJ...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 13, 2006, 05:20:13 PM
FWIW, I consider red. a friend and we often agree, and I still think she's a bit smug and bullying sometimes.  There's no need to defend her on these points; I doubt she would.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 13, 2006, 05:51:12 PM

1. Show me where I did that. With a link to the actual post(s).

2. The LSAT design issue -- I have not ever argued that the LSAT test design is inherently racist. Not once.

a) If you had indeed read the thread that I pointed you to, you would have seen where I exlicitly said -- in response to a post by someone who is pro-AA -- that I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is racist by design. [I keep an open mind about it: 'I have seen no evidence to suggest..' is not the same as 'Such evidence doesn't exist'

b) if you had read through this thread with care, you would have seen that I again deny that I have made such a claim. This is the third time that I am denying it, and the last.

3. The widely misinterpreted Steele and Aronson study. Why don't you tell us in your own words what it says and how I have misused it in this discussion? That would be helpful. Thanks.

4. You made a claim earlier that the Michigan didn't involve a presentation of the stereotype threat argument. You said I was assuming such things, and that I should not assume. You had lunch with someone and you categorically know that they exclusively used a diversity defense, because they believe in diversity.
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg1544136.html#msg1544136
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/grutter/gru.trans/gru2.09.01a.html
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/grutter/gru_fin.reply.html


I know that you prefer civil discourse, which is why I'm mildly surprised that you would mistakenly attribute to me opinions that I have not held, that you would make so many misstatements of fact.

I don't need an apology, but I would be interested in an answer to each of these points. You know, to clear the air.


Hahaha you make this to fun.

Point 1 of your response, when have you resulted to insults? I'll point you to page 10 of this thread where you called someone "human garbage" and never apologized. (sorry I can't include the link but I do not know how to do multiple quotes)

Points 2 and 3. On this thread you said:
So, if we are to frame the issue as one of race-neutral admissions policies, we must start first with the fact that the principal element in our application files is itself not race-neutral. The adjusted LSAT gap by definition tells us nothing about the true qualifications of white, asian, black or latino applicants. A race-neutral admissions policy is one that corrects for that bias, not one that hides it or exacerbates it. And AA is a rough attempt at correcting for that gap.
I understand from that statement that you are implying that the LSAT is biased (if not clarify it for me) and others specifically mentioned the stereotype threat. As to what I interpret from the stereotype threat is that it MAY be a real phenomena but there is not enough evidence to suggest that it accounts for the differences in scores between races. Moreso, other studies have shown that it may in fact may not do so at all (refer to the article I linked).

Point 4. This is one made me laugh. If you have read Grutter v Bollinger you would recognize that the person that I alluded to was Jeffrey Lehman who was the Dean of Michigan Law School at that time. I would assume he has a certain amount of credibility in the subject. Also, when reading the transcripts you linked the stereotype threat idea is brought up by the intervening defendants and plaintiff, so Michigan LS was not the one to use in its defense.

So yeah let's stick with the civil discourse and I think I have not attributed to you anything you have not said, as shown by my responses to each of your points as you requested.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 13, 2006, 05:54:40 PM
Well, I hope that MI learns that when it basically akins being a minority to being inherently handicapped that they will feel the repurcusions from the people.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 13, 2006, 06:04:13 PM
i anxiously anticipate your answer red but in the meantime maybe someone else can give their thoughts.



Mae: Boalt is able to enroll the same % of urms today as in 1996

"Red: You say that there are URMs at Boalt. You'll also notice that Boalt had to change it's GPA/LSAT mix in order to make that happen over a number of years. High GPAs, relatively low LSATs. That way they can minimize the distortive effects of the LSAT on URMs and give them a fair shot at admission.

Mae: if you subscribe to this opinion that diversity can be achieved by changing lsat/gpa goals, why is this not a better solution to the issue than aa? one raises serious issues of government sponsored racial discrimination, lacks public support in states where it's been put to a vote, and creates/encourages stigma against urms as well as resentment among non-urms. bias against people with low gpas seems 100 times preferable to me but i'd be interested to hear if anyone disagrees with this."


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 06:20:28 PM
I bully* because that is a niche that is badly needed when people engage in drive-by bigotry on this board. If someone else wants to take over that role occasionally, I'll take over the role of feeding them sugar cubes.

Also, H4CS' analysis is spot-on.

In any case, what is t be gained from letting them off the hook? A more polite board? Surely not -- surely an unanswered slander doesn't make the board more polite.

Finally, they like it. It makes them feel like they're test-driving their smarts. Look at parsley, for example: still hanging around, still looking for attention and a way back into the debate. Look at Contiki, every off-topic post that he's made is in response to me. Look at Deontologist: all but two of her posts are in response to AA and my posts. And poor bandaidstick.. him, too. They like it. They self-select. Halfie's right.



* Bully, I take it, means to subject someone to a vigorous challenge of their uninformed and ill thought-out 'positions'.

-----

Substantive posts will resume tomorrow.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 06:25:13 PM
Mae: if you subscribe to this opinion that diversity can be achieved by changing lsat/gpa goals, why is this not a better solution to the issue than aa?

I think it is, mae, and the trial court judge in grutter said as much. You and I and he agree.

Now, let me ask you a question: if they don't change the lsat/gpa mix and we know that the use of the LSAT discriminates by race, what policy do you suggest?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 13, 2006, 06:27:03 PM
Point 4. This is one made me laugh. If you have read Grutter v Bollinger you would recognize that the person that I alluded to was Jeffrey Lehman who was the Dean of Michigan Law School at that time. I would assume he has a certain amount of credibility in the subject.

So, let me get this straight: you think those trial transcripts are forgeries?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 13, 2006, 06:32:35 PM
Point 4. This is one made me laugh. If you have read Grutter v Bollinger you would recognize that the person that I alluded to was Jeffrey Lehman who was the Dean of Michigan Law School at that time. I would assume he has a certain amount of credibility in the subject.

So, let me get this straight: you think those trial transcripts are forgeries?

I just edited my post to make it more clear. The stereotype threat was brought up by Massie and Washington which were the lawyers for the intervening defendants not for Michigan LS, so you can not attribute the stereotype threat defense to Michigan Law School.

How about points 1-3?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 13, 2006, 06:36:26 PM
Mae: if you subscribe to this opinion that diversity can be achieved by changing lsat/gpa goals, why is this not a better solution to the issue than aa?

I think it is, mae, and the trial court judge in grutter said as much. You and I and he agree.

Now, let me ask you a question: if they don't change the lsat/gpa mix and we know that the use of the LSAT discriminates by race, what policy do you suggest?

LOL This gets even better! You just recently said to me that you have never claimed that the LSAT discriminates by race but here you are saying that it does. You are funny and inconsistent.

BTW you are bully not because you challenge the views and opinions of others, you are a bully because of the way you choose to that and because you insult them or are demeaning. I refer you to when you called someone "human garbage" but still have not apologized or the fact that you call their opinions "ill thought-out."

PS I just wanted to use the glow function hee hee.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 13, 2006, 06:51:23 PM
I bully* because that is a niche that is badly needed when people engage in drive-by bigotry on this board. If someone else wants to take over that role occasionally, I'll take over the role of feeding them sugar cubes.

Also, H4CS' analysis is spot-on.

In any case, what is t be gained from letting them off the hook? A more polite board? Surely not -- surely an unanswered slander doesn't make the board more polite.

Finally, they like it. It makes them feel like they're test-driving their smarts. Look at parsley, for example: still hanging around, still looking for attention and a way back into the debate. Look at Contiki, every off-topic post that he's made is in response to me. Look at Deontologist: all but two of her posts are in response to AA and my posts. And poor bandaidstick.. him, too. They like it. They self-select. Halfie's right.



* Bully, I take it, means to subject someone to a vigorous challenge of their uninformed and ill thought-out 'positions'.

-----

Substantive posts will resume tomorrow.

None of my posts have been off-topic, the fact that you say they are does not make it so. I have responded to each of your requests. You said you don't insult but I pointed you to were you did; you said you never thought the LSAT was racist I pointed you to two different occasions were you did; you asked me for my opinion of stereotype threat I gave it to you even with an article arguing against it being an accurate or complete explanation of differences in score by race; and, you tried to discredit who I alluded to which ended up being the former Dean of Michigan Law School and posted the Grutter transcripts without acknowledging that the ones bringing up stereotype threat were not the lawyers for Mich LS but those for the intvervening defendants. You just can't take it when people can find flaws in your argument just like you can in theirs. Sorry that you can not be right all the time, I'm sure you will understand that some day.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 13, 2006, 08:36:17 PM
I bully* because that is a niche that is badly needed when people engage in drive-by bigotry on this board. If someone else wants to take over that role occasionally, I'll take over the role of feeding them sugar cubes.

Also, H4CS' analysis is spot-on.

In any case, what is t be gained from letting them off the hook? A more polite board? Surely not -- surely an unanswered slander doesn't make the board more polite.

Finally, they like it. It makes them feel like they're test-driving their smarts. Look at parsley, for example: still hanging around, still looking for attention and a way back into the debate. Look at Contiki, every off-topic post that he's made is in response to me. Look at Deontologist: all but two of her posts are in response to AA and my posts. And poor bandaidstick.. him, too. They like it. They self-select. Halfie's right.



* Bully, I take it, means to subject someone to a vigorous challenge of their uninformed and ill thought-out 'positions'.

-----

Substantive posts will resume tomorrow.

I think that the point of my post was misunderstood, and I'm sorry if it was rude or inappropriate (or if I've hurt your feelings -- which I doubt, but I really do apologize if I did).  You and Spaulding and Halfie have been saying the right things and making the necessary interventions in this thread.  I don't have any problems with calling people out on their racism or dismissing racist psychobiological claptrap outright or anything else.  Indeed, I appreciate it since I really don't have the energy for this stuff right now.  I don't think everyone needs to be polite all the time (though I try to make it my own default position). My point was merely that defending you on the substance didn't necessarily entail saying that you were always the most generous of sparring partners.  Your asking for an apology, for instance, after saying some of the things you had said struck me as funny.  That's really all I meant.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 05:56:37 AM

I think that the point of my post was misunderstood, and I'm sorry if it was rude or inappropriate (or if I've hurt your feelings -- which I doubt, but I really do apologize if I did).  You and Spaulding and Halfie have been saying the right things and making the necessary interventions in this thread.  I don't have any problems with calling people out on their racism or dismissing racist psychobiological claptrap outright or anything else.  Indeed, I appreciate it since I really don't have the energy for this stuff right now.  I don't think everyone needs to be polite all the time (though I try to make it my own default position). My point was merely that defending you on the substance didn't necessarily entail saying that you were always the most generous of sparring partners.  Your asking for an apology, for instance, after saying some of the things you had said struck me as funny.  That's really all I meant.

I should have been clearer that my explanation of method wasn't in response to your post so much as inspired by it. We go back a ways, Miss P. I know what you meant. I was just explaining to/for n00bs, lurkers, horrified observers and whatnot that I bully (I prefer 'play') on specific issues for specific reasons. And yes, my asking for an apology made me smile too.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 06:13:37 AM
I just edited my post to make it more clear. The stereotype threat was brought up by Massie and Washington which were the lawyers for the intervening defendants not for Michigan LS, so you can not attribute the stereotype threat defense to Michigan Law School.

How about points 1-3?

See if you can work out the difference between "LSAT test design inherently racist" and "the LSAT discriminates by race". Ask someone for help understanding the distinction if you need to.

bandaid? Oh, I just held up a mirror for him so that he could have a good look at his reflection. I did him a favor, I think. He'll come back to thank me. You'll see. [Actually, I had thought that you said that I insulted people in the thread that I referred you to, and I didn't remember doing so there because people there were discussing things in good faith. Not so in this thread.].

The red herring on the distinction between the "Michigan Law School" and "the Michigan defense". What's your point?

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 06:16:06 AM
None of my posts have been off-topic, the fact that you say they are does not make it so. I have responded to each of your requests. You said you don't insult but I pointed you to were you did; you said you never thought the LSAT was racist I pointed you to two different occasions were you did; you asked me for my opinion of stereotype threat I gave it to you even with an article arguing against it being an accurate or complete explanation of differences in score by race; and, you tried to discredit who I alluded to which ended up being the former Dean of Michigan Law School and posted the Grutter transcripts without acknowledging that the ones bringing up stereotype threat were not the lawyers for Mich LS but those for the intvervening defendants. You just can't take it when people can find flaws in your argument just like you can in theirs. Sorry that you can not be right all the time, I'm sure you will understand that some day.

You remind me of YaleCollege. Do you attend Cornell, btw?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 06:19:03 AM
Some of us dumb country bumpkins can't wrap our minds around directives unless they come with some pleasantry attached.

That's right, parsnip. You won't distance yourself from the racist posts because I didn't say 'please'. Got it. It cracks me up that you spoke of honor a few posts back.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 14, 2006, 06:34:09 AM

I think that the point of my post was misunderstood, and I'm sorry if it was rude or inappropriate (or if I've hurt your feelings -- which I doubt, but I really do apologize if I did).  You and Spaulding and Halfie have been saying the right things and making the necessary interventions in this thread.  I don't have any problems with calling people out on their racism or dismissing racist psychobiological claptrap outright or anything else.  Indeed, I appreciate it since I really don't have the energy for this stuff right now.  I don't think everyone needs to be polite all the time (though I try to make it my own default position). My point was merely that defending you on the substance didn't necessarily entail saying that you were always the most generous of sparring partners.  Your asking for an apology, for instance, after saying some of the things you had said struck me as funny.  That's really all I meant.

I should have been clearer that my explanation of method wasn't in response to your post so much as inspired by it. We go back a ways, Miss P. I know what you meant. I was just explaining to/for n00bs, lurkers, horrified observers and whatnot that I bully (I prefer 'play') on specific issues for specific reasons. And yes, my asking for an apology made me smile too.

