Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: Matthew on August 26, 2007, 10:55:45 PM

Title: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Matthew on August 26, 2007, 10:55:45 PM
I found this article interesting:

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010522 (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010522)

I don't know how sound the research is, but I've never thought Berkeley was doing anyone a favor by admitting someone with an 880 SAT.  As flawed as the test may be, it seems to me that an inability to attain an average score would be indicative of an inability to perform in a top school  I think the same of law schools.

Any thoughtful criticism or thoghts on this?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: ColdBlue on August 27, 2007, 08:58:21 AM
Just look at the entire country of South Africa if you want to see how stupidly retarded and outright racist AA is.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 09:36:06 AM
I heard that the UC system's rate of Black graduation skyrocketed a few years after it abolished affirmative action. When underqualified Blacks stopped enrolling at Berkeley and UCLA, but began enrolling at lower-tiered schools, they began to be able to keep up with the pace of coursework.

Of course, the qualified Blacks were still able to both enroll and graduate at Berkeley and UCLA.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 09:58:23 PM
NOTE: I erred in composing my original post The sentence of error should read "When underqualified Blacks stopped enrolling at Berkeley and UCLA, but began enrolling at lower-tiered schools..."

Fixed.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: ANBUDOM on August 28, 2007, 11:55:58 PM
The worst part about AA is that as a minority you can NEVER feel that you truly earned your accomplishments.  This application cycle I was constantly thinking about whether or not I truly deserved to get that screening interview, to get invited for a callback, and to receive an offer.  I'm always wondering if the firms gave me all these opportunities to fill a quota or to look PC for their clients. 

Another bad feeling is that others won't ever give you full credit for your accomplishments.  "Ah that f-ing kid got his interview/job because of AA."  That statement might sound ignorant but let's be perfectly honest here, I can't be 100% sure that I got to where i'm at solely because of my talents and hard-work... I think my credentials are quite good but it's annoying that a lot of ppl may look at me and not think about my qualifications but wonder which quota i'll be filling. 

However, before we jump on the "AA is unfair" bandwagon i'm seeing TONS of law students (whites and minorities) getting all kinds of interviews and offers that they don't deserve solely because their mommies and daddies know the right people. 

wow i'm watching american beauty right now and the dude just got shot in the back of the head... whoa this movie is crazy...
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Def Leppard on September 03, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
I just posted about this same article.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg2399924.html#msg2399924

A University of Michigan professor found the same sort of statistics at Michigan.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on September 04, 2007, 06:39:57 AM
That's really sad.  We need more minorities in the law profession.  I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel.  It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up.  If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out. 
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: UNAS on September 04, 2007, 08:27:12 AM
That's really sad.  We need more minorities in the law profession.  I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel.  It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up.  If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out. 

You should revisit this comment. Across the board attrition rates for top schools (i.e. T6-T10)schools are less then 1%. Top school have indicated that most people that drop out almost always do so for non-academic reasons. Just figured I would dispel that myth before it spiraled out of control

Will URMs with a less than median LSATs have to work a lil harder? Maybe/maybe not. But to say they will get chewed up and spit out is a complete and total falsehood. Particularly if you base it on the nations leading law schools' attrition numbers.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: lollypotter on September 15, 2007, 03:59:05 AM
 ???

No comment on AA but interested in ColdBlue's comment. Why is AA in South Africa retarded and racist? Spent a year studying South Africa at university and very interested in his response...
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: OperaAttorney on September 15, 2007, 09:25:43 AM
The worst part about AA is that as a minority you can NEVER feel that you truly earned your accomplishments.  This application cycle I was constantly thinking about whether or not I truly deserved to get that screening interview, to get invited for a callback, and to receive an offer.  I'm always wondering if the firms gave me all these opportunities to fill a quota or to look PC for their clients.

My experience is quite pleasant. Despite my status as a minority, I NEVER discount the validity of my accomplishments.  Yes, AA exists--thank God!--but I also know I get A's at the end of each academic term due to my God-given intelligence and diligent work ethic, not AA.  When I apply to law school next year, I intend to put my best into each application. The law school admissions process is competitive, and I can't depend on my URM status to get me anywhere. I do know, however, that I can depend on EVERYTHING about me.

Another bad feeling is that others won't ever give you full credit for your accomplishments.  "Ah that f-ing kid got his interview/job because of AA."  That statement might sound ignorant but let's be perfectly honest here, I can't be 100% sure that I got to where i'm at solely because of my talents and hard-work... I think my credentials are quite good but it's annoying that a lot of ppl may look at me and not think about my qualifications but wonder which quota i'll be filling.

