Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate

[t...]

Have fun in litigation / trial.

i don't think that he'll actually do really badly there.  (which is not to say he'll do well, just not really badly.)

the problem is you need to recognize that certain styles of argument are appropriate in some settings and other styles are appropriate in others. 

on an internet message board, sensationalizing a person's viewpoint to make him look irrational is a completely legitimate means of argumentation.

Wait, though, (the bolded) doesn't happen in trial?

[techpers0n]

Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)

The @#!* it does.

There are a number of threads that go over this topic ad nauseum - he isn't saying anything new, he doesn't have ground to stand on, and he's simply trolling and/or being an a-hole.

Ok first of all AA/anti-AA both have ground to stand on, one or the other may be right but that does not mean the other side does not even have any ground to stand on.

But secondly. Lets assume you are right and he indeed does not have any ground to stand on. In that case he is either
a) A troll
b) A person with a severe mental handicap

In either case why would you continue to engage him.

lol. To be fair, he's used a bit of ad hominem here and there
Not to mention that his critique of urmom was based on faulty logic at best.

Now I do agree with the first point but with all the ad hominem in this thread its difficult to hold him especially liable.
However on your second point I will grant you that 100%. There is really no reason to personally go after someone just to make a point. But that happened so long ago in this thread that i doubt most readers will go that far back.

[20+ Andrew Hill Albums]

Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)

I'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

I think where people like theflying go wrong is by viewing admission to law school as something the applicant "earns" or "deserves". Adcoms don't (or, at least, shouldn't imv) look at the applicant pool saying "Okay. Who deserves this?" or "Who has earned this?" They ask "Who will add value to our student body?" and they consider racial diversity and diversity in backgrounds in general highly valuable.

Now, they also consider high LSATs and high GPAs valuable of course, so it seems like they are accepting people on the merit of their past accomplishments.  This is an illusion, I think.  When it comes to the numbers, they are really accepting applicants based on the potential they show for adding value to the student body, law school community, and the legal professions in the world beyond law school, carrying that school's name with them.  It is not about past accomplishments.  It is about the promise of future accomplishments... (and a boost in the rankings too, for sure).  It is not merit for merit's sake.  It is merit as a demonstration of ability and potential.

Someone can reasonably disagree with the high value placed on racial diversity in relation to demonstrated potential in cases when the two would appear to be at odds.  All I would tell such a person, though, would be "Take it up with the schools. If you don't think racial diversity is that important, oller at the law school administrators and make your case."  

Picking fights with people who top law schools have decided would add value to their communities is pointless, douch-ious, and rather tool-ient.

[RexRegnat]

Well said.

Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)

I'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

I think where people like theflying go wrong is by viewing admission to law school as something the applicant "earns" or "deserves". Adcoms don't (or, at least, shouldn't imv) look at the applicant pool saying "Okay. Who deserves this?" or "Who has earned this?" They ask "Who will add value to our student body?" and they consider racial diversity and diversity in backgrounds in general highly valuable.

Now, they also consider high LSATs and high GPAs valuable of course, so it seems like they are accepting people on the merit of their past accomplishments.  This is an illusion, I think.  When it comes to the numbers, they are really accepting applicants based on the potential they show for adding value to the student body, law school community, and the legal professions in the world beyond law school, carrying that school's name with them.  It is not about past accomplishments.  It is about the promise of future accomplishments... (and a boost in the rankings too, for sure).  It is not merit for merit's sake.  It is merit as a demonstration of ability and potential.

Someone can reasonably disagree with the high value placed on racial diversity in relation to demonstrated potential in cases when the two would appear to be at odds.  All I would tell such a person, though, would be "Take it up with the schools. If you don't think racial diversity is that important, oller at the law school administrators and make your case."  

Picking fights with people who top law schools have decided would add value to their communities is pointless, douch-ious, and rather tool-ient.

[theflyingmachine]

I'm glad you've all been kept busy by this thread.  I have real-life responsibilties so I don't have time to respond to each and every one of your posts.  I appreciate all of your kind thoughts and words.

I am a bit amazed by the inability of you all to have a civil conversation without resorting to name-calling.

[theflyingmachine]

My original critique of urMom, since it was called into question, was this:

She was accepted to NYU, despite being far below both of their 25th percentiles.  NYU is allowed to use blatant AA in choosing their class.

She was rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA, both schools that are not allowed to use blatant AA in admissions decisions.  Her numbers are closer the averages, though still below, for both of these schools.

Clearly, NYU saw something in her application that Michigan and UCLA did not.  It is my opinion that this deciding factor was her URM status, and not some worthless club or volunteer work she did while in college.  This seems to me to be a reasonable deduction.

[theflyingmachine]

Why does everyone assume theflyingmachine is a non-URM male?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

Clearly, NYU saw something in her application that Michigan and UCLA did not.  It is my opinion that this deciding factor was her URM status, and not some worthless club or volunteer work she did while in college.  This seems to me to be a reasonable deduction.

you want to argue that race played a factor in her acceptance? 

fine, whatever.

but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?

[theflyingmachine]

but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?

well that's the part that people objected to: the assumption that there's a white student who's more qualified and who's losing a seat.  your assessment of who's more qualified simply differs from the NYU admissions office's assessment of who's more qualified.  and the latter is ultimately what matters, is it not?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

perhaps they're confusing you with me.

Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.

[Pam Beesly]

but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?

well that's the part that people objected to: the assumption that there's a white student who's more qualified and who's losing a seat.  your assessment of who's more qualified simply differs from the NYU admissions office's assessment of who's more qualified.  and the latter is ultimately what matters, is it not?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

perhaps they're confusing you with me.

Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.

Oh, wow. Now you're reeeeeally blowing my mind. I can't handle it. (I am an URM, you know.)

[theflyingmachine]

Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.

so when you say, "how does it feel to be taking a seat from a more qualified white student" or whatever it was you said to urmom, really all you're doing is saying, "how does it feel to be taking a seat away from a white student who i think is more qualified even though my opinion doesn't really count for much", right?

Did I not specify that I meant on the basis of LSAT and GPA?  I should have.