Good, good. I figured as much. ;)

Also, "Parsnip": heh.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 14, 2006, 06:46:53 AM
Quote
parsley, for example: still hanging around, still looking for attention and a way back into the debate.

Red, just pointing out that basically your debate tactics are the equivalent of some 9th grader who just discovered "OWN3D!!1!!!"

And, Red, you're clearly the attention hog around here.  Now you're insulting me for posting??

Quote
That's right, parsnip. You won't distance yourself from the racist posts because I didn't say 'please'. Got it. It cracks me up that you spoke of honor a few posts back.

What? How was I in a position that I needed to distance myself from a racist post?  I just said that you're rude and imply that I'm racist in response? 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 06:49:16 AM
Oh, simmer down. You're so damned shrill.  :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 14, 2006, 07:06:14 AM
I just edited my post to make it more clear. The stereotype threat was brought up by Massie and Washington which were the lawyers for the intervening defendants not for Michigan LS, so you can not attribute the stereotype threat defense to Michigan Law School.

How about points 1-3?

See if you can work out the difference between "LSAT test design inherently racist" and "the LSAT discriminates by race". Ask someone for help understanding the distinction if you need to.

bandaid? Oh, I just held up a mirror for him so that he could have a good look at his reflection. I did him a favor, I think. He'll come back to thank me. You'll see. [Actually, I had thought that you said that I insulted people in the thread that I referred you to, and I didn't remember doing so there because people there were discussing things in good faith. Not so in this thread.].

The red herring on the distinction between the "Michigan Law School" and "the Michigan defense". What's your point?

haha You are going into semantics to allow yourself wiggle room, that's cute. I asked several times in this thread why does the LSAT discriminate by race and the only answer I have received or that has been alluded to is its design or the stereotype threat. So tell me why it discriminates by race, again? Oh wait you will probably ignore this question anyway. Regarding Michigan LS you said they used the stereotype threat in its defense but they didn't, its pretty simple. Admit you are wrong. And about the insults obviously you can't admit even to yourself that you have done it. The fact that you called someone human garbage and then say "oh i just help up a mirror" is even more insulting, and you wonder abotu people discussing things in good faith? This thread was pretty civil until you came in and started calling everyone that disagreed with you a racist. Then you wonder why some people "self-select" to answer your posts? It's pathetic that you can't admit that you have been wrong and even more sad that you have to insult people in order to seem self-righteous. Luckily I will probably never meet you. Actually not luckily because as much as I complete hate your way of arguing or the way that you insult people it is still fun to argue with you even if frustrating at times. hehe  ;)

I won't answer to you what school I am from yet.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 14, 2006, 08:08:19 AM
Quote
I won't answer to you what school I am from yet.

It's OK. Red still hasn't told me what she does all day.

And I haven't been able to find any posts from Red ever admitting to being incorrect or apologizing. (sounds like somebody has a complex?  even brilliant and well-educated people are incorrect sometimes...)

Red: read every thread, research those and find some examples of you apologizing and admitting to mistakes - pronto!

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 01:56:13 PM
Red you keep claiming that the LSAT discriminates by race and that everyone knows this and apparently you believe this to be a fact. Juse because you believe it so does not make it fact, it is just your opinion. Where is YOUR evidence that what you say is correct?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 01:59:22 PM
Red you keep claiming that the LSAT discriminates by race and that everyone knows this and apparently you believe this to be a fact. Juse because you believe it so does not make it fact, it is just your opinion. Where is YOUR evidence that what you say is correct?

Just because I believe it doesn't make it a fact? You're wrong about that, Vinny. That I believe it is what makes it a fact.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 02:02:25 PM
So show me your proof. Where can I read about how the LSAT discriminates against people (other than those who didn't prepare, lol).
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 02:04:24 PM
Go to the  AA board and find my thread -- it's about 5 down on the 1st page, "why AA is justified". It's got all the proof you can swallow, girlie.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 02:12:26 PM
Luckily I will probably never meet you. Actually not luckily because as much as I complete hate your way of arguing or the way that you insult people it is still fun to argue with you even if frustrating at times. hehe  ;)

You're such a bottom. I love it.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 02:18:35 PM
OK red, I just read your posts. Let's for a moment presume you to be correct.  So you are saying that the over-achievers are the ones being hurt most because of this discrimination. If this is true should't that not matter because many of the people that go to law school, good law schools, and do well, are overachievers? That would mean that all the people that beleive the test to measure intelligence, that are overachievers, are being biased against. Then it shouldn't matter because everyone is handicapped equally across the board. Then that means that the score is the same across "races" and then we still wouldn't need AA.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 03:02:05 PM
OK red, I just read your posts. Let's for a moment presume you to be correct.  So you are saying that the over-achievers are the ones being hurt most because of this discrimination. If this is true should't that not matter because many of the people that go to law school, good law schools, and do well, are overachievers? That would mean that all the people that beleive the test to measure intelligence, that are overachievers, are being biased against. Then it shouldn't matter because everyone is handicapped equally across the board. Then that means that the score is the same across "races" and then we still wouldn't need AA.

Okay. Here's the thing: the hypothesis is that it affects those who belong to a group viewed by the culture in which they live as being less intelligent. Not whites obviously -- they're, you know, 'normal'. Not 'jews' or 'asians' either -- they're viewed by society today as supersmart. Instead, it affects what we call URMs -- to lesser and greater degrees, depending on what subset of URMs you identify with.

For example, check this thread that we're in, and you'll see that there's a presumption just below the surface that blacks as a group are less intelligent than, for example, whites. That idea is everywhere in this country. Blacks know it, and when the smartest of them, the most ambitious of them, the ones who have achieved the most academically, and who care the most take the LSAT, this stereotype threat (which is better characterized as the burden of racism) weighs heavily on them, whether they are aware of it at a conscious level or not. Clearly whites and Asians don't have this kind of burden as a group. Clearly, hispanics and native americans don't labor under the false stereotype as much as blacks do, though they do labor under it.

Now, remember. This isn't just some excuse plucked out of thin air. Given the right conditions, you can make anyone perform worse than they otherwise would have. If you read the experimental studies that have been done, you'll see that. If you read the physiological reports, you'll see that something physical actually happens that is different than what happens in the absence of a stereotype. That is a tax on highly qualified URMs, and one that (1) at least helps explain why it is that URMs with GPAs that are matched with white and other peers have worse LSAT scores, and (2) shows quite clearly that the playing field is not even.

If you believe in equal opportunity, therefore, you must think seriously about whether it is fair to (1) use a test in which this kind of effect is so highlighted, and (2) to emphasize that test so heavily, above GPA, softs and everything else.

If you believe in merit, you should also be alarmed: URMs that are as bright, accomplished, etc as their peers, are now going to have an even harder time competing for admission to schools that their white peers will easily get in to.

But, let's set aside the stereotype threat for a minute. Just the fact that there is a discrepancy between the LSATs of different populations should give schools and us some serious f-ing pause. Last I heard, GPA involved intelligence, perseverance and hard work. Broadly speaking, the more 'intelligent', persevering and hard-working students are, the better their GPA will be.

Well, guess what? That was exactly the purpose of the LSAT: to standardize GPAs across time, schools, majors, etc. So, if there is a gap between what it is supposed to do and what it does do, one has to believe that it is deeply and fatally flawed -- it works for white and asian kids; it fails utterly for hispanic, native american, and black kids.

That's pretty much it. If you buy a compass and it sends you East instead of North, you shouldn't rage at the Orient: you should get yourself a new compass. If you won't or can't buy a new compass, you should adjust for it: know that when it's pointing North, it really means East and act accordingly.

That's what law schools have done. They figure that it works well enough for whites and asians, but that it doesn't work at all well for URMs, so they adjust. That correction is called affirmative action.


deontologist: I haven't forgotten about your question. I promise that I'll come back to it.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 14, 2006, 03:14:17 PM
Luckily I will probably never meet you. Actually not luckily because as much as I complete hate your way of arguing or the way that you insult people it is still fun to argue with you even if frustrating at times. hehe  ;)

You're such a bottom. I love it.

You wish.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 03:25:28 PM
well then you can say the same thing for GPA. teachers really control that. in fact, I know someone whom the teachers didn't want to get a specific degree so gave them not so good grades in certain classes trying to thwart their efforts (of course it didn't work, because that person did thier best and even teachers can't change results that are concrete, anyways, I digress). GPA doesn't matter intelligence either. But it's what we got, right? So if you are conceding to the use of GPA, then what kinda stretch would it be to allow LSAT?

I think the conditions surrounding the LSAT are the same across boards. I don't think that black people are more stupid than whites, that has nothing to do with race. I do think that the leaders in the black community fail at letting the black youth KNOW that they aren't any more stupid than anyone else. I think that that is what is perputuating the problem. Getting rid of the LSAT wouldn't solve this supposed problem, if it even exists, because there would just be something else that people come up with that is impeding the black LSAT score.

I think that we should just actually treat everyone equally and then we wouldn't have to worry about this. By giving people a leg-up we are just helping perpetuate the problems ourselves.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 03:49:36 PM
well then you can say the same thing for GPA. teachers really control that. in fact, I know someone whom the teachers didn't want to get a specific degree so gave them not so good grades in certain classes trying to thwart their efforts (of course it didn't work, because that person did thier best and even teachers can't change results that are concrete, anyways, I digress). GPA doesn't matter intelligence either. But it's what we got, right? So if you are conceding to the use of GPA, then what kinda stretch would it be to allow LSAT?

I think the conditions surrounding the LSAT are the same across boards. I don't think that black people are more stupid than whites, that has nothing to do with race. I do think that the leaders in the black community fail at letting the black youth KNOW that they aren't any more stupid than anyone else. I think that that is what is perputuating the problem. Getting rid of the LSAT wouldn't solve this supposed problem, if it even exists, because there would just be something else that people come up with that is impeding the black LSAT score.

I think that we should just actually treat everyone equally and then we wouldn't have to worry about this. By giving people a leg-up we are just helping perpetuate the problems ourselves.


Your argument seems to be that black leaders are responsible for black youth getting into trouble and not finishing school, so who cares if the ones that stay in school and get high grades get shafted by the LSAT?

Is that more or less it?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 03:50:52 PM
No, that is not more or less it.

I am merely stating that the group feeling inferior may be due to their own leaders. That is not connected to the other argument that I present. They are separate and distinct, sorry that I didn't clarify that.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 03:53:05 PM
No, that is not more or less it.

I am merely stating that the group feeling inferior may be due to their own leaders. That is not connected to the other argument that I present. They are separate and distinct, sorry that I didn't clarify that.

Okay, my mistake.

But if the LSAT is in fact unfair to URMs with high UGPAs and academic honors etc, you'd support either getting rid of the LSAT or doing something to correct for its bias?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 03:53:54 PM
Red., I'm sorry, but is your 'tar some chick who just got a facial?!

I thought you were against porn?

It's monica bellucci -- go vote for her in blue's thread. And it's not p0rn, it's erotica.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:02:13 PM
Here's something to ponder..


Boalt, the first day of exams, 1994. URM students received flyers saying

on the front side:

"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SUCKS!!! DON'T FLUNK OUT!!!"

on the reverse side:

"CLINTON AND TIEN AGREE: MONKEES BELONG IN THE JUNGLE HASTA LA VISTA SAYONARA SANS BLAGUE RESPONDEZ S'IL VOUS PLAIT"



then, in Frebruary, when grades were posted, some new flyers distributed to URM students at the law school. This one said:

"Rejoice you cry baby niggers it's affirmative action month. A town hall meeting will not save you wetbacks or chinks. Your failures are hereditary and can't be corrected by these liberals. Look around Boalt Hall besides the few hand picked affirmative action professors this is a quality law school. Clinton nomination of Foster another unqualified monkey is similar to your existence here at Boalt a failure. When I see you in class it bugs the hell out of me because your taking the seat of someone qualified. You belong at Coolie High Law don't you forget!"



Irony aside, that's not very nice, is it? It's not a great thing that this chap went on to become a lawyer, is it?

Check out the LSN pages of URMs from last cycle and see how similar the comments there are to this.

Check out xoxo, and see how the comments there are similar, though more articulate.

Check out the comments here on LSD when some shlub gets dinged by Harvard or Columbia and see how similar the comments are to this.


So, yeah.
1. Hereditary/genetic
2. AA as a liberal plot to correct what can't be corrected
3. 'Bugs the hell out of me when I see unqualified people taking the spots of the deserving"

That's the narrative structure of racism. It's not exactly subtle, not exactly clever, not exactly worth serious consideration. But it is certainly worth distancing oneself from.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:03:01 PM

You know, I swore to myself that I wasn't going to jump into this thread, because it makes me feel kind of weary. But I think it has to be said: red., your new 'tar is kind of gross. There. Phew. Been wanting to get that one off my chest...

It's HONEY. Gee, y'all have overactive and icky imaginations  :P
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:04:21 PM
I saw her in LA.  Beautiful, but slightly bitchy.  

Beautiful, yes. I met her at a thing that I attended once. Bitchy? She's Italian.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 04:08:28 PM
Just because someone was a jerk and sent letters to black students doesn't make the LSAT discriminatory against blacks.

I say that if you got far enough to take the LSAT then there isn't a problem. if there really was a problem wouldn't we see less black students in law school? There are many black students here on LSD and they did great on the LSAT, what would be your explanation for this then?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 14, 2006, 04:10:57 PM
I saw her in LA.  Beautiful, but slightly bitchy.  

Beautiful, yes. I met her at a thing that I attended once. Bitchy? She's Italian.

Well if she is bitchy then it's the perfect avatar for Red. I kid. I kid.

BTW it does look somewhat gross.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:17:04 PM
Just because someone was a jerk and sent letters to black students doesn't make the LSAT discriminatory against blacks.

I say that if you got far enough to take the LSAT then there isn't a problem. if there really was a problem wouldn't we see less black students in law school? There are many black students here on LSD and they did great on the LSAT, what would be your explanation for this then?

