Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - UNAS

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15
71
What I would like to know is how law students white black or otherwise function with being saturated in racial tension day after day because of AA. How can the students get their work done? Jeez, I can only imagine. It must be like Higher Learning only in real life. The only experiences I can liken to the racial tensioned caused by AA on law school campuses nationwide would probably the tension caused by hanging a nuece under a tree to intimidate black students, maybe the tension in rosewood, fl after the 1922 riots or what about the tension on a plane with a few arab passengers immediately after 9/11. Boy, law school is really a ticking time bomb. This AA has really got to go if us law students are to live our lives without the mental encumbrance caused by AA

72
Sounds like someone didnt get into law school.


The fact that he compares legacy admits to selling arms to al quaeda made me pee my pants a little.  The detriment of selling guns to al quaeda is people's lives, whereas the only detriment to schools who allow legacy admits is you piss off the bottom 5% of the prospective class who cant get in.

Whereas AA fuels racial tensions, legacy admits only fuel claims of nepotism, which our society sees as much less of a potential problem.

Its all about the almighty dollar and keeping your successful alumni base happy... some schools do it by paying 5 million dollars a year to hire new football coaches, some schools do it by letting children of alumni in.

PS - His anti-semitism argument is hilarious.

Are you trying to say that the gentleman who parents own a summer home two doors down from me in the dormitory and the culture clash that comes with my middle class background won't be a powdered keg in the making...if thats the case than you are right.

The article is meant for comedy not to be taken as my primary evidence in a AA debate

For all the opponents of AA, can you all please stop inflating the how negatively AA affects race relations. PArdon the redundancy but I have never seen such gross use of hyperbole

73
Subject: Ouch!

Legacy Admissions are Stupid

By J.D. Porter

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 14, 2007


I like rich, academically incapable idiots as much as the next guy, but Iím beginning to wonder if Columbia should stop admitting so many of them. Iím speaking, obviously, of legacy students. Despite claiming to care about diversity, our school still gives them preference in admissions. For some reason people donít seem all that infuriated about this, even though the whole concept is about as fair as picking a deranged child to rule a nation because heís the firstborn. Well, the time has come to destroy that sickly child.


Legacy admissions initially came about because Ivy League administrators hated Jews. In the 1920s, they noticed that someone had been educating Jewish people, who were now better qualified for their schools than the traditional student body, the bored children of various industrial barons. Horrified, the people at Yale, for instance, decided that only someone whose dad had gone to Yale could truly understand Yale pride (like white pride, but richer), and legacy admissions were born. Since Jewish parents had mostly spent their college years in Lithuanian shtetls and disease-ridden tenements, the old order was restored.


Itís unclear why Yale somehow found legacy admissions more acceptable than simply announcing a formal policy of anti-Semitism, but there must have been a reason, because we at Columbia still find it acceptable today. Obviously our administrators arenít intentionally racist, but they do endorse a policy that tries to set racial diversity back at least one generation. Iím all for celebrating our heritage, but only if that heritage isnít appalling and stupid, like most of Americaís racial history. The Wall Street Journal estimates that 10 to 15 percent of Ivy League students are legacy students. Admitting about one-hundred-plus students a year based on an at-best twenty-year-old model of diversity is the academic equivalent of keeping separate drinking fountains just for old timesí sake.


Of course, we have to remember that in addition to being racist, classist, and probably misogynist, legacy admissions also contribute nothing to our educational experience. Itís tough to envision a scenario in which a class discussion pivots on one studentís explanation of what his dad thought when he was here. At least student athletes actually have to do something in exchange for admissions leniency, like kicking a ball, or rowing a paddle. This puts them far beyond the value, and probably skill set, of any legacy student.


The one viable argument for continuing legacy admissions is that legacy families are often big University donors. Those Jew-hating Yalies may have been unscrupulous, but they knew the importance of that crucial robber-baron dollar. The tenement kids might deserve to get in, but their sob-stories arenít going to buy any new science buildings. Columbia has to court the wealthy, even if they are mostly white guys. On the other hand, they might not all be white guys if we would stop with the legacy admissions.