First, this ridiculous notion existed in the minds of our nation's majority long before AA even reared its head. Blacks have always struggled to receive proper recognition in this country.  My father, an African immigrant, received "partial" credit for his accomplishments while attending college, medical school, and graduate school in this country. Louis Latimer and Vivien Thomas, two of our nation's greatest black scientists, made innovative discoveries, but failed to receive proper recognition for their efforts due to overt racism, which was prevalent at the time. (And in Latimer's case, I believe his superiors appropriated his ideas without his approval.)

Second, it's all about who you know these days, not what you know. Do you think any one of us could walk into Harpo Studios, submit a rsum, and get a job? Probably not. But I bet the candidate who knows somebody (who knows somebody else) would fare better.

On a side note: why should I care if people who don't know me think I got to where I am because of AA?  I frequently outperform most students (including the white students) in my classes.  In my opinion, we have this problem because people refuse to mind their business.

Here's the bottom line: they're always going to say you're not good enough.  If it's not AA, then they'll use something else.  My advice? Ignore the naysayers and shut them up with your stellar performance.




Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: OperaAttorney on September 15, 2007, 09:50:52 AM
That's really sad.  We need more minorities in the law profession.  I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel.  It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up.  If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out. 


Should your law school spit you out for displaying such ignorance? I'll let you answer that question. LOL

2Lacoste, an LSD regular, is doing well at HLS and will graduate from HLS in 2009. He got into HLS, U Mich, and UVA with a 3.5sumthin and a 163 LSAT.  URMs and non-URMs with LSAT scores under 165 attend top law schools and do well all the time.  Please GROW UP and get over your half-Mexican self!
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on September 15, 2007, 09:58:13 AM
That's really sad.  We need more minorities in the law profession.  I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel.  It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up.  If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out. 

You're a damn fool,

Annabel Lee got a 163 on the LSAT and got into HYSCCN and attended Yale. If getting a bunch of Hs in your first year classes is getting chewed up and spit out, then yes.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on September 16, 2007, 03:36:25 PM
That's really sad.  We need more minorities in the law profession.  I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel.  It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up.  If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out. 

You're a damn fool,

Annabel Lee got a 163 on the LSAT and got into HYSCCN and attended Yale. If getting a bunch of Hs in your first year classes is getting chewed up and spit out, then yes.

It should be duly noted by this point, based on posts like the one above, that EASTEND rarely has any idea of what she is talking about with respect to law school, law in general, the LSAT, AA, admissions....

....the list goes on apparently.


Correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but scoring a 165 puts you in the 90+ percentile of all LSAT takers right?  The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right?  Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile. 

So....how again would Harvard Yale or Stanford chew one up and spit one out exactly if they scored a 165 on the LSAT?  Professors must petition at Stanford and Harvard to even give any grade lower than a B- and Yale has no grades at all. In fact, looking at the attrition rates for each school, not so much as a single student left Harvard, Yale, or Stanford for academic reasons.  Not one.  Everybody who got into these schools was able to hack it, and as we can see by the employment %'s, practically all of them got jobs.

Eastend, you might want to do the research first before making any further unsubstantiated claims in the future.  Afterall, we are aspiring to be attorneys here right?  Attorneys typically look things up first, and then talk.



Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Matthew on September 16, 2007, 06:15:27 PM
I agree that anyone who get into HYS, URM boost or no, can make it there.  That doesn't mean this is true otherwise, especially in the lower teirs.  People could be accepted into schools way above their proficiency level and drown in the course work.  Just because that's true at the top doesn't mean that AA doesn't have the negative effect the article describes.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on October 12, 2007, 06:58:44 PM
The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right?  Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile. 

You're wrong.  Generally, the difference between 165 and 170 is 5-6 questions.  Furthermore, the difference between the 95th and 99th percentile is around 8 questions.

The chance of an identical student having a difference of 8 questions (or 7 points, a typical URM boost) is at least two SDs off the mean.  In other words, it's not something that will happen simply due to dumb luck.

Carry on with the arguments as to why a black student and a white student with identical socio-economic backgrounds who attended the very same schools from K-16 should have different opportunities if both decide to attend law school.  It makes for fascinating reading. 

You're wrong. Sorry. The difference between 95th percentile and 99th percentile is at most 3 questions. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: simonsays on October 12, 2007, 07:16:22 PM


http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/scale.htm

it's a normal distribution.  the difference between scales scores decreases as you go away from the average score.  so for:

150-155, a difference of 10
155-160, 9
160-165, 8
165-170, 7
170-175, 5
175-180, 4

see the trend?

Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on October 12, 2007, 07:22:24 PM
The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right?  Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile. 

You're wrong.  Generally, the difference between 165 and 170 is 5-6 questions.  Furthermore, the difference between the 95th and 99th percentile is around 8 questions.