The bolded part was a general comment for this thread, not for you in particular. It helps explain why I (or some of us) are quick to jump down the throat of people who speak in the same way, minus the n-word.

The second paragraph of your post: here's something for you to consider -- in any given year there are only one or two african americans with 3.75+ GPA and 170+ LSAT in the whole country, but there are hundreds of african americans with GPAs over 3.75. This despite the fact that African Americans disproportionately attend UG schools with a hard curve -- i.e. state schools and HBCUs.

You say that if they get to the point where they're taking the LSAT, there isn' a problem. You don't think that that's a problem?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 04:18:48 PM
FWIW, I consider red. a friend and we often agree, and I still think she's a bit smug and bullying sometimes.  There's no need to defend her on these points; I doubt she would.

Her style isn't mine, but it's hard to know how to handle people like hereshopin and Deontologist who want it both ways.  They want the ability to posit racist ideas without the affront of being called a racist.  They've grown up in a culture that has taught them that racists are bad people.  They also have a limited view of racism which leads them to believe that so long as they don't dislike black people, they're not racist. 

So they feel free to claim that there are essential genetic or other differences between the races that leads to a differentiation in unbiased standardized tests of intelligence/capability.  They do so while reserving the right to be insulted when someone points out that this is a racist position.  Suddenly, those of us who oppose this view are attacking them by pointing out the inherent racism in such a position.

A: Personally, I agree with Scalia that a judge should limit interpretation to the text in the statue before him/her and not legislative intent.
B: That's strict constitutionalism and here's why I think that's a problematic position.
A: How dare you accuse me of being a strict constitutionalist!  You bully your ideological opponents by insulting them instead of making an argument on the merits.  I am no such thing.  I have many black friends.
B: Grow up.  And read this thread.  I used to be a firefighter.

Yes, red is a bully.  Nowadays, I tend to merely have enough intellectual focus to play hit-and-run in threads like these.  It's not clear how much true engagement you can have in such a situation.

when we grow up being told that racism is bad, people are clearly referring to racism by the other definitions, either an irrational hatred of an individual person for their race, or discrimination based on a person's race. no one is referring to the idea that race can have an impact on intelligence. so what you're doing is conflating the terms to bolster your argument. any intelligent person can see through it.

so yes, i will admit to being a racist by the latter definition, as should anyone else who has ever said that blacks are inherently better at running and jumping. i will deny that i am a racist by the others though, which is what society is really trying to prevent.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 04:22:23 PM
Just because someone was a jerk and sent letters to black students doesn't make the LSAT discriminatory against blacks.

I say that if you got far enough to take the LSAT then there isn't a problem. if there really was a problem wouldn't we see less black students in law school? There are many black students here on LSD and they did great on the LSAT, what would be your explanation for this then?

The bolded part was a general comment for this thread, not for you in particular. It helps explain why I (or some of us) are quick to jump down the throat of people who speak in the same way, minus the n-word.

The second paragraph of your post: here's something for you to consider -- in any given year there are only one or two african americans with 3.75+ GPA and 170+ LSAT in the whole country, but there are hundreds of african americans with GPAs over 3.75. This despite the fact that African Americans disproportionately attend UG schools with a hard curve -- i.e. state schools and HBCUs.

You say that if they get to the point where they're taking the LSAT, there isn' a problem. You don't think that that's a problem?

it's a myth perpetuated by leftists that state schools and hcbu's have hard curves. they may have lower median grades, but the average student is of much lower quality. it's easier for a smart person to get a 3.75 at howard where the average student is functionally retarded, with a 950 sat average and gets a 3.0 than for a smart person to get a 3.5 at harvard where the average is a 3.3.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:25:22 PM
it's a myth perpetuated by leftists that state schools and hcbu's have hard curves. they may have lower median grades, but the average student is of much lower quality. it's easier for a smart person to get a 3.75 at howard where the average student is functionally retarded, with a 950 sat average and gets a 3.0 than for a smart person to get a 3.5 at harvard where the average is a 3.3.

Parsnip, help me out here.  :D

I'm deputizing you as my assistant to correct flawed posts like this one while I deal with the more nunaced arguments.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:27:38 PM
By the way, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, this is who lawschoolgulf is:

during the summer after my freshman year, i was mugged on the way to a party. the mugger was black and he pulled a knife on me and demanded my wallet. i was carrying one of my dad's handguns. it was the heat of the moment and i pulled out the gun, pointed it at the mugger, and said drop your knife you lazy N-word. he took a step towards me so i shot him three times in the chest. by the time the police got there, he was already dead. a witness happened to be nearby and told the police what happened including that i had used the n-word. i was taken in for questioning but released a few hours later after detectives concluded that the shooting was in self-defense. i was never charged nor prosecuted.

do i have to disclose this to the law schools i'm applying to? will it hurt my chances? i wrote a 171 on the lsat last month and my lsac gpa is a 3.9. i'm shooting for top 10. thanks.

That was his virgin post.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 04:29:58 PM
it's a myth perpetuated by leftists that state schools and hcbu's have hard curves. they may have lower median grades, but the average student is of much lower quality. it's easier for a smart person to get a 3.75 at howard where the average student is functionally retarded, with a 950 sat average and gets a 3.0 than for a smart person to get a 3.5 at harvard where the average is a 3.3.

Parsnip, help me out here.  :D

I'm deputizing you as my assistant to correct flawed posts like this one while I deal with the more nunaced arguments.

explain how it's flawed. among similarly situated students, the grades will be higher at the state school and hcbu.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 04:30:42 PM
By the way, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, this is who lawschoolgulf is:

during the summer after my freshman year, i was mugged on the way to a party. the mugger was black and he pulled a knife on me and demanded my wallet. i was carrying one of my dad's handguns. it was the heat of the moment and i pulled out the gun, pointed it at the mugger, and said drop your knife you lazy N-word. he took a step towards me so i shot him three times in the chest. by the time the police got there, he was already dead. a witness happened to be nearby and told the police what happened including that i had used the n-word. i was taken in for questioning but released a few hours later after detectives concluded that the shooting was in self-defense. i was never charged nor prosecuted.

do i have to disclose this to the law schools i'm applying to? will it hurt my chances? i wrote a 171 on the lsat last month and my lsac gpa is a 3.9. i'm shooting for top 10. thanks.

That was his virgin post.

yeah i decided i didn't need to disclose and went ahead and just applied.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 14, 2006, 04:31:43 PM
Off topic, but OMG!!


Anyways, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about the italic part? Is there something wrong with me calling that person a jerk or my using the word 'black"? just confused I guess.

But i don't understand how students getting far enough to take the LSAT is the problem. Are you saying that something should be done sooner, becuase then I would agree with you. It starts with education when people are young, and the leaders come into play there as well (leaders includes teachers, parents, movie stars, etc).
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:34:39 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 04:38:12 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 14, 2006, 04:44:40 PM
Red -
I'm fine for taking someone's political views in context.  But someone who shot a black guy still gets to have an opinion on affirmative action.  Why don't you respond to that instead of "YOU SHOT A BLACK GUY!"  Let the record also reflect that I'm not a big fan of shouting the N word either (since, as an anti-affirmative action poster I apparently have to distance myself from every racist post anywhere on the board). 

Also, quit calling me parsnip.  Clearly says Parsley.  Oh, wait... I get it.  You're taking a play out of the Bushie playbook for how to be a social dipshit. 

I disagree with the "functionally retarded" comment, but a lot of the average scores at HBCUs should be really hard to get if you know how to read and count.  I don't know about Howard, but the SATs at the HBCUs in my state would make you feel very, very sad for society. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:47:07 PM
Off topic, but OMG!!


Anyways, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about the italic part? Is there something wrong with me calling that person a jerk or my using the word 'black"? just confused I guess.

But i don't understand how students getting far enough to take the LSAT is the problem. Are you saying that something should be done sooner, becuase then I would agree with you. It starts with education when people are young, and the leaders come into play there as well (leaders includes teachers, parents, movie stars, etc).

No, no. I was saying that that post wasn't really in response to you -- it was just a contribution to the thread, to keep things real.

Okay, here's the thing.

1. Let's say that you have hundreds of URMs earning high UGPAs.
2. Lets say that you match those URMs with white/asian kids who got exactly the same GPA from the same schools, and in the same majors.

You'd expect that their LSAT scores would be more or less the same, right?

3. Well, let's say that the gap in LSAT scores is actually 9 points, and that, after you adjust for the income and professions of their parents etc, it is 6 points.

Do you think that's odd? Do you think that's a problem with the LSAT as a way to measure academic achievement?

4. Let's say that you did think it was odd, and you investigated further. You find the reason why there is this gap is not because the URM students are less capable or less motivated, but because URMs and non-URMs take the LSAT under different conditions.

Do you still think that's okay?

5. Let's say that these different conditions are the psychological burden of racism -- the extra pressure that URMs have of trying to overcome the stereotype.

Do you still think that's fair?

6. Let's say that you're a law school and you have known 1-5 since 1979: you have been presented with the data, the analysis and the conclusions.

Would you -- as an admissions director -- automatically reject URMs whose LSAT scores were below the 25th percentile, or would you give them an extra special look to see whether the LSAT hasn't really and truly lied about their abilities?


I don't need an answer, Vinny. I'd just like for you to think about it carefully and open-minedly, and to come to your own conclusions.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:49:12 PM
Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

Oh, no. Sorry.  :-\
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:50:57 PM
Red -
I'm fine for taking someone's political views in context.  But someone who shot a black guy still gets to have an opinion on affirmative action.  Why don't you respond to that instead of "YOU SHOT A BLACK GUY!"  Let the record also reflect that I'm not a big fan of shouting the N word either (since, as an anti-affirmative action poster I apparently have to distance myself from every racist post anywhere on the board). 

Also, quit calling me parsnip.  Clearly says Parsley.  Oh, wait... I get it.  You're taking a play out of the Bushie playbook for how to be a social dipshit. 

I disagree with the "functionally retarded" comment, but a lot of the average scores at HBCUs should be really hard to get if you know how to read and count.  I don't know about Howard, but the SATs at the HBCUs in my state would make you feel very, very sad for society. 

Eh, don't be such a n00b. I was kidding -- he's a flame and I wouldn't ask even you to respond to him.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 14, 2006, 04:54:36 PM
Off topic, but OMG!!


Anyways, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about the italic part? Is there something wrong with me calling that person a jerk or my using the word 'black"? just confused I guess.

But i don't understand how students getting far enough to take the LSAT is the problem. Are you saying that something should be done sooner, becuase then I would agree with you. It starts with education when people are young, and the leaders come into play there as well (leaders includes teachers, parents, movie stars, etc).

No, no. I was saying that that post wasn't really in response to you -- it was just a contribution to the thread, to keep things real.

Okay, here's the thing.

1. Let's say that you have hundreds of URMs earning high UGPAs.
2. Lets say that you match those URMs with white/asian kids who got exactly the same GPA from the same schools, and in the same majors.

You'd expect that their LSAT scores would be more or less the same, right?

3. Well, let's say that the gap in LSAT scores is actually 9 points, and that, after you adjust for the income and professions of their parents etc, it is 6 points.

Do you think that's odd? Do you think that's a problem with the LSAT as a way to measure academic achievement?

4. Let's say that you did think it was odd, and you investigated further. You find the reason why there is this gap is not because the URM students are less capable or less motivated, but because URMs and non-URMs take the LSAT under different conditions.

Do you still think that's okay?

5. Let's say that these different conditions are the psychological burden of racism -- the extra pressure that URMs have of trying to overcome the stereotype.

Do you still think that's fair?

6. Let's say that you're a law school and you have known 1-5 since 1979: you have been presented with the data, the analysis and the conclusions.

Would you -- as an admissions director -- automatically reject URMs whose LSAT scores were below the 25th percentile, or would you give them an extra special look to see whether the LSAT hasn't really and truly lied about their abilities?


I don't need an answer, Vinny. I'd just like for you to think about it carefully and open-minedly, and to come to your own conclusions.

Red,

I agree with you that there is a problem there but the problem is not the standardized test, it's the mindset of the student taking such test. Thus giving a boost with AA or taking away the LSAT does not solve the problem it only ignores it. Here is where my problem with AA lies. I support AA as temporary fix to such problems as long as it is coupled with addressing the root of the problem like better funding for inner city schools and such.

However another problem I see with this is that it forgets about those poor white kids that grew up in trailer parks and have gone out of their way to improve their lives. I really have an issue with AA leaving them behind thus why I favor socioeconomic AA.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 14, 2006, 04:57:37 PM
Red,

I agree with you that there is a problem there but the problem is not the standardized test, it's the mindset of the student taking such test. Thus giving a boost with AA or taking away the LSAT does not solve the problem it only ignores it. Here is where my problem with AA lies. I support AA as temporary fix to such problems as long as it is coupled with addressing the root of the problem like better funding for inner city schools and such.

However another problem I see with this is that it forgets about those poor white kids that grew up in trailer parks and have gone out of their way to improve their lives. I really have an issue with AA leaving them behind thus why I favor socioeconomic AA.

Contiki -- I have to step out now, but here's wht I don't get: what do inner city schools have to do with what we're talking about?? What can I say to keep this discussion focused on URMs with high UG GPAs?? Help me out.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: 'tiki on November 14, 2006, 05:03:58 PM
improving inner city schools funding was just one of many things that need to be done to address the real causes of achievement gaps between races and classes in our society. I used that one example also because a large majority of minorities live in cities. Regarding the high UGPA achieving minorities... I said that we need AA as a temporary fix while we address the root of the problem when that achievement gap between races and classes is closed by giving all of them a fair shot from early on then AA won't be needed anymore because there shouldn't be a stereotype of a particular race or class underachieving. Granted this all takes way too long but is how I believe the real gap can be solved and not just by patches like AA.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 06:41:26 PM
Off topic, but OMG!!