Either way, the ďit makes moneyĒ argument is specious to begin with. You could apply the exact same rationale for selling arms to terrorists, but that doesnít mean Columbia should contact al Qaeda. Legacy admissions may not be punishable by international tribunal, but they are obviously wrong, and our need for money doesnít make them OK. We might as well drop the charade and just allow people to openly pay their way into the school. It wouldnít hurt to have a guarantee that those kids you hate had to fund your building maintenance. Every one I know wishes they would shut up and go away. People arenít qualified to do things on the basis of their parentsí skill sets. My dad was the top marksman in his class at West Point, but it would not be wise to choose me to defend America, or even a single American. Similarly, when we admit students because their parents were smart, we increase the chances of having dumb students on campus, and that ruins things for everyone.


Iím sure that not every legacy student is a privileged idiot gliding his way through college en route to an undeserved executive position in a major corporation. Some could even potentially be smart. Clearly Ivy League parents are more likely than average to send their kids to good schools. If thatís true, however, then legacy kids already have an advantage over others without us making it worse. In 2003, the Journal reported that legacy kids at Harvard had a 40 percent admission rate, compared to 11 percent for everyone else. Itís like Mike Tyson goes into the ring with a small child, and the Ivies are yelling ďItís not fair! That kid gets to use both hands!Ē

The utter ridiculousness of legacy admissions is not even really debatable. Itís a concept born out of racism and parochial fear, and it remains retrogressive in nearly every sense. It may cost us some money, but Columbia has an opportunity here to do something big and truly progressive. Oxford and Cambridge donít practice legacy admissions, and although it has lost them some funding, they havenít exactly become safety schools. If legacy kids deserve to go here, let them get in on their own. Otherwise, youíre not fooling anyone. Not even the dumb students.


J.D. Porter is a Columbia College senior majoring in English and comparative literature.


http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/26636

74
Affirmative Action / Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« on: September 14, 2007, 04:47:42 PM »
I want a pat on the back for the following reason: I have finally started to get the hang of seeing the little Brad Pitt avatar and then just scrolling on past.

I urge all of you to join me in ignoring Lindbergh, who very rudely repeats himself in quintuple and sextuple posts when one substantive response would likely suffice if written well enough. It makes reading threads significantly more enjoyable. Seriously, just skip 'em. It's awesome.

LOL ;D

Credited, but Lindberg should also receive a pat on the back for consistenly riling(sorry i am from the south, maybe i should have said agitate..anyway) the users of this board with his naivety, idealism and microcosmic egocentric view of public policy all under the guise of curiousity and substance

75
Affirmative Action / Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« on: September 12, 2007, 02:28:08 PM »
Wanna hear a scary story?

Some of the people here will become policy makers.



YIKES, unless of course that was directed towards me ;D

76
Affirmative Action / Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« on: September 10, 2007, 01:20:24 PM »
You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.
06

I was actually going to address what you(burning sands) brought up in another thread, but no big deal.

I find it puzzling the energy devoted to race based AA. Take this into consideration. Of the top 14 law schools, better yet make it top 20, URM make up on average 10-15%. Blacks specifically make up on avg 5-9% and Hispanics typically make up half that. All these schools publish their median LSAT and GPA ranges 25-75%. Lets assume each and every URM is in under the 25% threshold statistically in terms of LSAT and GPA. This still leaves at least 10% of the student body admitted with numbers below the median. The question I raise to those who hold a position opposing AA is who makes up this magical 10%.

Hint: It sure as hell isn't Asians.

The situation above relies on the ridiculous assumption that no URM is qualified, yet 10% of the student body has numbers below the median. Consider that. I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume this 10% might come from very priveledged and well connect backgrounds, but what do I know.

