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 - HtownsFinest

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
21
Minority Topics / Re: Puerto Rican vs. Hispanic
« on: July 14, 2007, 11:15:02 PM »
To the OP: You'll get in everywhere you apply!!

22
Also, the awkward sentence patterns perplex me. Any insight into this?

23
Ok so as a newer member to this board, I have noticed many references to this poster, and her [confirmed?] obscene number of posts. Now I have far from enough time to catch up on her multitudinous posts, so how about you link me to the KEY posts so I can judge her true character.

24
So they should be punished for being hard-working and intellectual curious?

25
Minority Topics / Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« on: July 11, 2007, 07:44:11 PM »
This topic is addressed at considerable length in a recent Law Review article by Richard Sander (UCLA Law Prof)

It can be found here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

Here's the abstract:

Quote
THE RACIAL PARADOX OF THE CORPORATE LAW FIRM
RICHARD H. SANDER∗

Although nonwhites now account for nearly one-fifth of new attorneys, they still make up less than four percent of the partners at large law firms. Most commentators have blamed some combination of firm discrimination and minority disinterest for this disparity. In this Article, the author uses several new sources of data to explore this phenomenon, finding significant support for the following findings. Each of the major nonwhite groups (Asians, Hispanics and blacks) are as interested during law school in careers with large firms as are whites. Large law firms use very large hiring preferences for blacks, with the result that blacks are overrepresented among firm hires (relative to their numbers among
law graduates) and tend to have much lower grades than their white counterparts. The large preferences are plausibly linked to a variety of counterproductive mechanisms that cumulatively produce very high black attrition from firms and consequently low partnership rates. Similar patterns, on a less intense scale, affect Hispanics entering large firms. While many questions are open, the author concludes that aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships.


So basically, TCR is that AA is to blame. The playing field has been leveled at almost every point (ugrad, grad, oci), and the PC crowd just wants more.

TI, IT, TCR

Having an equal playing field doesn't equal having an adjustable finish line.
You lost me on TI,IT,TCR.... I typically use TI, OC, TCR if I want to draw it out. 'Splain yosef!

26
In recent years Jews did not experience any persecution in the great US of A.  So no advantage to you.

As recent as the 60s there were signs on public pools that read "No Coloreds, Jews, or Dogs."

27
I don't have time to respond to your entire post (dinner bell is ringing), but I would like to take issue with your concluding analogy before I go. It is not a fair analogy. The AIDS patient should get any sort of help possible, because it does not hurt anyone else. However, university admissions are a zero-sum game. While AA gives URMs an advantage, at the same time it must give others a disadvantage. And who are these others? They may not be the well-connected from whose anecdotes you find it convenient to draw generalizations, but maybe lower-middle class (or generally underprivileged) WASP/Asian/Jewish students who are put at a disadvantage strictly because of the color of their skin. Well-qualified (actually, better qualified) candidates are adversely affected by AA.

28
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Still in tears from June test
« on: July 09, 2007, 10:50:22 PM »
I was actually mistaken in that post.

29
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Test 18 / Inference Question
« on: July 09, 2007, 10:32:37 PM »
Dec 92 . Section 2 . Question 20.

Oxygen-18 is a heavier-than-normal isotope of oxygen. In a rain cloud, water molecules containing oxygen-18 are rarer than water molecules containing normal oxygen. But in rainfall, a higher proportion of all water molecules containing oxygen-18 than of all water molecules containing ordinary oxygen descends to earth. Consequently, scientists were surprised when measurements along the entire route of rain clouds' passage from above the Atlantic Ocean, the site of their original formation, across the Amazon forests, where it rains almost daily, showed that the oxygen-18 content of each of the clouds remained fairly constant.

Question: Which one of the following inferences about an individual rain cloud is supported by the passage?

A) Once it is formed over the Atlantic, the rain cloud contains more ordinary oxygen than oxygen-18.

B) Once it has passed over the Amazon, the rain cloud contains a greater-than-normal percentage of oxygen-18.

C) The cloud's rainfall contains more oxygen-18 than ordinary oxygen.

D) During a rainfall, the cloud must surrender the same percentage of its ordinary oxygen as of its oxygen-18.

E) During a rainfall, the cloud must surrender more of its oxygen-18 than it retains.

Will someone go through this answer by answer and give the rational for each one as to why it's correct/incorrect? Thanks.

A. Correct. It's pretty much explicitly stated in the text: "In a rain cloud, water molecules containing oxygen-18 are rarer than water molecules containing normal oxygen." Once it is formed... it is in existence as a rain cloud; thus the aforementioned evidence must apply.

B. If the cloud is dropping a higher concentration of O-18 H20 molecules during rain fall than the cloud's concentration, you cannot infer that the cloud will contain a greater-than-normal percentage of O-18.

C. "But in rainfall, a higher proportion of all water molecules containing oxygen-18 than of all water molecules containing ordinary oxygen descends to earth."  Higher than the proportion in a typical cloud. Does not infer that O-18 concentration advances beyond regular O concentration.

d. Completely baseless.

e. If it is surrendering O-18, but ends up with the same concentration in the cloud after the rainfall, it does not necessarily surrender more than it retains.

30
Affirmative Action / Re: Hispanics are NOT Minorites
« on: July 09, 2007, 10:11:15 PM »
The mere fact certain people might not like your skin tone wouldn't seem to affect your LSAT much.
Don't you know, the LSAT is inherently racist??

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5