Anyways, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about the italic part? Is there something wrong with me calling that person a jerk or my using the word 'black"? just confused I guess.

But i don't understand how students getting far enough to take the LSAT is the problem. Are you saying that something should be done sooner, becuase then I would agree with you. It starts with education when people are young, and the leaders come into play there as well (leaders includes teachers, parents, movie stars, etc).

No, no. I was saying that that post wasn't really in response to you -- it was just a contribution to the thread, to keep things real.

Okay, here's the thing.

1. Let's say that you have hundreds of URMs earning high UGPAs.
2. Lets say that you match those URMs with white/asian kids who got exactly the same GPA from the same schools, and in the same majors.

You'd expect that their LSAT scores would be more or less the same, right?

3. Well, let's say that the gap in LSAT scores is actually 9 points, and that, after you adjust for the income and professions of their parents etc, it is 6 points.

Do you think that's odd? Do you think that's a problem with the LSAT as a way to measure academic achievement?

4. Let's say that you did think it was odd, and you investigated further. You find the reason why there is this gap is not because the URM students are less capable or less motivated, but because URMs and non-URMs take the LSAT under different conditions.

Do you still think that's okay?

5. Let's say that these different conditions are the psychological burden of racism -- the extra pressure that URMs have of trying to overcome the stereotype.

Do you still think that's fair?

6. Let's say that you're a law school and you have known 1-5 since 1979: you have been presented with the data, the analysis and the conclusions.

Would you -- as an admissions director -- automatically reject URMs whose LSAT scores were below the 25th percentile, or would you give them an extra special look to see whether the LSAT hasn't really and truly lied about their abilities?


I don't need an answer, Vinny. I'd just like for you to think about it carefully and open-minedly, and to come to your own conclusions.

no i wouldn't expect the lsats to be more or less the same. a lot more people are capable of high gpa's than high lsats.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 06:44:02 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.

Sigh. So much for not participating. I'm actually not willing to respond to an argument that students at Howard are functionally retarded. This is not a point that I have any interest in jumping off from, nor will any of your subsequent arguments tempt me to jump in and correct you.

I am not, nor was I claiming to, address your point or explain to you why you're wrong. Just expressing my reaction.

perhaps i was exaggerating, but i don't consider a school where the average sat is only slightly above 1000 to be good, regardless of the skin color of the students who are there.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 06:46:13 PM
Can someone change the title of this post?  Maybe go for something like, "The Usual AA Bellyaching" (subtitled "Same Old Song-and-Dance).  Those of us on LSD who actually attend Michigan really resent having our school's name associated with this kind of vitriol.  hth

regardless of your personal feelings on aa i find it offensive that a large proportion of the students and the president of the university have said that they are going to try to flub the proposal. the people have voted. it is a public school. it's their school. they have the right to dictate how it should be run.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 14, 2006, 06:58:52 PM
Off topic, but OMG!!


Anyways, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about the italic part? Is there something wrong with me calling that person a jerk or my using the word 'black"? just confused I guess.

But i don't understand how students getting far enough to take the LSAT is the problem. Are you saying that something should be done sooner, becuase then I would agree with you. It starts with education when people are young, and the leaders come into play there as well (leaders includes teachers, parents, movie stars, etc).

No, no. I was saying that that post wasn't really in response to you -- it was just a contribution to the thread, to keep things real.

Okay, here's the thing.

1. Let's say that you have hundreds of URMs earning high UGPAs.
2. Lets say that you match those URMs with white/asian kids who got exactly the same GPA from the same schools, and in the same majors.

You'd expect that their LSAT scores would be more or less the same, right?

3. Well, let's say that the gap in LSAT scores is actually 9 points, and that, after you adjust for the income and professions of their parents etc, it is 6 points.

Do you think that's odd? Do you think that's a problem with the LSAT as a way to measure academic achievement?

4. Let's say that you did think it was odd, and you investigated further. You find the reason why there is this gap is not because the URM students are less capable or less motivated, but because URMs and non-URMs take the LSAT under different conditions.

Do you still think that's okay?

5. Let's say that these different conditions are the psychological burden of racism -- the extra pressure that URMs have of trying to overcome the stereotype.

Do you still think that's fair?

6. Let's say that you're a law school and you have known 1-5 since 1979: you have been presented with the data, the analysis and the conclusions.

Would you -- as an admissions director -- automatically reject URMs whose LSAT scores were below the 25th percentile, or would you give them an extra special look to see whether the LSAT hasn't really and truly lied about their abilities?


I don't need an answer, Vinny. I'd just like for you to think about it carefully and open-minedly, and to come to your own conclusions.

no i wouldn't expect the lsats to be more or less the same. a lot more people are capable of high gpa's than high lsats.


Again, this is a candidate for one of those rolling on the floor laughing smileys.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 07:01:05 PM
Off topic, but OMG!!


Anyways, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about the italic part? Is there something wrong with me calling that person a jerk or my using the word 'black"? just confused I guess.

But i don't understand how students getting far enough to take the LSAT is the problem. Are you saying that something should be done sooner, becuase then I would agree with you. It starts with education when people are young, and the leaders come into play there as well (leaders includes teachers, parents, movie stars, etc).

No, no. I was saying that that post wasn't really in response to you -- it was just a contribution to the thread, to keep things real.

Okay, here's the thing.

1. Let's say that you have hundreds of URMs earning high UGPAs.
2. Lets say that you match those URMs with white/asian kids who got exactly the same GPA from the same schools, and in the same majors.

You'd expect that their LSAT scores would be more or less the same, right?

3. Well, let's say that the gap in LSAT scores is actually 9 points, and that, after you adjust for the income and professions of their parents etc, it is 6 points.

Do you think that's odd? Do you think that's a problem with the LSAT as a way to measure academic achievement?

4. Let's say that you did think it was odd, and you investigated further. You find the reason why there is this gap is not because the URM students are less capable or less motivated, but because URMs and non-URMs take the LSAT under different conditions.

Do you still think that's okay?

5. Let's say that these different conditions are the psychological burden of racism -- the extra pressure that URMs have of trying to overcome the stereotype.

Do you still think that's fair?

6. Let's say that you're a law school and you have known 1-5 since 1979: you have been presented with the data, the analysis and the conclusions.

Would you -- as an admissions director -- automatically reject URMs whose LSAT scores were below the 25th percentile, or would you give them an extra special look to see whether the LSAT hasn't really and truly lied about their abilities?


I don't need an answer, Vinny. I'd just like for you to think about it carefully and open-minedly, and to come to your own conclusions.

no i wouldn't expect the lsats to be more or less the same. a lot more people are capable of high gpa's than high lsats.


Again, this is a candidate for one of those rolling on the floor laughing smileys.

is this how all pro affirmative action people function? when you disagree, you either scream racism or just mock your opponent?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 14, 2006, 07:23:14 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.

Wait, so in order to attend law school, one has to be willing to respond to whatever inane drivel is posted on the internet?  That's depressing. 

And no I didn't bother reading what you had to say in your earlier posts, but I'm expecting it's not worth my time if it looks anything like what you wrote here.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 07:25:31 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.

Wait, so in order to attend law school, one has to be willing to respond to whatever inane drivel is posted on the internet?  That's depressing. 

And no I didn't bother reading what you had to say in your earlier posts, but I'm expecting it's not worth my time if it looks anything like what you wrote here.

obviously. any anti-aa arguments must be inane drivel. i should have known.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 14, 2006, 07:28:44 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.

Wait, so in order to attend law school, one has to be willing to respond to whatever inane drivel is posted on the internet?  That's depressing. 

And no I didn't bother reading what you had to say in your earlier posts, but I'm expecting it's not worth my time if it looks anything like what you wrote here.

obviously. any anti-aa arguments must be inane drivel. i should have known.

If you read my post closely, you'd see that I didn't actually bother looking at your anti-aa argument.  It's not what you say that makes it drivel, it's the tone in which you say it that makes it such.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 07:29:59 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.

Wait, so in order to attend law school, one has to be willing to respond to whatever inane drivel is posted on the internet?  That's depressing. 

And no I didn't bother reading what you had to say in your earlier posts, but I'm expecting it's not worth my time if it looks anything like what you wrote here.

obviously. any anti-aa arguments must be inane drivel. i should have known.

If you read my post closely, you'd see that I didn't actually bother looking at your anti-aa argument.  It's not what you say that makes it drivel, it's the tone in which you say it that makes it such.

yet red's tone is all fine and dandy? she's far more obnoxious than any of the anti-aa posters, but you happen to agree with her. that's all.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 14, 2006, 07:32:45 PM
Quote
  It's not what you say that makes it drivel, it's the tone in which you say it that makes it such.

Weren't you all "Right on!" with Red back there?  Just curious if you think Red falls into the "tone=drivel" category with lawschoolgulf...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: annab on November 14, 2006, 07:35:57 PM
Oh my.


Just wait 'til later in the cycle. Even people that you thought were half-way normal will start saying stuff like this.

Seriously, it pains me that I don't have the stomach for this fight. I must be hormonal. This thread actually just made start crying, like, right here, at my desk. Bah.

nice job addressing my point. if you can't stomach a debate, you have no business applying to any form of grad school, much less law school. well, maybe you could get a ph.d in women's studies or some crap.

Wait, so in order to attend law school, one has to be willing to respond to whatever inane drivel is posted on the internet?  That's depressing. 

And no I didn't bother reading what you had to say in your earlier posts, but I'm expecting it's not worth my time if it looks anything like what you wrote here.

obviously. any anti-aa arguments must be inane drivel. i should have known.

If you read my post closely, you'd see that I didn't actually bother looking at your anti-aa argument.  It's not what you say that makes it drivel, it's the tone in which you say it that makes it such.

yet red's tone is all fine and dandy? she's far more obnoxious than any of the anti-aa posters, but you happen to agree with her. that's all.

Excuse me, but I don't recall anyone mentioning red.  Please stop trying to make this about other people.  This is about you and your difficulty with not coming off as bitter and condescending all at the same time.  ;)

And Parsley, I think you're confusing me with someone else.  ::)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 14, 2006, 07:42:31 PM
I'm more anti-Red than pro-lawschoolgulf.  More of a "the enemy of my enemy" thing going on.

Let it also be known that this thread has made me much more firmly "anti-Red" than I am anti-affirmative action or anti-Michigan. :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 07:46:07 PM
so yes, i will admit to being a racist by the latter definition, as should anyone else who has ever said that blacks are inherently better at running and jumping.

Fine  If you have no problem being called a racist, I don't see why I should have a problem calling you one.  I think we've agreed to agree on this point, something rare in this thread.  Also, I would bet that I am a better runner than Galt, no question.  That makes me an anti-racist, I think.

no i do have a problem with it not because of my philosophy, but because you are using the common societal definition of racism to poison the well, so to speak.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 14, 2006, 09:39:55 PM
reposted

does any of the evidence showing an lsat race bias look into differences in preparation? it seems entirely possible to me for example that nonurms in the aggregate take more practice test than urms. if true, this does not seem the type of bias that would demand racial preferences for some groups over others.

also, i'd like to know the obvious faults in my reasoning because im not following: allegedly the lsat discriminates against urms, in an effort to counteract that we discount urm scores between 4-10 points in the admissions process. the lsat together with gpa predicts first year grades as good as anything people have come up with. urms disproportionately get bad first year grades to the point where 40% of black students are in the bottom decile of their class. the fault in the lsats predictive value is where exactly? isnt this exactly what would be predicted by discounting someones lsat 3 sds?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 14, 2006, 09:54:45 PM
reposted

does any of the evidence showing an lsat race bias look into differences in preparation? it seems entirely possible to me for example that nonurms in the aggregate take more practice test than urms. if true, this does not seem the type of bias that would demand racial preferences for some groups over others.

also, i'd like to know the obvious faults in my reasoning because im not following: allegedly the lsat discriminates against urms, in an effort to counteract that we discount urm scores between 4-10 points in the admissions process. the lsat together with gpa predicts first year grades as good as anything people have come up with. urms disproportionately get bad first year grades to the point where 40% of black students are in the bottom decile of their class. the fault in the lsats predictive value is where exactly? isnt this exactly what would be predicted by discounting someones lsat 3 sds?


bolded part: why would this be a need for governemental or agency action to enforce preferences? It seems that if preparation is the issue, then blacks need to prepare more. I don't think that is a fault of the test or the institutions.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 14, 2006, 10:07:37 PM
im rereading but i think we're saying the same thing... agreeing?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 14, 2006, 10:31:12 PM
im rereading but i think we're saying the same thing... agreeing?

yep, i read your post incorrectly. Sorry.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 10:33:44 PM
suppose that innate differences in intelligence cause the performance gap on the lsat. in such a scenario would the schools' use of aa still be justified?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 14, 2006, 10:44:25 PM
suppose that innate differences in intelligence cause the performance gap on the lsat. in such a scenario would the schools' use of aa still be justified?

Masturbates furiously.

answer the question. yes or no.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 07:55:39 AM
Quote
and less able to adequately prepare (for economic reasons)?  In that case, it's still not measuring the relevant sort of intelligence and would presumably underpredict the performance of URM students in law school.  Why wouldn't this justify law schools in considering LSAT scores in conjunction with race?

I say this as someone who did not adequately prepare for the LSAT -- I was OK with my diagnostic, was busy, and left it at that. (I have since learned the error of my ways!)
...
But even if the LSAT ONLY measured your ability to prepare, it STILL could be at least a partial indicator for success in law school...
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 15, 2006, 09:05:51 AM
Quote
and less able to adequately prepare (for economic reasons)?  In that case, it's still not measuring the relevant sort of intelligence and would presumably underpredict the performance of URM students in law school.  Why wouldn't this justify law schools in considering LSAT scores in conjunction with race?

I say this as someone who did not adequately prepare for the LSAT -- I was OK with my diagnostic, was busy, and left it at that. (I have since learned the error of my ways!)
...
But even if the LSAT ONLY measured your ability to prepare, it STILL could be at least a partial indicator for success in law school...