The chance of an identical student having a difference of 8 questions (or 7 points, a typical URM boost) is at least two SDs off the mean.  In other words, it's not something that will happen simply due to dumb luck.

Carry on with the arguments as to why a black student and a white student with identical socio-economic backgrounds who attended the very same schools from K-16 should have different opportunities if both decide to attend law school.  It makes for fascinating reading. 

You're wrong. Sorry. The difference between 95th percentile and 99th percentile is at most 3 questions. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about.

Wanna bet?  Here's a sample I was able to find off-hand from last year (June 2006)...

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i245/MaraudingJ/June2006Scale.jpg

And here's LSACs Scaled-score to percentile score break-down: http://www.deloggio.com/how&when/newcurve.htm (this stays pretty static test-to-test).

Say what you will, but the difference is most definitely closer to 8 questions than three (in terms of scores, a 165/6 v. a 172; the exact raw numbers vary, but the delta of 7-8 questions is more stable and the general translation of the scores above).   

a 167 is 95%. A 165 is 93%.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Somewhere on October 12, 2007, 07:41:35 PM
The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right?  Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile. 

You're wrong.  Generally, the difference between 165 and 170 is 5-6 questions.  Furthermore, the difference between the 95th and 99th percentile is around 8 questions.

The chance of an identical student having a difference of 8 questions (or 7 points, a typical URM boost) is at least two SDs off the mean.  In other words, it's not something that will happen simply due to dumb luck.

Carry on with the arguments as to why a black student and a white student with identical socio-economic backgrounds who attended the very same schools from K-16 should have different opportunities if both decide to attend law school.  It makes for fascinating reading. 

You're wrong. Sorry. The difference between 95th percentile and 99th percentile is at most 3 questions. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about.

Wanna bet?  Here's a sample I was able to find off-hand from last year (June 2006)...

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i245/MaraudingJ/June2006Scale.jpg

And here's LSACs Scaled-score to percentile score break-down: http://www.deloggio.com/how&when/newcurve.htm (this stays pretty static test-to-test).

Say what you will, but the difference is most definitely closer to 8 questions than three (in terms of scores, a 165/6 v. a 172; the exact raw numbers vary, but the delta of 7-8 questions is more stable and the general translation of the scores above).   

a 167 is 95%. A 165 is 93%.

It still works out to around 7 questions.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Somewhere on October 12, 2007, 07:56:48 PM
a 167 is 95%. A 165 is 93%.

Prove it.  Never seen a table with it that high, but that's not the question.

That is correct. Look at your IRR Additional Information Document.

a 167 is a 95%
a 173 is a 99%


As for the raw score, on the test I took in 2006

a 93 raw score was a 173
an 86 raw score was a 167


You can all go back to whatever it was you were discussing.

Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kittyl30 on January 18, 2008, 08:55:18 AM
just browsing around the board. i found this part of the article the most shocking:

"As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial."

something needs to be said for that..
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 18, 2008, 09:41:35 AM
just browsing around the board. i found this part of the article the most shocking:

"As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial."

something needs to be said for that..


Doesn't happen at my school.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Outlaw22 on January 18, 2008, 11:39:42 AM
just browsing around the board. i found this part of the article the most shocking:

"As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial."

something needs to be said for that..


First of all where is the article from? And what defines "elite" law schools. Because practically all schools in the T14 don't release class ranks - so this information wouldn't be available for biased statements like that.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on March 29, 2008, 06:57:05 PM
I have to say, the pro-AA people made very few good arguments in this post. There are plenty to be made, and simply none were. Pointing out examples of success, or using ad hominum attacks, or just citing the vitriolic posts of the anti-AA people as a premise for your argument does nothing to counter the article in question.

Furthermore, with regards to elite law schools, many more people could do well at Harvard than get in. Hell, if you get in to a top 25 school you could probably handle the workload at Harvard. That is not the main point though, nor is it the argument anti-AA make regarding why AA shouldn't exist. Step it up
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on March 29, 2008, 07:04:59 PM
I have to say, the pro-AA people made very few good arguments in this post. There are plenty to be made, and simply none were. Pointing out examples of success, or using ad hominum attacks, or just citing the vitriolic posts of the anti-AA people as a premise for your argument does nothing to counter the article in question.

Furthermore, with regards to elite law schools, many more people could do well at Harvard than get in. Hell, if you get in to a top 25 school you could probably handle the workload at Harvard. That is not the main point though, nor is it the argument anti-AA make regarding why AA shouldn't exist. Step it up

LMAO.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Astro on March 29, 2008, 07:26:10 PM
Just look at the entire country of South Africa if you want to see how stupidly retarded and outright racist AA is.


