« on: April 25, 2007, 11:30:59 AM »
18 acceptances + 7 waitlists and deferrals.
But Madness, don't you agree that minorities are not the only ones who have experience setbacks in their lives? What about LGBT people? What about women? Athiests? The poor? The disabled? None of these people get a checkbox and are only left with the option of discussing it in a PS.
LGBT ppl get a box.
In addition, LGBT ppl have their own thread, Non trads have their own board, as do minorites, and Canadians...yet I don't see you bitching about that
Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one. Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs. Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?" I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated. That said, we have a ways to go. I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points. Should a person be judged solely on their race? No. They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin. Race does play a role in how some people are brought up. However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications. Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money. I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"... If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement. We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment. Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself.
As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made. For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include? Should you be required to check your sexual orientation? How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this? Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well? If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes? If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application?
I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention. Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid. I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete. As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time. You see people for what they bring to the table. I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard. When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being. Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent. Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there. The end.
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.
Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.
Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process
Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?
What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?
Was this serious? This scholarship is for people wishing to study in SWEDEN! It does not specify that the applicant be white or Swedish. Nice try. Keep looking.
Umm, it's really not that hard to find any. http://www.multiculturaladvantage.com/opportunity/scholarships/diversity/ehtnic-white-scholarships.asp
Agreed. I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less. There is no need to segregate any more. Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.
You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore. You think society can change that much in fifty years?
I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists. However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships. Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks. I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage. All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments. Race should not be considered in any way.
Oh boy. This one takes the cake. It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it. You're white. You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white. If you ask a black person who would have
occassionto feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response. You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizationsthat are nowhere near reality. Thank you.
Take a look into my perspective for one moment:
Suppose you and I apply to the same law schools, with the same GPA and LSAT score. You are accepted simply because the law school feels it needs more "diversity" to keep up with other law schools. I am denied because there are "too many white people", although this is never explicitly stated. I'm economically disadvantaged, as you are, but scholarships are only open to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, left-handed people, people with green eyes, people who don't own televisions, and people who don't like pizza. There's nothing for the average white person.
The thing is, simply being born white puts you at an advantage in life. It's better to be a poor white person than a poor black person.
How so? Poor is poor.
Yes poor is poor. But I just said, being white in this country is better than being black. So I'd rather be a white poor person because chances are, I'd be getting that job at Mickey D's before a black poor person.