Yeah, its funny how we've only been focusing on the LSAT as a predictor of success in law school and we've completely ignored the fact that schools have certain goals for their graduates. I like how we've ignored Red's point that black graduates are more likely to accomplish the goals of the school's post graduation. If you don't want to take Red's word for it, Lani Guniner has published an article on it - the study was done by Harvard and Michigan. I'll see if I can't scrap it up.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 09:49:52 AM
Quote
I like how we've ignored Red's point that black graduates are more likely to accomplish the goals of the school's post graduation.

So what are those goals?

Prestigious employment/professional accomplishment?

Because there's affirmative action in hiring, it makes it difficult to establish what level of success they would have had without an affirmative action system in place for undergraduate, graduate, and employment...  So doesn't the chicken or the egg problem there makes it difficult to say whether minority students are more or less likely to accomplish the goals of the schools post-graduation...?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 15, 2006, 10:17:09 AM
Quote
I like how we've ignored Red's point that black graduates are more likely to accomplish the goals of the school's post graduation.

So what are those goals?

Prestigious employment/professional accomplishment?

Because there's affirmative action in hiring, it makes it difficult to establish what level of success they would have had without an affirmative action system in place for undergraduate, graduate, and employment...  So doesn't the chicken or the egg problem there makes it difficult to say whether minority students are more or less likely to accomplish the goals of the schools post-graduation...?


Affirmative Action does not equal unqualified. Often times they hire a black person because that person is well qualified and they hire him over similarly qualified whites because the firm/organization/etc has plenty of whites already. Besides if you really want to talk about this subject then lets inject some analysis about the good ole boy network which has not even been close to being dismantled. If not, then lets just focus on the topic at hand about the goals beyond prediction of first year grades. Here's Lani Guinier's analysis:

LG: Harvard University did a study based on thirty Harvard graduates over a thirty-year period. They wanted to know which students were most likely to exemplify the things that Harvard values most: doing well financially, having a satisfying career and contributing to society (especially in the form of donating to Harvard). The two variables that most predicted which students would achieve these criteria were low SAT scores and a blue-collar background.

That study was followed by one at the University of Michigan Law School that found that those most likely to do well financially, maintain a satisfying career, and contribute to society, were black and Latino students who were admitted pursuant to Affirmative Action. Conversely, those with the highest LSAT scores were the least likely to mentor younger attorneys, do pro-bono work, sit on community boards, etc.

So, the use of these so called "measures of merit" like standardized tests is backfiring on our institutions of higher learning and blocking the road to a more democratic society.





http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0106guinier.html


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 10:50:59 AM

Quote
Affirmative Action does not equal unqualified.

I didn't say affirmative action equals unqualified.  I'm saying that it has morphed into a system which, in many cases, creates two completely separate definitions of "qualified" depending on the race of the applicant.  So a typical white applicant may only be "qualified" with a 3.6 and a 1350 and a typical African American applicant may be "qualified" with a 3.2 and a 1250.  To be minimally "qualified" to complete coursework at Imaginary University you may only need a 3.0 and an 1100.  But the school can be more selective so it sets the bar higher.  Unfortunately, the bar is different depending on the race of the applicant. 

This is what I'm talking about with the myth of "qualified". 

So bottom line: I'm not arguing  that affirmative action equals unqualified, but rather that affirmative action as currently practiced creates two different standards for qualification based on race.

I appreciate your quoting Guinier; however, she's not exactly an unbiased source. 

1. Harvard's study is based on only 30 students over a 30-year period.  Affirmative action in 1976 is not the same as affirmative action in 2006 and the injustices in our society (while they may still be present) have changed, as well as access to primary and secondary education.  Also, what the Harvard study says they value most may not actually be what they value most.  And the two correlated indicators -- low SAT score and blue-collar background -- do not in any way bolster a race-based affirmative action argument.  Unless you want to argue that only minorities come from blue-collar backgrounds and have low SAT scores.  (Plus, it sounds like Harvard has competing values... I know a lot of people whose low SAT scores they didn't seem to value!!)

2. Michigan Law study.  The indicators are terribly flawed.  "Satisfying" careers? "Contributing to society" as measured by sitting on community boards, mentoring young attorneys and pro bono?  Gimme a break.  I'm skeptical of the objectivity of Michigan Law's studies of affirmative action, but I'm even more skeptical of Lani Guinier's two sentence summary of one. 

And then those two studies are used as evidence for the following conclusion:

Quote
So, the use of these so called "measures of merit" like standardized tests is backfiring on our institutions of higher learning and blocking the road to a more democratic society.

Seriously? I mean... seriously??
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 11:02:59 AM
lol.

109 of the 375 Texans in the UT Class of 2001 would not have been admitted without a QUOTA.

Were these 109 Texans unqualified or qualified to attend UT? Are you against this practice?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 11:13:16 AM
I hope you're not asking me for an answer because that's not in any way responsive to my post, Red.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 11:24:53 AM
reposted again for the benefit of a response from the lsat race bias crowd:
also, i'd like to know the obvious faults in my reasoning because im not following: allegedly the lsat discriminates against urms, in an effort to counteract that we discount urm scores between 4-10 points in the admissions process. the lsat together with gpa predicts first year grades as good as anything people have come up with. urms disproportionately get bad first year grades to the point where 40% of black students are in the bottom decile of their class. the fault in the lsats predictive value is where exactly? isnt this exactly what would be predicted by discounting someones lsat 3 sds?



and red i cant believe you want to argue why in-state preferences are less objectionable than racial preferences but i'll give it a go if that's what you're asking.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 11:33:53 AM
I hope you're not asking me for an answer because that's not in any way responsive to my post, Red.

Sure it is.

You say that you don't believe in any admissions boost that involves simply checking a box: if they have a sob story to tell, they should just include it intheir PS or DS.

Well, there were a total of 109 Texas residents who were admitted only because they checked the resident box. Their GPA & LSAT would otherwise have been to low.

In principle, you should be against that. If I cared to check, you would have already osted quite a bit on why that's a bad thing. Right?

After all, you don't like fuzzy public policy indicators. You don't like 'minimum standards of competence". You don't like dual track admissions systems.

I'm guessing that you either didn't apply to Texas, even though you live in Houston, or you didn't check the 'resident' box even though your numbers wouldn't otherwise be competitive for UT.

Right?


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 11:35:34 AM
and red i cant believe you want to argue why in-state preferences are less objectionable than racial preferences but i'll give it a go if that's what you're asking.

Give it a go. I'll be in and out, but I'll come back to it. It will give you an oportunity to provide a carefully reasoned answer distinguishing AA from In-state quotas.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 11:39:42 AM
A refresher:

So bottom line: I'm not arguing  that affirmative action equals unqualified, but rather that affirmative action as currently practiced creates two different standards for qualification based on race.

I appreciate your quoting Guinier; however, she's not exactly an unbiased source

Affirmative action in 1976 is not the same as affirmative action in 2006 and the injustices in our society (while they may still be present) have changed,

Michigan Law study.  The indicators are terribly flawed.  "Satisfying" careers? "Contributing to society" as measured by sitting on community boards, mentoring young attorneys and pro bono?  Gimme a break.   I'm skeptical of the objectivity of Michigan Law's studies of affirmative action, but I'm even more skeptical of Lani Guinier's two sentence summary of one. 

And then those two studies are used as evidence for the following conclusion:

Quote
So, the use of these so called "measures of merit" like standardized tests is backfiring on our institutions of higher learning and blocking the road to a more democratic society.

Seriously? I mean... seriously??
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 11:44:33 AM
Actually, mae8, let me emphasize what I said before: closely argued, water-tight. I don't want to come back to drivel. Cheers.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 11:53:05 AM
Quote
You say that you don't believe in any admissions boost that involves simply checking a box: if they have a sob story to tell, they should just include it intheir PS or DS.

Well, there were a total of 109 Texas residents who were admitted only because they checked the resident box. Their GPA & LSAT would otherwise have been to low.

There's no one claiming an LSAT difference (that I've seen) between Texas LSAT-takers and US population as a whole.  There's nobody claiming that there's a disadvantage to being Texan in Texas.  The "boost" isn't at all like affirmative action and it's apples to oranges.  Enrollment caps at state schools tend to be dictated by the state legislature and it's because the school was intended to educate Texans and the people who subsidize it (the state of Texas) want X number of Texans to be educated there.  This isn't the well thought out defense you're demanding from mae, but the situations have enough significant differences that I don't think you can assume my position on one from my position on the other. 

Quote
In principle, you should be against that. If I cared to check, you would have already osted quite a bit on why that's a bad thing. Right?

I'm against bestiality.  But I don't think I've posted "quite a bit", or anything, about that until now.  Sorry, Red, you can't determine my position on unrelated (or tangentially related) topics based on their prevalence in my post history. 

Quote
I'm guessing that you either didn't apply to Texas, even though you live in Houston, or you didn't check the 'resident' box even though your numbers wouldn't otherwise be competitive for UT.

WTF are you talking about?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 11:57:26 AM
Quote
Quote
I'm guessing that you either didn't apply to Texas, even though you live in Houston, or you didn't check the 'resident' box even though your numbers wouldn't otherwise be competitive for UT.

WTF are you talking about?

Oh wait, I get your train of thought here...

1. Parsley is against affirmative action.
2. Parsley is therfore an ignorant racist.
3. If Parsley is an ignorant racist, then Parsley must be from Texas!
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 12:05:31 PM
Quote
She is simply demonstrating that you probably do not object to any given two-tiered system of qualification as inherently bad. But maybe you do? Speak up, then...

... or maybe I think that a two-tiered system of qualification based on race is worse than a two-tiered system of qualification at a state-funded school based on state residency...
... or maybe I think that the LSAT has a Texas-bias rather than a race bias :)

I'm not really sharing my views on out-of-state residency caps at state schools.  I'd rather Red respond to the merits of my criticism of the two studies or my criticisms of race-based affirmative action rather than getting sidetracked on our views of residency.
 


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: John Galt on November 15, 2006, 12:05:37 PM
A refresher:

So bottom line: I'm not arguing  that affirmative action equals unqualified, but rather that affirmative action as currently practiced creates two different standards for qualification based on race.

I appreciate your quoting Guinier; however, she's not exactly an unbiased source

Affirmative action in 1976 is not the same as affirmative action in 2006 and the injustices in our society (while they may still be present) have changed,

Michigan Law study.  The indicators are terribly flawed.  "Satisfying" careers? "Contributing to society" as measured by sitting on community boards, mentoring young attorneys and pro bono?  Gimme a break.   I'm skeptical of the objectivity of Michigan Law's studies of affirmative action, but I'm even more skeptical of Lani Guinier's two sentence summary of one. 

And then those two studies are used as evidence for the following conclusion:

Quote
So, the use of these so called "measures of merit" like standardized tests is backfiring on our institutions of higher learning and blocking the road to a more democratic society.

Seriously? I mean... seriously??


maybe i'm slow...what does this mean, red?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 12:09:43 PM
Actually, mae8, let me emphasize what I said before: closely argued, water-tight. I don't want to come back to drivel. Cheers.


while i do this after working on my memo feel free to answer my thrice repeated question about the lsats predictive value and your lsat race bias theory. kisses
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 12:11:40 PM
Quote
maybe i'm slow...what does this mean, red?

I think she was mocking me by bolding portions of my post.  But don't worry -- we're both dumb, I don't get it either.  Maybe she should have just let us argue our dumb ideas out between our own dumb selves?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 12:25:15 PM
maybe i'm slow...what does this mean, red?

I'm re-sating the nature of his objections to your suggestion that (a) there are public policy benefits to increasing the representation of URMs, and (b) that 'qualified to attend' is not simply a matter of taking the highest GPAs and LSATs available.

He says, in the bolded parts:

1) I don't trust Lani Guinier to tell the truth about data;

2) The criteria for judging the public policy benefits are vague and therefore not to be taken seriously; and

3) he scoffs at the idea that GPA/LSAT are not true measures of merit, and thata  more equal representation of lawyers will lead to a more demiocratic society.

So. I'm wondering whether he feels the same way about in-state quotas. Their justification rests on the same kinds of "vague" public policy considerations and the GPA/LSAT requirements have been relaxed quite a bit, such that fully a quarter of students at state schools like Michigan Law and Texas Law would not have been admitted were it not for the quotas for state residents. After all, after Hopwood there were only 7 black students in that Texas class and 109 beneficiaries of the in-state quota.

There must be some reason why in-state admissions doesn't rile him up but AA does, and I think maybe we could learn something from him about what that distinction is.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 12:36:14 PM
Quote
maybe i'm slow...what does this mean, red?

I think she was mocking me by bolding portions of my post.  But don't worry -- we're both dumb, I don't get it either.  Maybe she should have just let us argue our dumb ideas out between our own dumb selves?

I'm not interested in mocking you, parsley. I'm interested in having you explore how and why you have such a firm stand against race-based AA. When you present a particular kind of objection to it, I wonder whether that objection also holds true for programs that have the same kind of justification but don't benefit URMs. I think it's valuable for you to compare and contrast your feelings on AA and on in-state prefences, for example. I think it's valuable for you to explore why you're for socio-economic AA and against race-based AA. I think it's valuable for you to do the whole tour of the admissions process so that you see a that your arguments and justifications shift based on who is being given an opportinuty, not based on the strength of the justification itself.

You are going to be a lawyer someday. That's why I'm engaging in this discussion with you now.

You will be in a position to represent, or prosecute, or adjudicate cases involving all kinds of Americans. Not just poor white ones, but also blacks and hispanics and native americans. That's why. By being challenged in this way, you will hopefully come to see that there is something to being consistent in one's feelings toward public policy programs, to being imaginative in thinkning about equality of opportunity, to being generous in thinking about who is deserving of being treated like an American.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 12:41:59 PM
Quote
1) I don't trust Lani Guinier to tell the truth about data;
Do you?  I'm just wondering if Lani Guinier gave us an accurate description of the results of the studies.  If so, Harvard study is irrelevant and the Michigan study is crappy.