Most asinine argument of all time.  Seriously.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Astro on March 30, 2008, 03:33:58 PM
Just look at the entire country of South Africa if you want to see how stupidly retarded and outright racist AA is.

Most asinine argument of all time.  Seriously.

you exaggerate and that makes your assertion less forceful.  htfh.

 :D :D :D

::clicks on LSN to stalk::
::is whisked away to a dark underworld::
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on March 31, 2008, 08:37:04 AM
I agree that anyone who get into HYS, URM boost or no, can make it there.  That doesn't mean this is true otherwise, especially in the lower teirs.  People could be accepted into schools way above their proficiency level and drown in the course work.  Just because that's true at the top doesn't mean that AA doesn't have the negative effect the article describes.


Ah, this old chestnut.
Yes, in theory, anyone with an LSAT score of 165 can excel at any top law school.  We see anecdotal evidence of this throughout this board.  Having said that, at HYS you are competing with the cream of the crop.  Would you rather be top of your class at Vanderbilt or bottom at Yale?  I wish more URMs would consider this.   
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on March 31, 2008, 08:44:33 AM
I agree that anyone who get into HYS, URM boost or no, can make it there.  That doesn't mean this is true otherwise, especially in the lower teirs.  People could be accepted into schools way above their proficiency level and drown in the course work.  Just because that's true at the top doesn't mean that AA doesn't have the negative effect the article describes.


Ah, this old chestnut.
Yes, in theory, anyone with an LSAT score of 165 can excel at any top law school.  We see anecdotal evidence of this throughout this board.  Having said that, at HYS you are competing with the cream of the crop.  Would you rather be top of your class at Vanderbilt or bottom at Yale?  I wish more URMs would consider this.   

without addressing your general argument, i'd like to point out that your illustration does not support that argument.  bottom of class at yale >>> top of class at vanderbilt.


Sometimes people use exaggeration for emphasis.  Before you ask, this isn't based on scientific study nor am I generalizing based on a limited data set?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on March 31, 2008, 08:48:54 AM
Sometimes people use exaggeration for emphasis.

some do this better than others.

You've done a scientific study on this or are you just generalizing based on a limited data set?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on March 31, 2008, 09:05:26 AM
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: just some guy on March 31, 2008, 09:43:49 AM
Sometimes people use exaggeration for emphasis.

some do this better than others.

I still think Seton Hall should change its name to Princeton.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Prestjesus on March 31, 2008, 11:24:15 AM
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.

See this is exactly why AA works, and we should not be discouraged by it, it just takes time. You see there was a point in history where only white men could attend law schools. Then came AA. And we had to let women in. They got used to working hard, competing with men, and eventually some even graduated near the top of their class. With the advent of prepping for months the LSAT it made it easier for women to get in if they worked hard enough and eventually AA for them ceased.

Now we come to the point that most law schools have more women than men. This is close to the society as whole demographics wise. Yet, this poster still knows her place. AA is letting her go to law school, even a good one, but she has not shirked her womanly duties in the mean time. Shes still doing her man,s laundry. Same with minorities, eventually they will make up a percentage of the demographics of law school equal to society the same as women. While I think you could argue the legal profession certainly has diminished since AA for women, its not the end of the world. Its not like they get paid the same overall or make partner very often, thank god. But we gave them a shot and now they have more choice than just marrying a lawyer they can actually try out at being one till they get board and have babies!
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: armada on March 31, 2008, 02:09:50 PM
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.

See this is exactly why AA works, and we should not be discouraged by it, it just takes time. You see there was a point in history where only white men could attend law schools. Then came AA. And we had to let women in. They got used to working hard, competing with men, and eventually some even graduated near the top of their class. With the advent of prepping for months the LSAT it made it easier for women to get in if they worked hard enough and eventually AA for them ceased.

Now we come to the point that most law schools have more women than men. This is close to the society as whole demographics wise. Yet, this poster still knows her place. AA is letting her go to law school, even a good one, but she has not shirked her womanly duties in the mean time. Shes still doing her man,s laundry. Same with minorities, eventually they will make up a percentage of the demographics of law school equal to society the same as women. While I think you could argue the legal profession certainly has diminished since AA for women, its not the end of the world. Its not like they get paid the same overall or make partner very often, thank god. But we gave them a shot and now they have more choice than just marrying a lawyer they can actually try out at being one till they get board and have babies!

Hmm...you're funny. I laughed.l
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: calhata on April 01, 2008, 04:35:56 PM
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.

See this is exactly why AA works, and we should not be discouraged by it, it just takes time. You see there was a point in history where only white men could attend law schools. Then came AA. And we had to let women in. They got used to working hard, competing with men, and eventually some even graduated near the top of their class. With the advent of prepping for months the LSAT it made it easier for women to get in if they worked hard enough and eventually AA for them ceased.

