.

[The Knight]

Sigh.  I find it sad that for the most part there is no meaningful discussion to be had with either young or entrenched/bigoted people. 

I can't wait for the grey bearded, birkenstock wearing, smelly old hippies like you in law school. It should be fun.

is an example of stupidity that will never pass for even the hint of intelligence in law school  I too look forward to seeing you in law school.  Someone needs the push the front of the curve.

Also, where the hell do you live that you pay 20k a year in property tax?  You can't be in the US.

Show both of you to be the ones out of touch.  Talk to your parents and actually ask them what they pay in school/property tax.  In Westchester, NY where I live this is not even towards the high end.  My wife and I (both who work very hard) are very lucky and it is precisely that fact that makes me willing to accept someone getting into school ahead of me who does not have the scores, grades or economic/racial advantages that I do.

Both of your presences and doltish comments just further my belief that it far too soon to eliminate AA.   

Are. You. F,ucking. Kidding. Me?
I'm out of touch?  I know that a home valued at well over half a million dollars (700k) in the state that I live is around 5k a year.

Far be it from me to assume that you don't live on a three-f,ucking-million dollar estate.  Are you the type of person that I'm going to have to deal with as a co-worker?

I bet you go to starbucks every f,ucking day of your life, you god damned hippy.

/flame

To everyone else out there, I'm done.  I'm done with AA topics on this board.  LSD fails at AA discussion.  The End.

[NYU2011]

Can anyone provide a logical argument saying affirmative action toward URM's is better than would be giving a leg up to the socioeconomically disadvantaged?

The only logical argument in favor of affirmative action is that URM's have less opportunities because they are statistically more socioeconomically disadvantaged.  This is ridiculous because it would be much better to give students a boost based on socioeconomic factors. 

did you just answer your own question?  yes you did.

Actually, no I didn't.  What I did do was show why a common, but ridiculous, answer to my question is not a good answer.

[NYU2011]

Ok valid point.  I should have said "the only logical argument I can see" instead of "the only logical argument".  I assume many disagree with me as most of the posters in this thread seem to be in favor of race based affirmative action, therefore I would like one to respond with a rational answer.

[filet o' fish]

Ok valid point.  I should have said "the only logical argument I can see" instead of "the only logical argument".  I assume many disagree with me as most of the posters in this thread seem to be in favor of race based affirmative action, therefore I would like one to respond with a rational answer.

Why not call a few admissions departments and ask for their explanations...?

[Nemorino]

"I often find that people who oppose AA do so from anecdotal arguments 'I know a smart black student and he's against AA.'"

The example of my "smart black friend" illustrates one of many points in my argument. In fact, my main point - that AA fails the not-so-smart or not-so-ready URMs - has very little to do with him.

"While it is true that my ability to live and send my children to school here is function of socio-economic rather than racial factors it cannot be argued that statistically, particularly in urban areas poverty affects minorities in greater relative percentages than whites (see http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/racepov.html)."


I assume you meant to say "it CAN be argued," right? In fact, my initial post relies on this very statistic to make the claim that it is necessary to bridge the socio-economic gaps between different races.

"There is no simple single answer, but in my opinion AA is trying to address the idea that to break the cycle of poverty it is necessary to increase the educational level of those who traditionally did not have the advantages (both economic and social) of living in the 'majority.'"