Quote
2) The criteria for judging the public policy benefits are vague and therefore not to be taken seriously; and
I'm criticizing the methodology in this particular study.
There's nothing to be drawn from this other than the fact that I question the validity of this study's conclusions based on their indicators as presented by Lani Guinier, who I don't even necessarily think gave us a great 2-sentence summary of it. 

Quote
3) he scoffs at the idea that GPA/LSAT are not true measures of merit, and thata  more equal representation of lawyers will lead to a more demiocratic society.

I scoff at how Lani Guinier drew the conclusion that standardized tests are "backfiring" on our universities and appealing to high ideals of democracy based on only two small-scale studies with crappy methodology and indicators at only two universities. 

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 12:46:03 PM
Quote
I'm not interested in mocking you, parsley. I'm interested in having you explore how and why you have such a firm stand against race-based AA. When you present a particular kind of objection to it, I wonder whether that objection also holds true for programs that have the same kind of justification but don't benefit URMs. I think it's valuable for you to compare and contrast your feelings on AA and on in-state prefences, for example. I think it's valuable for you to explore why you're for socio-economic AA and against race-based AA. I think it's valuable for you to do the whole tour of the admissions process so that you see a that your arguments and justifications shift based on who is being given an opportinuty, not based on the strength of the justification itself.

You are going to be a lawyer someday. That's why I'm engaging in this discussion with you now.

You will be in a position to represent, or prosecute, or adjudicate cases involving all kinds of Americans. Not just poor white ones, but also blacks and hispanics and native americans. That's why. By being challenged in this way, you will hopefully come to see that there is something to being consistent in one's feelings toward public policy programs, to being imaginative in thinkning about equality of opportunity, to being generous in thinking about who is deserving of being treated like an American.

Gee, Red, without you I'd never engaged in a discussion before! Oh my gosh! Examining my own ideas critically?  What a great idea! I'd never heard of that before. Must be because I'm just a dumb Southerner!  Thanks for opening my eyes to the world of critical analysis and academia!  It's so refreshing!

What a sanctimonious load of crap that is.

To be "generous in thinking about who is deserving of being treated like an American"?

What kind of idealistic bull is this?
You arguing with me about instate admissions is going to make me a better person??

you complete me, red.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 01:06:02 PM
A refresher:
[snip]


maybe i'm slow...what does this mean, red?

Ditto (not that you are at all slow, Galt). One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 01:07:31 PM
Quote
One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?

Wait. 

Maybe red = parsley!
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 01:17:17 PM
Okay, you don't trust Lani Guinier.

But there were other aspects of Galt's post that you rejected, and that had nothing to do her. Which is actually why I bolded them.

Why do you not trust the Lempert, Chambers & Adams study? [Who would you trust not to lie about data? Law Schools themselves? LSAC? Anyone?]

Is it okay that 300+ out-of-state applicants with higher GPA/LSATs were rejected at UT in 1997-8, so tha 109 in-state white kids could be admitted 'just because' they 'ticked a box' on the application form?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 01:18:00 PM
mae8 has been waiting for a response.  As I understand it, her question is why the disproportionately low first-year grades of URM students do not indicate that the LSAT is, in fact, highly predictive for URMs.

I don't have the energy to get into it or to step much further into this thread, but here's a sketch of a start from about a year ago:

Some of the dumbest people at my law school are white. What explains that?
I am pretty sure there have been studies done that show that URMs consistantly perform poorer on average than other students in law school.  Of course there are going to be many exceptions in both directions, but that does not negate the empirical evidence.  

I am assuming for the sake of this argument that you and the OP think that affirmative action means admitting URMs with lower UGPA and LSAT scores than their white peers, and that relying on these indices in a race-blind fashion would produce better matches of students to schools.

Yes, there have been studies like the ones you imagine, though most of them concerned with bar passage rates (not law school grades per se).  LSAC conducted a bar passage rate study in the late 1990s (published in 98) that most seem to agree is reliable(www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAC-National-Longituinal-Bar-Passage-Study.pdf (http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAC-National-Longituinal-Bar-Passage-Study.pdf)).

The study showed that African-American students with the same UGPA and LSAT scores as similarly situated (same-tier LS) white students earned lower grades in LS.  This implies that something else, aside from the UGPA and LSAT scores of the applicants, led to differences in LS performance.  (The same was true for Latino/a, Asian-American, and older students.)  The reigning hypothesis (I think) is that environmental features of the average law school (such as professors' lowered expectations of, classmates' hostility toward, and feelings of alienation among students in underrepresented groups) are to blame for the lower grades.  Ironically, this suggests that increased efforts to recruit and enroll URM students would be the best way to "help" URM students who have a hard time in law school.
 
So...I guess you can drop an controversial statement with the preface "I am pretty sure there have been studies done that show..." if you're the kid with the 180?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, really, but this is a pretty lame argument if you're trying to say that affirmative action puts URMs at a disadvantage.  :)
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 01:20:28 PM
Ditto (not that you are at all slow, Galt). One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?

Haha. I just wanted to highlight parsnip's arguments to show him that his objections apply equally well to in-state programs.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 01:22:40 PM
Ditto (not that you are at all slow, Galt). One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?

Haha. I just wanted to highlight parsnip's arguments to show him that his objections apply equally well to in-state programs.



I eventually got it, but it didn't quite work for me.  You're so Mr. Miyagi lately.  :D
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 15, 2006, 01:37:41 PM
answer the question. yes or no.

I think I can dig up an old answer for you:


im glad to see that you have provided evidence for all races having equal intelligence. your response is purely faith based. you dont think its fair that some races would be less intelligent, so you deny the possibility and cuss out anyone who disagrees.

I'll prove that all races have equal intelligence the day you prove that all angels can move through the ether at the exact same speed.

I've read that male angels can travel through the ether faster and this study is validated because they had better calibrated speed guns.

So, based on my posting history, I believe that if there is an inherent difference in angel velocity, than the state should not step into the ether.

what exactly is that old answer answering? cause it certainly isn't answering my question.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 01:38:49 PM
Quote
Why do you not trust the Lempert, Chambers & Adams study? [Who would you trust not to lie about data? Law Schools themselves? LSAC? Anyone?]

1. The study covers 1976 - 1996.  See comments above about the changes to affirmative action, attitudes about race, government policies and public education changes since 1976. 

They survey 700 African Americans, 300 Latinos and 60 Native Americans and use a sample of 900 white students from the time period. 

The survey then relies on self-reported data for job satisfication, bar passage, etc.  Only 51% of blacks responded (and guess what? if you failed the bar, hate your job and suck at life, you are less likely to respond to a "professional development" survey reminding you of all that) but 62% of whites did.  Many respondents skipped questions. Many of the questions called for a self-assessment.  Lemper uses only ultimate bar passage, and not first-time bar passage.  Just a quick skim of the old google came up with some of these flaws, and I'm guessing I could find more.

And, according to an article I skimmed (that was actually lauding the study) it shows that Lani Guinier seems to have presented the data in a biased way.

Lani says:
Quote
That study was followed by one at the University of Michigan Law School that found that those most likely to do well financially, maintain a satisfying career, and contribute to society, were black and Latino students who were admitted pursuant to Affirmative Action.

Wrong.  It in fact showed few racial differences among responding alumni... but the Guinier presentation of the data seemed to suggest that minorities did BETTER than whites on the measures in the study.  I haven't checked the study to see the exact measures that Lani lists, but it sure isn't an accurate representation of the study as a whole. 

The only thing I saw that minorities exceeded whites on was pro bono hours, although both minority and white alumni averaged over 50 pro bono hours per year. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: lawschoolgulf on November 15, 2006, 01:39:31 PM
Okay, you don't trust Lani Guinier.

But there were other aspects of Galt's post that you rejected, and that had nothing to do her. Which is actually why I bolded them.

Why do you not trust the Lempert, Chambers & Adams study? [Who would you trust not to lie about data? Law Schools themselves? LSAC? Anyone?]

Is it okay that 300+ out-of-state applicants with higher GPA/LSATs were rejected at UT in 1997-8, so tha 109 in-state white kids could be admitted 'just because' they 'ticked a box' on the application form?

you seriously don't see the difference between a state school funded by state taxpayers giving preference to its own residents and giving people a boost based solely on the color of their skin? if anything, your argument cuts the other way because blacks and hispanics are more likely to require financial aid and be a financial burden on the school, not a benefit.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 01:40:03 PM
Wait, no one else came to the same conclusion as me? Maybe I got it wrong. But I digress... Not that I'm even here. Miss P, fancy meeting you here ;)

I'd much rather be meeting you for a drink in the Embarcadero, love. ;)

No, your explanation made perfect sense. I was just teasing redemption for being so damned didactic.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 01:42:18 PM
Also, don't blast me for relying on google hits for my response.  If I can find it for free, I'm printing out the lempert, chambers and blah-blah study out to look over at home. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 01:44:56 PM
Also, don't blast me for relying on google hits for my response.  If I can find it for free, I'm printing out the lempert, chambers and blah-blah study out to look over at home. 

I won't blast you for it. We'll talk when you've read it and have more critiques of it. Also, think about the standard that you are holding the study to.

And by the way, I agree with you that Guinier's characterization of the Lempert study was rosy.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 01:51:21 PM

I agree that it is getting side-tracked, but part of the problem with this discussion is that it's for everyone on both sides to jump around from argument to argument in a not-entirely coherent chain of logic. AA is bad because it creates a two-tier system of qualification! AA is good because racism exists! AA is bad because it perpetatuates negative steretypes! AA is good because it helps correct existing imbalances in representation! Yes! No! Yes! No! Blue! Green!


This is a good post. [I think I missed it before]


That's one thing that interests me about the way that people debate AA. It's the continual slide from point to point, as long as the answer is always the same.

In the end, if I haven't exhausted my patience with this topic altogether, I'm hoping to actually show people the narrative and argumentative strategies that they have used to stand against AA.

It's my pet thing: highlighting how people argue for or against something.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 02:07:19 PM
I missed it too, and it is a good post.

But, Red, I think your Socratic-style plays into that; and, in this thread certainly, helps shape the staccato nature of the discussion.

You ask questions about seemingly extraneous things that, if you follow the logic back, it eventually may refute the poster's opinion.  But then we all wind up stalled on the road to that refutation somewhere.  It's almost like you work backwards or leave so much of a gap in the questions that we wind up debating the relevance of your point rather than the point itself.  I know you don't like to do this (because asking questions makes trapping someone in your rhetorical net so much easier!), but you may just want to start laying out the logic chain a little more clearly.

Also, as much fun as it is to deflate people who strike you as arrogant and/or ignorant (and I've been known to do it too), you reached a level of bitchiness in this thread that totally undermined the attempt at (yet another pointless) discussion of AA. 

And while we're wrapped up in our arguments about arguing, interesting posts get lost.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 02:10:17 PM
I missed it too, and it is a good post.

But, Red, I think your Socratic-style plays into that; and, in this thread certainly, helps shape the staccato nature of the discussion.

You ask questions about seemingly extraneous things that, if you follow the logic back, it eventually may refute the poster's opinion.  But then we all wind up stalled on the road to that refutation somewhere.  It's almost like you work backwards or leave so much of a gap in the questions that we wind up debating the relevance of your point rather than the point itself.  I know you don't like to do this (because asking questions makes trapping someone in your rhetorical net so much easier!), but you may just want to start laying out the logic chain a little more clearly.

Also, as much fun as it is to deflate people who strike you as arrogant and/or ignorant (and I've been known to do it too), you reached a level of bitchiness in this thread that totally undermined the attempt at (yet another pointless) discussion of AA. 

And while we're wrapped up in our arguments about arguing, interesting posts get lost.

I agree wholeheartedly with at least the first part of this post. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 15, 2006, 03:28:43 PM
I missed it too, and it is a good post.

But, Red, I think your Socratic-style plays into that; and, in this thread certainly, helps shape the staccato nature of the discussion.

You ask questions about seemingly extraneous things that, if you follow the logic back, it eventually may refute the poster's opinion.  But then we all wind up stalled on the road to that refutation somewhere.  It's almost like you work backwards or leave so much of a gap in the questions that we wind up debating the relevance of your point rather than the point itself.  I know you don't like to do this (because asking questions makes trapping someone in your rhetorical net so much easier!), but you may just want to start laying out the logic chain a little more clearly.

Also, as much fun as it is to deflate people who strike you as arrogant and/or ignorant (and I've been known to do it too), you reached a level of bitchiness in this thread that totally undermined the attempt at (yet another pointless) discussion of AA. 

And while we're wrapped up in our arguments about arguing, interesting posts get lost.

I'm aware of the danger of the kinds of things that you point out in this post. But I'm also aware that there are several rhetorical strategies and points that come up again and again that are quite fallacious and unfounded.

Here are some:

Socio-economic AA instead o race-based AA. I ask, why? Why instead? Why can't we acknowledge that just as poverty, class and yes, caste, have some role in limiting one's GPA and LSAT, so too does race, independent of income and parental profession?

Color-blind admissions for equal opportunity, aka "racial preferences". This strikes me as jumping ahead in the argument. If the playing field isn't even in the first place -- if race and the burden of racism is indeed a factor in creating an uneven playing field, then correcting for that strikes me as closer to the equal opportunity objecive than does ignoring it.

"Just by ticking a box".  This strikes me as a facile attempt to reduce the experience of race in this country to nothing at all. Further, URMs aren't the only ones that 'just tick a box': in-staters do, too; legacies do, too.

Strict scrutiny etc for public institutions like UM and UT. This strikes me as disingenuous unless people are aguing that it's okay for private institutions, like Chicago, Yale and Harvard to have AA but not okay for UM and UNC. Clearly, and take a tour of LSN comment pages if you don't believe me, people aren't saying that at all -- they object to AA even at private institutions, ones that are under competitive pressure from other peer schools.