Now we come to the point that most law schools have more women than men. This is close to the society as whole demographics wise. Yet, this poster still knows her place. AA is letting her go to law school, even a good one, but she has not shirked her womanly duties in the mean time. Shes still doing her man,s laundry. Same with minorities, eventually they will make up a percentage of the demographics of law school equal to society the same as women. While I think you could argue the legal profession certainly has diminished since AA for women, its not the end of the world. Its not like they get paid the same overall or make partner very often, thank god. But we gave them a shot and now they have more choice than just marrying a lawyer they can actually try out at being one till they get board and have babies!



mofo that was the *&^%.  I wish I could get one of these bitches up my crib to do some f-ing laundry.  Yea keep em barefoot and pregnant. 
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on April 03, 2008, 06:32:38 AM
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Matthew on April 03, 2008, 07:02:28 AM
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

really?  so you feel like a rich black person is not at a disadvantage compared to a rich white person? 

It depends who has more money.  The real problem is the widening gap between the rich and the super-rich: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TQt2cyzsHYg (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TQt2cyzsHYg)
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on April 03, 2008, 07:08:26 AM
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

really?  so you feel like a rich black person is not at a disadvantage compared to a rich white person? 

Rich and black trumps poor and white in law school admissions?  Is that fair?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on April 03, 2008, 07:19:40 AM
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

really?  so you feel like a rich black person is not at a disadvantage compared to a rich white person? 

Rich and black trumps poor and white in law school admissions?  Is that fair?

you didn't answer my original question.  no cookie for you.

Dang, I need a cookie.  I'm going to get a cookie and ponder your question.  I hope you're having a great morning.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: eastend on April 03, 2008, 07:34:38 AM
Dang, I need a cookie.  I'm going to get a cookie and ponder your question.  I hope you're having a great morning.

if you give me an answer, i'll give you an answer.  and another cookie.  a good morning to you as well.

I think if you're rich, you're advantaged all the way around.  I know if you're rich you've probably had access to a great education which probably negates being a minority. 
I have a dentist appointment at 9.15, so if I'm to get a cookie, I'd need it now because I have to leave. 

Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 09:46:48 AM
So you just sort of made the point then, that it isnt fair for rich and black to trump poor and white. Yet this is what happens in a non-socio economic based system.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: SteelersandGators on April 03, 2008, 10:39:27 AM
I'm an Italian-American. My relatives have been/were discriminated against.

Question: Should I get an AA boost?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Gitmo Jones on April 03, 2008, 10:50:06 AM
I am 1/16 native american would it have been wrong to claim URM
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: LHL on April 03, 2008, 10:54:52 AM
I'm an Italian-American. My relatives have been/were discriminated against.

Question: Should I get an AA boost?

I think a big part of AA includes present disadvantages, not discrimination that your parents/ancestors faced.  I could be wrong though.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: SteelersandGators on April 03, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
I'm an Italian-American. My relatives have been/were discriminated against.

Question: Should I get an AA boost?

I think a big part of AA includes present disadvantages, not discrimination that your parents/ancestors faced.  I could be wrong though.

You are right. But how are admissions committees able to judge who is encountering present disadvantages based off checking a box on the application?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 11:31:23 AM
Clearly they are not mutually exclusive, but the point is that a wealthy URM certainly isn't disadvantaged in this process, at least to the extent that it would merit being advantaged over a disadvantaged ORM. If a socio economic system ends up being mainly race based than that is fine, but it seems that poor ORMs are getting the short end of the stick. Obviously there isnt the same history that URMs have, but that would explain why a socio economic system would help the latter group more so than the former.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Ghost on April 03, 2008, 11:34:35 AM
I think you underestimate the relative "boosts" poor ORM's and rich URM's get.

At any rate, we are all just speculating just how prevalent and significant AA is in each individual admissions office. Most of you are basing it off of an LSN profile, many of which are flame anyway.

But it feels so good to harp on about this injustice, doesn't it?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Ghost on April 03, 2008, 11:43:18 AM
Just visiting some old haunts...
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 12:01:57 PM
Ahh, the best way to offset one's own pure speculation is to accuse the other of pure speculation. Great argumentative style!
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Ghost on April 03, 2008, 12:06:53 PM
Ahh, the best way to offset one's own pure speculation is to accuse the other of pure speculation. Great argumentative style!

Ah, more empty rhetoric!

Have any proof? Anything substantive that you're relying upon?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 12:36:53 PM
Whoa, you keep repeating what I say, and then trying to turn the tables. That doesnt work. I'll rewind here so you can understand what the issue is. 