Please resume contemplating your navel

77
Affirmative Action / Re: Frederick Douglass
« on: September 05, 2007, 10:39:36 AM »
If I'm not mistaken, the "Blue Dog" type of Democrat shares similar positions with Republicans on social issues, not the role of government.

I beleive I said to "a lesser extent"

The traditional conservative distrust of expansion of government power precludes holders of this belief from proposing too many programs (think Reagan's quote, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help).

I am not sure what this has to do with anything

If "Blue Dogs" do not hold a similar position, and hold the Democratic position favoring the expansion of government programs, then if these programs necessarily create much waste, the Democratic position can be fairly blamed for this outcome.

what outcome
That's not to say that all Republicans are in favor of limited government, of course. But the traditional position has been.

This tangent arose when you attempted to assign responsibility for the wasteful spending and poor administration conducted by the Louisiana government to the Republican Party.

I pointed out that Louisiana's state government is dominated by Democrats. You countered by saying that the Louisiana Democrats are, in fact, "Blue Dog" Democrats, and I assume that assertion implies that these "Blue Dogs" are conservative, and therefore conservatives are responsible for the waste. I countered your counter by saying that the "Blue Dogs" do not share the traditional conservative position against government programs, but rather the Democratic position that promotes government spending, and since government spending necessarily results in waste, the blame for the waste falls on true-blue Democrats, not conservatives.

You do realize that under the current administration(which for 6 years had a monopoly on the senate,house and executive branch) more dollars have been spent than any other administration combined in US history. Under this administration, which if I am not mistaken is under republican/conservative/neocon leadership more government has been installed then in all modern democratic presidential administrations. Lastly, under this administration more invasions of privacy, attacks on personal freedom and attacks on government transparancy have transpired. Face it my friend, conservatives will always live in the shadows of Barry Goldwater. Who by the way is turning over in his grave hourly by the very forces that oppose his notion of conservative ideal instituted by the bush admistration. Before you start regaling me with the minutia of skewed facts i just find it amusing how conservatives have always lamented the democratic big government and gross budget expenditures, but look who is doing all the spending and creating department after department and office after office. Please concede and save face.

78
Affirmative Action / Re: Frederick Douglass
« on: September 04, 2007, 01:32:48 PM »
Southern Democrats= typically equal Republicans

I least they did once upon a time. Some of them might not have gotten the memo they were suppose to switch

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are southern Democrats. I'm pretty sure they aren't Republicans.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or genuine, but in any case i was refering to Boll Weevils (e.g. Zel Miller) and to a lesser extent Blue Dogs Dems. Obviously not Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter LOL

If I'm not mistaken, the "Blue Dog" type of Democrat shares similar positions with Republicans on social issues, not the role of government. [/quote]

I beleive I said to "a lesser extent"

[/quote]The traditional conservative distrust of expansion of government power precludes holders of this belief from proposing too many programs (think Reagan's quote, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help). [/quote]

I am not sure what this has to do with anything

[/quote]If "Blue Dogs" do not hold a similar position, and hold the Democratic position favoring the expansion of government programs, then if these programs necessarily create much waste, the Democratic position can be fairly blamed for this outcome.[/quote]

what outcome

That's not to say that all Republicans are in favor of limited government, of course. But the traditional position has been.
[/quote]

79
Affirmative Action / Re: Frederick Douglass
« on: September 04, 2007, 12:44:11 PM »
Southern Democrats= typically equal Republicans

I least they did once upon a time. Some of them might not have gotten the memo they were suppose to switch

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are southern Democrats. I'm pretty sure they aren't Republicans.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or genuine, but in any case i was refering to Boll Weevils (e.g. Zel Miller) and to a lesser extent Blue Dogs Dems. Obviously not Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter LOL

80
Affirmative Action / Re: Frederick Douglass
« on: September 04, 2007, 12:42:07 PM »
Southern Democrats= typically equal Republicans

I least they did once upon a time. Some of them might not have gotten the memo they were suppose to switch

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are southern Democrats. I'm pretty sure they aren't Republicans.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15