Merit. This is surely the most disingenuous argument of them all. Yes, a 120 and a 180 are differently prepared for law school. But what about a 173 and a 169? What about a 166 and a 161? The score band, at the very low 68% confidence interval is 7 points wide; at the more usual 95% confidence interval, it's 11 points wide. In that context, even assuming that the LSAT could predict what it is valuable to know, the differences between the median LSAT of admitted URMs and the median LSAT of the class does not suggest that the URMS are 'unprepared'. When compared to the lower tenth decile of admitted white students, the difference is one and sometimes 2 LSAT points. What's that, in terms of preparedness for law school? Nothing at all.

AA hurts URMs. Silly. Especially when it is deployed in the context of an argument about AA at T1 schools. The most important indicator of future career success is the law school that you attended. Period. Not LSAT (which has no relationship at all to any career indicators), not UGPA, not ECs or personal statements. You know what hurts URMs? Atending a school with a low barpassage rate, attending a school with poor placement records etc. But that also hurts whites. In absolute terms it hurts more whites than blacks or hispanics or both combined.

AA causes whites to be mean to URMs. Hmm. Guess what? Same story when women were first admitted to UGs and law schools and offices in the grandmother AA program. Men kicked up a fuss then. They really did. they reached for their biology textbooks to show why it couldn't work. Who cares now? Who thinks that women were hurt by it now? Would I have been able to apply and attend law school without that AA program generations ago? Same story with Jews (stndardized tests were first used in college admissions in order to keep Jews out of Harvard and Princeton. It didn't work). Same story with Asians.

AA causes qualified white candidates to be turned away. Well, actually, limited class size is what causes academically qualified white and Asian students to be turned away. And I don't mean that facetiously. The lower two deciles of admitted white and Asian students have lower GPA/LSAT numbers than lots of white applicants who were rejected. Focusing on the relatively small number of blacks and hispanics as the cause seems like quite a distortion to me.

There are other arguments, but you get the point. These kinds of arguments are not good ones: they don't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. When contrasted with what these same people put up as justifications for socio-economic AA or whatever.

oh, and a couple more

The inner city schools argument. This one is frankly confusing to me. We are talking about the fact that there's something awry in the playing field facing URM applicants to law schools. We are talking about people who are on the cusp of receiving, or have already received, their BA degrees. We are mostly talking about URM candidates who have attended UGs like Harvard, Howard, Stanford, Chicago, Brown, Penn State, Wellesley, etc. And YET, people bring up the pipeline problem -- 'inner city schools', "black leaders", 'single mothers', and all the rest of that jazz. And I ask, what is the relevance to this discussion? Of COURSE those things should also improve. But this is about the people who have either overcome that or who have not experienced it: they've got BAs and GPAs like everyone else. They're being shut out not because of what Al Sharpton hasn't done, but because of what the ABA, HLS and Fordham haven't done -- i.e. used the LSAT properly -- as one guide but no the ONLY guide; with appropriate deference for score bands, not by using a magical cutoff score; but respecting the fact that it only accounts for 21% of the variation in performance within a particular law school, and that it has no utility in predicting future career success.

It's illegal or unconstitutional. haha. I love this one. As if what courts rule on this topic affects whehether they agree with it or not. Who changed their minds after Grutter? Who has changed their mind after this Michigan referendum?

etc. There are some others.


So, you know, I see this arguments posted on this board, smeared on LSN comment pages, etc. and
I see three or four things that may hold them together for any one person who proposes combinations of them.

Either:

1. They really have no idea of how the admissions process works, what the data is, etc; or
2. They are being just selfish (and anxious) about their own opportunities and will support whatever will (or would have) helped them to the exclusion of anyone else
3. They really do believe that black and hispanic people are inherently incapable (the IQ argument) or inherently lazy (the culture argument); or
4. They just plain old don't like people who are black or hispanic or whatever, and blaming them is the first thing that they reach for when things don't go their way -- round up the usual suspects, etc.

So, given these options, I ask questions. I ask pointedly in order to prompt people into giving their best response. You know why? Because when they post anti-AA comments, or when they post a comment maligning someone's admission to a particular school as having been "because of AA", they're thinking that it's inexpensive -- a cheap shot that they can get away with because being anti-AA is cool, or because no-one will likely have the energy to have them back up their post.

And you know what? Most people will argue inconsistent positions all the way around this topic as long as the conclusion stays the same: No AA for URMs. No matter what. Even if they have to resort to the IQ argument. Even if they have to reach for the crack babies argument. Even if they can clearly see that their arguments for in-state or socio-econ or whatever are logically inconsistent with their arguments against AA by race/ethnicity.

That is disturbing. It is disturbing to read, and I'm hoping that it is also disturbing to write and post.


Btw. I am not claiming that one has to be deluded ot racist to argue against AA. I'm arguing that patterns of inconsistency of arguments; juxtapositions of paradoxical positions; and the kinds of symbols, language, stories that are used to argue against AA are the telling things, not the opposition to AA per se.


Oh yeah. So, if I ask the questions that I do and approach the thread in the way that I do, it is so that these kinds of patterns and strategies will emerge. Frankly, I think it's the only thing that could ever come of a discussion about AA, because it is actually quite complex (too technical) as a subject-matter for serious discussion on a board.

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 04:14:36 PM
Oh come on ... race in America has changed since 1976.

Wow, big bold statement that is.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 04:34:06 PM
3. They really do believe that black and hispanic people are inherently incapable (the IQ argument) or inherently lazy (the culture argument)

Or they believe that urms are inherently capable....
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 04:49:17 PM
of success in any field.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 04:57:57 PM
no need to apoligize. yes that's more or less what im saying.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 04:59:45 PM
Oh come on ... race in America has changed since 1976.

Wow, big bold statement that is.

White is the new black, people, haven't you heard?

seriously, everyone loves tiger woods! no one likes all those fat white golfers
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 05:48:58 PM
Quote
Socio-economic AA instead o race-based AA. I ask, why? Why instead? Why can't we acknowledge that just as poverty, class and yes, caste, have some role in limiting one's GPA and LSAT, so too does race, independent of income and parental profession?

Socio-economic v. race-based.  The only evidence I’ve seen you use supporting the argument that race, independent of other factors, affects the two primary admissions criteria in law school is the gap in the LSAT score.  So let’s take that and assume it’s accurate.  (I haven’t seen any evidence – and you haven’t offered any --  that race alone affects one’s GPA; yet AA awards a boost for GPA.  Are you OK with that?) But anyway, the data doesn’t say why. 

Since right now this is one-way communication, I’ll have to assume that the popular hypothesis is “stereotype threat”?  I won’t dispute that stereotype threat can exist, but I do wonder why we need to control for it.  A stereotype exists that women are illogical and irrational – I hear it every day.  Does that mean that women deserve a boost on logic games and logical reasoning?  And,  if we could isolate every single factor that is not one’s own fault that could affect a test that will affect one’s admission to law school, is it desirable to control for al of them in admissions with boosts? (If it isn’t, then why do we do this for race alone?) So everyone who took the test in the lowest rated testing centers should get a boost commensurate with the performance gap for students at those low-rated testing facilities?  If AA is just about the testing gap, then we should collect a lot more data on what creates testing gaps and give everyone a boost commensurate with the individual conditions/adversity they faced.  Race alone doesn’t explain anything other than (potentially) stereotype threat for an LSAT gap.  If you want to get into conditions that affect GPA, LSAT and other aspects of the application socio-economic offers many more indicators that affect performance.  Living in a neighborhood with more than 20% of the population 200% below poverty line.  Access to quality education.  Access to college preparation.  Access to the internet and computers.  Economic hardship that affects one’s ability to prepare for a test.  Or study for class.  Undergraduate institution.  Personal hardship.  Attending a community college first.  I think these factors, using economic indicators and PS/DS, are all more likely to shape Applicant X’s total package for admission than race alone.  But, as a byproduct, I think that socioeconomic AA will still help to achieve racial diversity.  So while I'm not sure I favor economic AA, I do favor it instead of race-based AA.

Quote
Color-blind admissions for equal opportunity, aka "racial preferences". This strikes me as jumping ahead in the argument. If the playing field isn't even in the first place -- if race and the burden of racism is indeed a factor in creating an uneven playing field, then correcting for that strikes me as closer to the equal opportunity objecive than does ignoring it.

Colorblind admissions/Racial Preferences:  Unfortunately race and the burden of racism can’t be quantified.  And how much it affects any given individual depends on region, neighborhood, educational experience, peer group, income, personal strength/self esteem (yeah, I’m sure you’ll object to this one, but whatever) so it is impossible to “level the playing field” in a quantitative way for individuals based on a group experience.  (Also, some of us believe that the leveling of the playing field, if it is somehow necessary, should probably happen sometime before the age of 22+.  This is where “we” get the inner city schools argument from.  If you have to keep leveling the playing field over and over and over, then when does the “game” ever start?)  And, if we’re going to “level the playing field” for individuals from disadvantaged groups and that’s desirable, then I don’t think it’s laughable to consider groups who also face major disadvantages or stereotypes/discrimination – the obese, the physically disabled, countryfolk and Southerners, Jewish people, the deaf, people with speech impediments and stutterers, etc.  Unfortunately, these things all get relegated to the personal statements… which an appropriate place, I think, for somebody to put racism that they’ve faced and hardships they’ve overcome. 

Quote
"Just by ticking a box".  This strikes me as a facile attempt to reduce the experience of race in this country to nothing at all. Further, URMs aren't the only ones that 'just tick a box': in-staters do, too; legacies do, too.

Ticking the Box – I think the in-state is a separate issue because state educational institutions are infrastructure investments and amenities provided using taxpayer money for the people of the state.  State residents should benefit disproportionately from their investment.  And I think the concept of admitting under-qualified legacies sucks.  So feel free to do away with that one.  So now the “ticking the box” argument is less ridiculous.


Quote
Merit. This is surely the most disingenuous argument of them all. Yes, a 120 and a 180 are differently prepared for law school. But what about a 173 and a 169? What about a 166 and a 161? The score band, at the very low 68% confidence interval is 7 points wide; at the more usual 95% confidence interval, it's 11 points wide. In that context, even assuming that the LSAT could predict what it is valuable to know, the differences between the median LSAT of admitted URMs and the median LSAT of the class does not suggest that the URMS are 'unprepared'. When compared to the lower tenth decile of admitted white students, the difference is one and sometimes 2 LSAT points. What's that, in terms of preparedness for law school? Nothing at all.
Merit: Law schools want students who merit admissions.  It’s fundamentally a merit-based process.  Now I’d be happy for them to make a better test than the LSAT with smaller deviations and higher fidelity.  But you center your merit argument only on the LSAT and ignore the merit in GPA, resume, etc.  But it is definitely possible to determine, at least in some sense, the merit of applicants based on LSAT, GPA, PS/DS, resume, etc.  What I don’t get is how a race makes one more or less likely to be a better applicant for a law school.  So if you told me that we need to throw out the LSAT or deemphasize it for selecting merit, I’d be much more amenable to that than saying that we need to add race as a factor. 

Quote
AA hurts URMs. Silly. Especially when it is deployed in the context of an argument about AA at T1 schools. The most important indicator of future career success is the law school that you attended. Period. Not LSAT (which has no relationship at all to any career indicators), not UGPA, not ECs or personal statements. You know what hurts URMs? Atending a school with a low barpassage rate, attending a school with poor placement records etc. But that also hurts whites. In absolute terms it hurts more whites than blacks or hispanics or both combined.
AA hurts URMS.  I think you mischaracterize the general argument here.  It’s not that AA hurts URMS (I can’t imagine how going to Yale would hurt you when you only had the stats for Vandy).  It just says that the minority admits with lower qualifications tend to perform less well than the admits with higher qualifications.  So if you’re setting the playing field even in admissions, then you’re just going to have to reset the playing field again in grades, hiring, etc.


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 05:49:53 PM
Quote
AA causes whites to be mean to URMs. Hmm. Guess what? Same story when women were first admitted to UGs and law schools and offices in the grandmother AA program. Men kicked up a fuss then. They really did. they reached for their biology textbooks to show why it couldn't work. Who cares now? Who thinks that women were hurt by it now? Would I have been able to apply and attend law school without that AA program generations ago? Same story with Jews (stndardized tests were first used in college admissions in order to keep Jews out of Harvard and Princeton. It didn't work). Same story with Asians.

AA causes whites to be mean to minorities.  Again, setting up a little straw man here to set a match to.  Many minorities that oppose affirmative action do so because they would like their accomplishments to speak for themselves.  If you’re sitting in a classroom of 10 people, with 3 URMs (2 who were in the lowest decile of admits, 1 who was in the highest) would you want someone assuming you were the AA admit used to balance the class for diversity?  Under-qualified AA admits just create stereotype confirmation for most students (the guy you know is under-qualified the moment they start speaking) and the stereotype disconfirming instances (the URM in the top decile of qualified students) gets ignored.  Unfortunately, it sucks, but it’s how the subconscious cognitive processes go.  This isn’t a reason to get rid of AA.  And if someone says so, then they’re giving a crappy reason.  But a side benefit of getting rid of AA would be the eventual reduction of the stereotype that minorities in higher education are under-qualified at their respective institutions.  Which I think would have positive echoes throughout higher education and society at large.

Quote
3. They really do believe that black and hispanic people are inherently incapable (the IQ argument) or inherently lazy (the culture argument
Cultural.  To misrepresent the cultural argument as a racist rehash of “blacks are lazy” stereotypes, is pretty unfair.  This leaves out in-group stereotype reinforcement (education is for “white” black people) and peer pressure.  If someone’s friends of the same race are all in standard classes and the minority who takes AP classes is labeled an outsider by their racial ingroup, who the hell wants that? (Note that I think this is a personal choice. And that it’s culturally-imposed and not race inherent.)  Then add in that gang culture is more prevalent among minority communities.  And add in that nonstandard English is more prevalent among minority communities.  And yes, different cultures in different regions of the country place different value on formal education.  Or parental involvement in education.  Or academic discipline.  (And these cultural differences can help to explain racial differences on standardized testing beyond economics, but the cultural differences aren’t limited to race.)  You have cultural factors that are much more complicated than “dem blacks is just lazy!”