The point was acknowledge that a wealthy URM has an advantage over a disadvantaged ORM. The gap between these two groups is irrelevant; if there is one, why should it exist, since clearly the wealthy URM will have an advantage already by their wealth, and hence why should an AA policy further increase that? You present a hypothetical exception, or make claims about flaming. There has been a reasoned debate until you entered with the rhetoric, and frankly that doesn't it (either here or in law school, as you probably should know). Feel free to respond to the issues, rather than just spewing whatever you feel like.

Also for the record, I am fairly neutral with regard to AA, so there is no need for you to just spew venom at someone you think is not going to listen.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Ghost on April 03, 2008, 01:05:12 PM
Whoa, you keep repeating what I say, and then trying to turn the tables. That doesnt work. I'll rewind here so you can understand what the issue is.

The point was acknowledge that a wealthy URM has an advantage over a disadvantaged ORM. The gap between these two groups is irrelevant; if there is one, why should it exist, since clearly the wealthy URM will have an advantage already by their wealth, and hence why should an AA policy further increase that? You present a hypothetical exception, or make claims about flaming. There has been a reasoned debate until you entered with the rhetoric, and frankly that doesn't it (either here or in law school, as you probably should know). Feel free to respond to the issues, rather than just spewing whatever you feel like.

Lulz @ reasoned debate.

There are threads in this forum that have "reasoned debate" in them - this is not one of them. Point in case: I posed a significant point about reference (or proof) for this debate, which has still gone unresolved. Instead the conversation turned to one of my tactics, and some other obtuse chicanery.

Again I ask: what is your conception of affirmative action, what do you suppose are the goals of an academic institution, law school, in using affirmative action? Are those goals particular to a school, or similar? Where is your proof that poor ORM doesn't receive as significant a boost as rich URM?

These are all issues that are primary to this discussion, don't you think?

Again, I understand it's easier to just harp on about hypotheticals when they have no basis in reality. Probably fun, too.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 02:21:40 PM
TM - I'm not overstating anything. It is the case, there have been countless examples. I know as a fact that some AA kids at my high school got into colleges that they shouldn't have numbers wise, and I assure you that wealth was not an issue.

Ghost - I haven't paid attention to this thread, so when you say again I ask, that has nothing to do with me. You have yet to respond to any point I've made, and just used your rhetoric to try to paint me in a bad light. It has failed.

Now I don't feel a need to respond to your question, since it is no something I have seen previously. I also don't care too much about debating it here, since you clearly haven't addressed my points, so why should I address your new points?

To be fair I will respond, in that I think you do ask legitimate questions.

My conception of affirmative action: Unclear what you mean, need to be more specific in question. My overall conception is that it is an idea that needs to be revised, since that impetus for installing it has significantly changed.
Goals of a law school: To keep diversity, and avoid lawsuits. Clearly no one wants (or most dont want) to go to school with everyone being exactly like them.
Proof: See above.

I agree that they are issues to the discussion, but I haven't involved myself in the overall debate, just the latter point. Your way of asking this is also hilarious.

Also I haven't harped on any hypotheticals, and you just keep prattering on about literally nothing. I'm sure you think you are very intelligent, but you need to think through things before you make your move. Anyways, I am done with this thread, feel free to PM if you have anything else to discuss.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 02:29:16 PM
Harping on hypotheticals? I've seen first hand wealthy URMs get into places their #s dictate they shouldn't, and know that for many places there is any way to say that you are a poorer ORM. Good grief. Ghost, I'm sure you think you are very smart with these responses, but you bring up a part of the conversation I wasn't even involved in. You say 'Again I ask'; you haven't asked me *&^%, other than keeping up this prattering rhetoric that contributes nothing. You really need to think about your responses before you post them. I am done with this thread for now, feel free to PM me if you wanna reset the conversation, but otherwise I simply don't care enough to engage in your masturbatory ranting.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 03, 2008, 10:12:43 PM
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

Link?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 03, 2008, 10:59:23 PM
Wait, so you actually don't think that a rich URM would get helped in an admissions process? Are you serious? Find me a link for that lol
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 03, 2008, 11:44:34 PM
I'm asking for the link that shows being poor is more of a disadvantage in society than being Black.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: SteelersandGators on April 04, 2008, 12:02:06 AM
I'm asking for the link that shows being poor is more of a disadvantage in society than being Black.

Where is the link that shows being Black is more of a disadvantage than being poor?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 04, 2008, 12:33:58 AM
I'm asking for the link that shows being poor is more of a disadvantage in society than being Black.

Where is the link that shows being Black is more of a disadvantage than being poor?

What kinda reasoning is that? I asked a question and then you answer a question with a question.

Seems to me that the whole movement to SES AA is designed to decrease the number of minorities in higher ED while increasing the number of majority students.

