Oops, I meant cosmopolitan, not metroploitan.
Messages - eastend
Yesterday I woke up and found out that I had been admitted to the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. It's part of the University College system (London School of Econ., King's College, Imperial)...and I was quite happy to find out I had been admitted.London is expensive to live in, but I'm sure the student housing will be affordable - check it out. In terms of tuition, it might not be that much more expensive. The University of London has a great reputation and you should get a great education - probably better than in the States. What else? London is fabulous. My Dad is British so I've been to GB a million times. You could hop a train and be in France in a couple of hours. London is very metropolitan. The Brits are great...I'm biased. I'll balance that and say Mexicans are great, 'cause my mom's Mexican. I guess it all depends on what you want.
Yes, Grutter only had a 161 when she applied to Michigan and yes, we would consider that a low LSAT score for Micigan, but that wasn't her point. These are the stats used by the court: white students had a median LSAT score of 167 and a median GPA of 3.59, while the corresponding figures were 155 and 3.18 for African American students, and 159 and 3.35 for Mexican American students. Her point was, if the LSAT is irrelevant for them, why isn't it irrelevant for me? The answer of course is, skin color and under the Fourteenth Amendment, that's unconstitutional.
My previous post explains my position in regard to this case.
Of course we can't see everyone's applications, so no of course we can't mitigate the soft factors, but please, let's not pretend that it was their great essay.
No, I'm not in law school, I'll be applying this year.
The case to which you referred was a split decision and I happen to agree with the dissenters. They did decide, however, that race shouldn't be the overriding factor in college admissions. You've read the decision, I'm sure. The problem is, that race is the overriding factor if law schools rely so heavily on the LSAT to predict a student's success. That's why I wouldn't hitch the old 'stereotype threat' bandwagon to AA.
Anyways, we have a different court now, and I'm pretty sure that AA will be tested again, and that they will find AA in regard to law school admissions, unconstitutional.
« on: March 31, 2007, 10:59:18 AM »
...is hubris at its finest. How does this have anything to do with you? Oh wait, I get it. It's not fair to you that you're held to a higher standard than the other races are. Poor you.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Do you know what hubris is, sweetie?
Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law. Prejudice based on race is a reality in America. It hurts many people. Yet as we work to address the wrong of racial prejudice, we must not use AA to create another wrong, and thus perpetuate our divisions.
This a forum for discussion of of AA, not a rallying cry for bringing back eugenics. Yes, you locked your thread, it's been done, it's old, get a life.
I'll still waiting for a good reason for race based AA. I love that y'all are passionate about it. I'm sure it goes beyond you needing to justify yourselves. Really I wish you the best of luck with your schooling and your future.
The problem is the LSAT and stereotype threat, correct? Then why do the beneficiaries of AA do less well when they get into law school? I would think URMs would get annoyed at being used to fill quotas. What was I thinking, unlike myself, y'all have that entrenched sense of entitlement.