Quote
1. They really have no idea of how the admissions process works, what the data is, etc; or
2. They are being just selfish (and anxious) about their own opportunities and will support whatever will (or would have) helped them to the exclusion of anyone else
3. They really do believe that black and hispanic people are inherently incapable (the IQ argument) or inherently lazy (the culture argument); or
4. They just plain old don't like people who are black or hispanic or whatever, and blaming them is the first thing that they reach for when things don't go their way -- round up the usual suspects, etc.

So minorities who oppose AA just don't have any idea of how the amissions process works and what the data is?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 05:52:25 PM
Quote
You expressed doubt over the mere existence of racial injustices in our society today; that is a "big bold statement."  (It's kind of like me saying, "I suppose there's a chance that Bill Gates might be wealthy."  The doubt is absurd.)  Further, I don't see why it's at all clear that "the injustices in our society" have necessarily changed since 1976.

I'm from the South.  I say "may" or "might could" in front of a whole lot of things.

But I didn't mean to doubt the existence of racial injustice.  I was doubting that the specific kinds of racial injustice are the exact same today as they were in 1976.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 06:21:20 PM
Good for you. 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 15, 2006, 06:39:57 PM
That is an obscure way to address it.

Maybe you screwed up on the LSAT and maybe you drank beer in class in college and used Crayola on your tests.  You may then wind up at Suffolk but really be Good Will Hunting.

Someone may be minimally qualified and able to work hard to achieve.  But if you're in a high-level academic discussion, the quality of everyone's education can be affected by the one person who just "doesn't get it" and is incapable of adding substantively to the discussion.  Even if they worked hard and did all the work.  Some people just don't have the ability.

You ever talked to someone and just thought "Wow, that person is just far and away smarter than me.  They are truly brilliant."? 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 07:48:48 PM
as with all great questions we should turn to cooley for the answer.

Index
Academic Success, 1st-Time Bar Results
215+
100% 94%
210-214
97% 94%
205-209
97% 90%
195-204
88% 83%

LSAT Score
Academic Success, 1st-Time Bar Results
163+
100% 95%
158-162
97% 89%
153-157
91% 87%
149-152
84% 79%

lololol
but seriously i've read that bar passage for the bottom decile at ucla is 40% compared to essentially perfect for the top decile. sooo, if significant lsat differences predict grades we could extrapolates somewhat.

the big point is well taken though. a friend of mine scored 6 points higher the second time he took the test, his secret? guessing better.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 08:16:51 PM
I just have a hard time comprehending that a student whose numbers suggest Loyola/Colorado/Wisconsin would do favorably at the schools in that range,  but more likely to struggle at Penn, Columbia, and Yale.

I can't see there being that drastic a change in the course-work.

And to get back to my bigger point, I can't understand how a URM, whose numbers likewise suggest UConn or UGA but was "bumped" into NYU, would also be more likely to struggle. I would think that if she were to struggle, could the reasons not be more varied than just "her grades/scores weren't up to par"?

I would further think that those who look at URM admits as mercy cases are doing a fine job at projecting their own biases and prejudices.

I agree.
I also posted about this earlier in response to mae8's insistence that someone answer her question, and I didn't see any actual reply.  Did I miss it?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 08:24:30 PM
missed it sorry
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 15, 2006, 08:25:27 PM
missed it sorry

No problem.  The thread's a mess, and my response was incomplete, for sure.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: mae8 on November 15, 2006, 08:28:12 PM
i'll go back and find it tomorrow, gotta do some actual work. im just glad someone answered, i didnt mean to be annoying but red kept on ignoring/missing it for whatever reason and i thought it might add something.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 17, 2006, 02:09:05 PM
Red, you're being extremeley unrealistic in your assumptions that the people who are against AA fall into one of those four categories that YOU devised. I disagree with you, there may be peoplw who DO fall into those categories, but not all, and certainly not me.

Also, to TJ, if it is true that "brilliant" people often have sub-par GPA's then why do all of them necessarily have to be URM's? It makes no sense to say, well, he is URM and sub-par GPA, but he might be brilliant and not say the same thing about anyone else.

One more point. if AA is to help historically disadvantaged peoples, must we not have a box for many more things? I mean, come on, the peasants in England need some relief, if someone descended from them they might still feel backlash from the crown. But more close to home, what about the Irish and the Italians (especially Italians who might have dark skin, which seems to be the whole point on the other side, not race, but color of skin).
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 17, 2006, 05:46:22 PM
Yes i actually do receycle.

But, no , no straw man here. I was just saying that if you take away the race factor than there are people across the board that are brilliant with low GPAs and people across the board who are not with high GPAs.

You say you would never confine the example to URMs, but you DID. You were talking specifically about URM with low GPA and brilliance.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on November 18, 2006, 05:41:16 AM
Eh. Well. Red was begging for someone to write some long-winded responses and answer her challenges.  Then no substantive response to any of them.

... except your "but some smart people look dumb by the numbers!"

Oh well. But how many truly smart people - without some documented problem - look dumb in the numbers?

   If they're really that smart, they should be able to slack and STILL look fine to an admissions committee. Part of intelligence is that it comes easier and requires less effort to succeed than most of your peers. 

(For example, I didn't put as much effort forth as most of my classmates and concentrated instead on my extracurriculars, but still did very well... And I took only two practice tests for the LSAT and still did OK...) 

So I find it hard to believe that the supergenius who will be well-qualified for law school, and able to succeed, has such terrible numbers that someone would mistake them for incapable of completing the work.


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: FredJohnson on November 18, 2006, 08:39:55 AM
Red, you're being extremeley unrealistic in your assumptions that the people who are against AA fall into one of those four categories that YOU devised. I disagree with you, there may be peoplw who DO fall into those categories, but not all, and certainly not me.

Also, to TJ, if it is true that "brilliant" people often have sub-par GPA's then why do all of them necessarily have to be URM's? It makes no sense to say, well, he is URM and sub-par GPA, but he might be brilliant and not say the same thing about anyone else.

One more point. if AA is to help historically disadvantaged peoples, must we not have a box for many more things? I mean, come on, the peasants in England need some relief, if someone descended from them they might still feel backlash from the crown. But more close to home, what about the Irish and the Italians (especially Italians who might have dark skin, which seems to be the whole point on the other side, not race, but color of skin).

UGA or UCONN to NYU jump? More like a Georgetown to NYU jump.

 :-\
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 18, 2006, 10:34:41 AM
Keep your knickers on. I'll be back to deal with you plebs.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: redemption on November 18, 2006, 11:56:43 AM
Would that make you our patriarch?

Claudia Pulchra
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 19, 2006, 03:13:43 PM
Jump to NYU, what does that mean?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 19, 2006, 03:18:16 PM
Jump to NYU, what does that mean?

I think the idea is that affirmative action does not work to move candidates between different-tier law schools, but rather to give some applicants a bump of 10 or fewer places in the rankings.  Who knows, who cares.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 19, 2006, 03:22:00 PM
Oh ok, so instead of going to Harvard, go to Yale. instead of going to Tier 2 school A, go to Tier 2 School B, etc?

well, I guess I can understand it in the case of moving between T14, but I'm not sure about the rest.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 19, 2006, 03:28:49 PM
Oh ok, so instead of going to Harvard, go to Yale. instead of going to Tier 2 school A, go to Tier 2 School B, etc?

well, I guess I can understand it in the case of moving between T14, but I'm not sure about the rest.

Eh, Duke --> Stanford, Washington & Lee --> GWU, Wake --> Fordham, etc.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: t... on November 19, 2006, 03:59:03 PM
Judging strictly by numbers for NYU (from LSN last cycle):

There is a 159/3.83, 166/3.87, a 164/3.63, 165/3.14, 165/3.71, 163/3.80, and a few more in that range who were accepted.

Numbers that would suggest schools ranked in the 30's or so (if we were gauging strictly by numbers). I think there are examples of pretty significant bumps, but none of that is my point.

My point is that regardless of why they were bumped, I don't think numbers necessarily suggest qualification, and I don't think a law degree from the t14 is any more difficult to achieve than most other schools in the top 100 (roughly). So I think the point made earlier that URM's are looked at as mercy cases who are unqualified to attend X school is bogus.

Sorry for being redundant.


Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 19, 2006, 04:01:10 PM
Judging strictly by numbers for NYU (from LSN):

There is a 159/3.83, 166/3.87, a 164/3.63, 165/3.14, 165/3.71, 163/3.80, and a few more in that range.

Numbers that would suggest schools ranked in the 30's or so (if we were gauging strictly by numbers). I think there are examples of pretty significant bumps, but none of that is my point.

My point is that regardless of why they were bumped, I don't think numbers necessarily suggest qualification, and I don't think a law degree from the t14 is any more difficult to achieve than most other schools in the top 100 (roughly). So I think the idea that URM's are looked at as mercy cases who are unqualified to attend X school is bogus.

Sorry for being redundant.

I agree.  I strongly doubt there's any difference in the level of preparation for law school between someone who scored a 163 and someone who scored a 173, or that there's enough difference in the curricula/difficulty of same-tier law schools to make admissions really a matter a of "qualifications" anyway.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 19, 2006, 04:04:29 PM
Would it really be easier to graduate from a T14 than a Tier 3/4 I heard that at the bottom ranked schools it is harder to get good grades and the profs are just trying to kick people out because they are places to sift out the students who don't belong there, or shouldn't be lawyers for whatever reason. is this true?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 19, 2006, 04:06:28 PM
Would it really be easier to graduate from a T14 than a Tier 3/4 I heard that at the bottom ranked schools it is harder to get good grades and the profs are just trying to kick people out because they are places to sift out the students who don't belong there, or shouldn't be lawyers for whatever reason. is this true?

I have no way of knowing, but a comparison between Tier 3/4 schools and T14 schools is inapt because people who can get into the T14 are not going to Tier 3/4 schools.  The comparison is between, say, Fordham and NYU, at best.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on November 19, 2006, 04:09:28 PM
Well, maybe they are for reasons such as money, region, etc.

So the question remains. Is this true that Tier 3/4 schools do this?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on November 19, 2006, 04:12:09 PM
Well, maybe they are for reasons such as money, region, etc.

So the question remains. Is this true that Tier 3/4 schools do this?

I think it depends on the school and how much it cares about its bar passage rates.  For instance, Tier 3/4 publics may have a mandate to improve their bar passage rates; privates may just wish to maintain accreditation and keep as much tuition money as possible.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Lurking Third Year on November 22, 2006, 03:13:02 PM
im sure firms and judges have great faith in someones functionality after failing five times. the gap in law school grades is larger, is that an illegitimate measure as well?


Five failures doesn't mean much. You could go and take a bar course today, as a prelaw student, and have a reasonable chance at passing the bar; I sh*t you not. So the question is then; are bar passage rates an indication of mental capacity or is there a level of economic influence due to whites, more often then not, being able to afford expensive prep courses? If you want a law school to teach you to pass the bar on the first try, and by your reasoning establish yourself as a better lawyer than another who must retake the test, Thomas Cooley is accepting applications and I hear wonderful things about them.

Is a student's GPA an illegitimate measure of their ability? No, but the bar is, which was the thrust of your last post and the point which I then addressed.

Sorry, but five failures does mean something.  As someone who has taken the bar (and passed on the first try), I would have serious doubts about anyone who couldn't pass the bar after five attempts.  Most states have around an 80% pass rate, and even CA is not that bad if you take out all of the non-accredited takers. 

In addition, everyone takes a bar prep course or at least reviews the books (which would be just as useful, really).  We're talking about a $2,000 investment that you have three years to save for.  There are also plenty of bar loans and other private loans that students can use.  Everyone I know, regardless of their socio-economic background either paid for the courses with loans or had their firms pay for them.  After investing around $100k, there is simply no excuse not to take a bar prep course.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: JTG on November 29, 2006, 08:24:39 PM
Red,

As much as you'd love for me to be some bumpkin bigot, I'm not.  What you're looking for in my statement is just not there. I'm clearly saying that I think that alternate measures of diversity will succeed in creating a suitably diverse class -- and in some ways more diverse than just a check in a box as a measure of diversity.  I'm NOT saying that black people can't play the cello and Hispanics can't paint well.

Not saying you are. Not even thinking it. I'm just saying that that paragraph is badly expressed (that much is clear), and that I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

You say, "instead", and I think, hmm, false choice: I have no reason to believe that anything other than LSAT scores separates the average black or hispanic candidate from the average white candidate. I wonder if parsely knows something I don't. Do you?

LSAT scores are no small deal. Your point?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: ImVinny! on December 03, 2006, 04:38:40 PM
Are we seeing any effect in the acceptances yet this year?
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: butter tart on December 14, 2006, 11:44:21 AM
The following is a Detroit Free Press article from today (12/14/06) detailing what the Michigan AG intends to do about the new anti-AA amendment in Michigan.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061214/NEWS99/61214024

Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: t L on December 20, 2006, 03:44:23 AM
For anybody that cares or that it matters to, the motion that the Michigan universities filed was granted.  So they can practice AA for the rest of the admissions cycle.
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: parsley on December 20, 2006, 06:44:55 AM
Was it really that "their motion was granted"?

Or was it that they just sat down and hammered out a deal that confirms the constitutionality of Proposal 2 while protecting the integrity of this cycle? 
Title: Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
Post by: Miss P on December 20, 2006, 09:14:37 AM
Was it really that "their motion was granted"?

Or was it that they just sat down and hammered out a deal that confirms the constitutionality of Proposal 2 while protecting the integrity of this cycle? 

Are you Eric Russell, Parsley? :D