My questions are:

1. How do we know simply being poor is more of a disadvantage than being black?

2. How do we design the system so that poor whites because of their raw numbers don't usurp all the opportunities from poor minorities (presumably the most disadvantaged group)?

3. Don't schools already take into account SES when evaluating applicants?

4. Even if there was AA for SES, why should AA for minorities be eliminated?

5. While race is a suspect class, what practical rationale is there to eliminate race based AA if one agrees that it is legitimate to give boosts to candidates based on personal and societal disadvantage?

Feel free to answer any of the above questions in any order.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 04, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
Whoa, you keep repeating what I say, and then trying to turn the tables. That doesnt work. I'll rewind here so you can understand what the issue is. 

The point was acknowledge that a wealthy URM has an advantage over a disadvantaged ORM. The gap between these two groups is irrelevant; if there is one, why should it exist, since clearly the wealthy URM will have an advantage already by their wealth, and hence why should an AA policy further increase that? You present a hypothetical exception, or make claims about flaming. There has been a reasoned debate until you entered with the rhetoric, and frankly that doesn't it (either here or in law school, as you probably should know). Feel free to respond to the issues, rather than just spewing whatever you feel like.

Also for the record, I am fairly neutral with regard to AA, so there is no need for you to just spew venom at someone you think is not going to listen.


I think the system works pretty well. Seems to me, exceptional students who overcome poverty seem to do pretty well in admissions. Of course, it may not seem like poor people are getting more of a boost, but that may because the population of low SES students applying to each school might be greater than the pool of minorities.

Thus, to get a critical mass of poor and financially disadvantaged students, a school may not have to compromise as much on "objective" criteria as they do to get a critical mass of minority students.

In any event, at many colleges gifted poor students are actively recruited, admitted and then given substantial financial aid to afford college without having to take out many loans.

I don't think the bar to college is in admissions for most financially disadvantaged students looking to attend college, I think it is in its affordability and we need to find ways to make school more affordable, imo.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 04, 2008, 04:38:02 AM
Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: ..................................1 on April 04, 2008, 07:41:54 AM
African Americans, whether wealthy or poor, have experienced a long history of discrimination and systemic racism in America.  Class has nothing to do with this debate. Wealthy blacks remain to be black, African American, and therefore a member of a highly disadvantaged group of people in America.  Rich or poor, black is black.  Although wealth provides greater opportunities for individuals of all races, the wealthy black man is still viewed as a black man, an inferior being in American history.  This is why AA is necessary: to provide equitable opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 04, 2008, 09:35:23 AM
Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.

Shotgun semantics? Strawman?

Give me a break. Every single person engaged in this thread knows that you've made a poor argument.

You give this broad assertion that being a wealthy minority is less disadvantageous than being poor. You've been asked to provide some support for the assertion, but you resort to either 1) unpersuasive anecdotal evidence that you don't even put into context for a comparative purpose or establish that is even supports your position or 2) circular reasoning (Wealthy minorities have more advantages than poor whites because they are wealthy minorities).

Neither explanation makes a whole lot of sense.

Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: NYU2011 on April 04, 2008, 09:40:51 AM
wow, i'm not even going to enter this debate after this post, but if you think being a wealthy black is more disadvantageous than being a poor white you are nuts.

I bet if you took a poll no more than 5% at most of wealthy blacks would trade it all to be a poor white, while about 95% of poor whites would trade their life for a wealthy black.  Do I have proof of this, no. 

The only proof I can give you that being a wealthy black is much better than being a poor white is: OPEN YOUR EYES.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 04, 2008, 11:07:28 AM
Galt/TM: the reason why I refuse to participate in this thread is that I was not there for the initial stages, and was only making a point that IMO (a point which has yet to be countered) it is much more advantageous with regards to applying for law school to be a rich URM than a poor ORM. Bottom line. You continue to make enjoyable rants to stroke your intellectual egos, and will gladly engage in a debate on this matter if you want to pm me (and we can discuss via messanger or email). I think arguing about these matters in general on an internet forum is not only a waste of time, but leads to the grandstanding and porous logic that has been used so far.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 04, 2008, 11:23:33 AM
Well if you want to go with that analogy, I don't feel like playing in games that are below my level.  ;D

Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game. I prefer playing basketball at the rec center or a school gym, and avoid streetball type situations. Just not something I consider a worthwhile expenditure of time.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 04, 2008, 11:55:31 AM
Well if you want to go with that analogy, I don't feel like playing in games that are below my level.  ;D

Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game.Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game

Quote
yeah i suspect it's not your type of game.  see you later.