I wholeheartedly agree with respect to AA's intended purpose and its validity. I would certainly concede that AA is somewhat successful in elevating the educational level of a subset of the underprivileged population (of course, its potency is reduced by the unusually high dropout and bar failure rates among the beneficiaries). Without the proper institutional support, however, this is just window-dressing. That a big portion of the intended beneficiaries of AA does not survive the "fair market" competition after 7-12 years of AA-endorsed advanced schooling is a scathing indictment on AA. AA is failing precisely because it's treated as the be-all, end-all approach to reducing racial inequality. As it currently stands, people are generally suspicious of ANY black, Hispanic or native Americans with degrees from prestigious schools. This suspicion is justified in some cases - after all, the beneficiaries of AA do tend to underperform despite their fancy degrees, even more so than their non-URM counterparts (there are plenty of white top law school graduates who are bad lawyers). If the underprivileged minority were to receive any preferential treatment (a notion which I can't categorically reject), it should be more substantial than simply lowering the bar for them. For example, I am likely to support a program which provides (and/or mandates) extra support - tutors, afterschool programs, etc. - for the underprivileged students, whether or not the programs are race-blind. This kind of program would probably cause an even bigger uproar among those who are shut out because of their race (because they would have to be funded by tax dollars) and the Supreme Court probably won't be too sympathetic, but at least we'd be attacking the source of the problem.

"The underlying, perhaps even unstated, assumption is that that UM if given the same opportunities the white student had had would have indeed been ahead of where he is now."

Once again, I wholeheartedly agree! Perhaps the 168/3.3 student, assuming that he/she is indeed underprivileged, could have done as well as the 171/3.65 student if given the same opportunity AND held to the same standards (I am referring to my argument in the initial post about how AA sometimes DISCOURAGES UMs from reaching their full potential). I understand that AA is trying to address this imbalance. But as I've said multiple times, AA does not focus the source of the problem. Rather, it creates and implements a superficial standard of measuring the imbalance. Why don't we attack the source? Your parents can't answer your questions about schoolwork? We'll give you tutors. Your parents are working full time, and have no time or incentive to encourage your intellectual growth? We will assign you to mentors and FORCE you to attend afterschool programs specifically designed to keep you on track. I understand these programs will be very difficult to implement. They are costly, they can be abused easily, and if they are not race-blind, they are probably unconstitutional. But it would still be a better solution than AA.

P.S. I never made an anti-AA argument based on unfairness to certain individuals, even though I happen to be a socio-economically disadvantaged person of color who does not receive preferential treatment under AA. Rather, my arguments and conjectures are based on the aggregate failures of AA, as evidenced by many statistical results - for example, that "black students as a whole have dramatically lower bar passage rates than white students with similar credentials." Source: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010522

[filet o' fish]

Off topic:

Does anyone really think that if AA were refurbished and/or eliminated in law school admissions, that it would likewise be refurbished and/or abolished in firm hiring?

Point being, so the top schools have less URM attending, fewer URM in general are accepted to law schools, but top firms just start taking URM from lower ranked schools and a wider geographic net.

This whole conversation seems to me to be a rather moot point, and a way for some of you to express your frustration for not having a "deserved" seat at a top 14 school.

[Astro]

Off topic:

Does anyone really think that if AA were refurbished and/or eliminated in law school admissions, that it would likewise be refurbished and/or abolished in firm hiring?

Point being, so the top schools have less URM attending, fewer URM in general are accepted to law schools, but top firms just start taking URM from lower ranked schools and a wider geographic net.

This whole conversation seems to me to be a rather moot point, and a way for some of you to express your frustration for not having a "deserved" seat at a top 14 school.

No *&^%!  This board was actually called "White Whiners" until Andrew thought it needed a polite touch-up.

[eastend]

I love how people say, 'what, that spot wasn't yours, the minority didn't take YOUR spot'.   No, nobody's saying you had your name on the chair, but you know without AA who'd be sitting there, and who'd be at a lesser rated school.   

[filet o' fish]

I love how people say, 'what, that spot wasn't yours, the minority didn't take YOUR spot'.   No, nobody's saying you had your name on the chair, but you know without AA who'd be sitting there, and who'd be at a lesser rated school.   

Who?

[filet o' fish]

I (and probably the majority if Americans) believe that AA based on socio-economic factors are, not just acceptable, but desirable. 

I think you misunderstand what AA really is, and what exactly law school (or college) admissions really look at, but whatever...