Was there a point to your post, other than to get the last word and be obnoxiously dismissive?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 04, 2008, 11:57:10 AM
Woof, classic
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: imdashep on April 04, 2008, 09:52:39 PM
The exceptions though prove there is a problem with the system. You ask what would be wrong with giving preference to the black candidate; well, I think that constitutes racism. Give it to the candidate most deserving. I don't think race should be a tiebreaker, nor a bonus system. Obviously we all want to get to a point where everyone has a good chance of success, no matter race or socioeconomic status. But I feel for many reasons that AA hurts not only qualified people who are bypassed, but unqualified people who are selected.

You state anecdotal evidence, and it's certainly compelling. That needs to stop, but I don't believe AA is the best way to go about it.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: filet o' fish on April 04, 2008, 10:27:28 PM
Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Outlaw22 on April 05, 2008, 06:39:29 AM
wow, i'm not even going to enter this debate after this post, but if you think being a wealthy black is more disadvantageous than being a poor white you are nuts.

I bet if you took a poll no more than 5% at most of wealthy blacks would trade it all to be a poor white, while about 95% of poor whites would trade their life for a wealthy black.  Do I have proof of this, no. 

The only proof I can give you that being a wealthy black is much better than being a poor white is: OPEN YOUR EYES.

Whoa... so because someone wouldn't trade a part of their identity if they could, proves that they experience less discrimination/ oppression than the group they could trade with?? LOL at that. 

I'm gay and I wouldn't "trade it all" to be straight. Neither would about 95% of the openly gay community. That does not mean it's easier to be gay than straight in our society or that gays experience less discrimination/oppression. It's the same for any part of your identity - race included. Not wanting to "trade" who you are is a pretty pathetic way to make an argument about this.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: dashrashi on April 05, 2008, 07:43:01 AM
tag
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Astro on April 05, 2008, 08:09:02 AM
tag


You're too late on this bandwagon.  Lazy.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: NYU2011 on April 05, 2008, 08:17:41 AM
wow, i'm not even going to enter this debate after this post, but if you think being a wealthy black is more disadvantageous than being a poor white you are nuts.

I bet if you took a poll no more than 5% at most of wealthy blacks would trade it all to be a poor white, while about 95% of poor whites would trade their life for a wealthy black.  Do I have proof of this, no. 

The only proof I can give you that being a wealthy black is much better than being a poor white is: OPEN YOUR EYES.

Whoa... so because someone wouldn't trade a part of their identity if they could, proves that they experience less discrimination/ oppression than the group they could trade with?? LOL at that. 

I'm gay and I wouldn't "trade it all" to be straight. Neither would about 95% of the openly gay community. That does not mean it's easier to be gay than straight in our society or that gays experience less discrimination/oppression. It's the same for any part of your identity - race included. Not wanting to "trade" who you are is a pretty pathetic way to make an argument about this.



If you would prefer your life, and they would prefer your life, then it would seem that you have the better life.  If you have the better life then why should you be given a boost at the expense of the person who seemingly has the worst life?
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: john jacob on April 05, 2008, 08:47:18 AM
All of you are idiots.

AA is kept largely as a public relations ploy/interest group pander by large institutions. From their perspective, hiring is so arbitrary anyways (college doesn't actually prepare you to do work in a company--that's what on-the-job training is) that it doesn't matter. It's simply the easier to add 20 points to an application due to race (michigan) than it is to address any systemic wrongs (and I personally find the "stereotype threat" to be laughably absurd reason).
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Ghost on April 05, 2008, 10:19:40 AM
All of you are idiots.

AA is kept largely as a public relations ploy/interest group pander by large institutions. From their perspective, hiring is so arbitrary anyways (college doesn't actually prepare you to do work in a company--that's what on-the-job training is) that it doesn't matter. It's simply the easier to add 20 points to an application due to race (michigan) than it is to address any systemic wrongs (and I personally find the "stereotype threat" to be laughably absurd reason).

Wow, you convinced me with your brilliance.

I'm still a bit fazed.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: dashrashi on April 05, 2008, 11:15:02 AM
tag


You're too late on this bandwagon.  Lazy.


I know. But it looked like a good one, and it's always helpful to know who to avoid from here on in.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: Astro on April 05, 2008, 01:40:29 PM
All of you are idiots.

AA is kept largely as a public relations ploy/interest group pander by large institutions. From their perspective, hiring is so arbitrary anyways (college doesn't actually prepare you to do work in a company--that's what on-the-job training is) that it doesn't matter. It's simply the easier to add 20 points to an application due to race (michigan) than it is to address any systemic wrongs (and I personally find the "stereotype threat" to be laughably absurd reason).


I'd like to hear this one.  Please, enlighten us.
Title: Re: AA: More harm than good?
Post by: kono on June 25, 2008, 08:24:13 AM
Stop cross-posting.

post edited by EC