Russian = URM?

[TrojanChispas]

which groups are given URM status "regardless of whether they were previously disadvantaged or not"?

[amelus]

which groups are given URM status "regardless of whether they were previously disadvantaged or not"?

to answer that question look at the other half.

which groups are NOT given urm status despite previous disadvantges.

as has been pointed out many times, lumping all asians together is wrong.  many have not had too many disadvantages, while others have had seroius disadvatages.

jews were severely disadvantaged just a few generations ago.  (i dont think they should be given any extra benefits now as they are represented plenty in the field of law, but it simply proves my point that previously disadvantaged or not has nothing to do with the calculation).

again, to say, well the issue is what about their socioeconomic status today?  that doesnt really matter.  if any individual has been at a disadvantage then pointing that out to adcomms will allow them to take that into consideration.

the issue of giving urm is about ensuring that different racial/ethnic groups have adequate representation.  that's it, and it makes a lot of sense.  what doesnt make a lot of sense is how they divide up groups to determine what group is considered a urm and what group is not.

[TLFKARG]

which groups are given URM status "regardless of whether they were previously disadvantaged or not"?

to answer that question look at the other half.

which groups are NOT given urm status despite previous disadvantges.

as has been pointed out many times, lumping all asians together is wrong.  many have not had too many disadvantages, while others have had seroius disadvatages.

jews were severely disadvantaged just a few generations ago.  (i dont think they should be given any extra benefits now as they are represented plenty in the field of law, but it simply proves my point that previously disadvantaged or not has nothing to do with the calculation).

again, to say, well the issue is what about their socioeconomic status today?  that doesnt really matter.  if any individual has been at a disadvantage then pointing that out to adcomms will allow them to take that into consideration.

the issue of giving urm is about ensuring that different racial/ethnic groups have adequate representation.  that's it, and it makes a lot of sense.  what doesnt make a lot of sense is how they divide up groups to determine what group is considered a urm and what group is not.

Blunts asked a legitimate question and answering it is essential to the understanding of why AA programs are instituted in the first place.  Asking, "Why?" is much more relevant in this case than asking "Why not?"  In order to understand the system we need to look for common denominators between the groups who currently benefit from AA.  Asking why other groups do not only leads to speculation and serves as a means of critiquing the current system, not understanding it.

[Elaine]

This is a serious question and not one intended to make any point on this issue - Is URM intended to be AA?

The reason I ask is because for me just taking the term at face value it sounds more like a diversity measure and I think this maybe why a lot of confusion/disagreement may be coming from.

[TLFKARG]

This is a serious question and not one intended to make any point on this issue - Is URM intended to be AA?

The reason I ask is because for me just taking the term at face value it sounds more like a diversity measure and I think this maybe why a lot of confusion/disagreement may be coming from.

It's a legitimate question.  The way I understood this discussion was that the focus was on URM in the context of AA and law school admissions.

[amelus]

Blunts asked a legitimate question and answering it is essential to the understanding of why AA programs are instituted in the first place.  Asking, "Why?" is much more relevant in this case than asking "Why not?"  In order to understand the system we need to look for common denominators between the groups who currently benefit from AA.  Asking why other groups do not only leads to speculation and serves as a means of critiquing the current system, not understanding it.

a) have to note u never responded to my other post.  reposting in case you missed it.

i'm not sure why you selected just males, but according to those stats whites are terribly underrepresented.  also, you're citing BA's and above, we're talking specifically JD's.  i'm not saying your sample might not be relevant, i'm saying i have no way of knowing.  you'd be better off citing statistics that are 100% on point.

anyway UMHBmom 's point was (and she'll correct me if i'm wrong, and then it will be my point) is that those categories of dividing people up are political categories.  if you dont want to call them political, use a different term, but they are not at all the best way to divide up population.  immigrants, for example, cannot be said to have adequate representation simply because whites might be adequately represented and the immigrants in discussion have a white complexion.


b)  blunts asked a very legitimate question.  it was whether urm's are based on being previously disadvantaged as a group or not.  if it is based in that then the glaring exceptions, to name a few, that i cited should not exist.  i did respond to blunt's question have no clue how you could not see that my response was on point.

[UMHBmom]

Thank you, Amelus, for clarifying. I think that Ruskie introduced a term that really had no place in current discussion as indicated by the title in an effort to feint when she couldn't parry. We are discussing URM status, and NOT Affirmative Action. The wherefores of AA are a bit of a quagmire, but if we remove the politics and discuss the term "under-represented minority" on its own merits, then we have to acknowledge that the point is to correct under-representation, and not historical discrimination. Besides, turning this into an AA discussion using Ruskie's spin on what is politically-correct leads to uncomfortable questions: if the issue is to only support those minorities that have failed to overcome past discrimination, we must ask WHY those groups (blacks and Hispanics) have not moved forward while others (Japanese and Jews) have. There is no point in discussing that here. It's an unrelated tangent.

So back to "URM", which I again contend has the purpose of ensuring that what is outside of the law school is accurately reflected inside the law school. And as such, all under-represented groups (to include all newcomer immigrants and those groups who are not proportionately represented culturally despite being propportionately represented racially) deserve URM status at admissions time.

[UMHBmom]

Your logic is really flawed. You are taking a race's representation within the entire population and applying them to advanced degree holders within a racial category.  Whoa, sister!  MY logic certainly doesn't imply this.  I posted those numbers to imply that if the same opportunities were afforded to everyone, the percentages of advanced degree holders within each ethnic group would be a lot closer to one another.  After all, it would be preposterous to assume that only 8% of Hispanics hold advanced degrees because only 8% want them.  It seems logical to think that, all things being equal, the percentage of people desiring advanced degrees should not vary so significantly by race. 42% to 8%?  C'mon, you know that's ridiculous!  

My numbers don't come out to 100 because I left out the "other" category.  

Actually, it appears the problem is that you don't know how to read statistics. The numbers you provided took all male advanced degree holders AS A WHOLE and then divided them up by race. This does not mean that only 8% of Hispanics desired advanced degrees and thus received them, this simply states that 8% of advanced degree holders are male Hispanics. Comprende? So your stats actually disproved your point entirely. If only 42% of all male advanced degree holders are white, yet whites represent over 70% of the population, then- by your own numbers- WHITES are terrifically under-represented! But you know what they say: there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. A word of advice: never a good idea to use stats if a.) you don't know what they mean, and b.) you don't know how to use them. I expected better from a Berkeley 1L. 

[TLFKARG]

Getting a little test, aren't we sweetheart?  Actually, the stats I pulled gave the percentage of advanced degree holders within a specific racial population, NOT the ratio of advanced degree holders to an entire population.    Therefore, 42% doesn't represent the fact that 42% of advanced degree holders are Asian, but rather the fact that 42% of Asians hold advanced degrees.  My stat readings are just fine.  Comprende?

[TLFKARG]

Blunts asked a legitimate question and answering it is essential to the understanding of why AA programs are instituted in the first place.  Asking, "Why?" is much more relevant in this case than asking "Why not?"  In order to understand the system we need to look for common denominators between the groups who currently benefit from AA.  Asking why other groups do not only leads to speculation and serves as a means of critiquing the current system, not understanding it.

a) have to note u never responded to my other post.  reposting in case you missed it.

i'm not sure why you selected just males, but according to those stats whites are terribly underrepresented.  also, you're citing BA's and above, we're talking specifically JD's.  i'm not saying your sample might not be relevant, i'm saying i have no way of knowing.  you'd be better off citing statistics that are 100% on point.

anyway UMHBmom 's point was (and she'll correct me if i'm wrong, and then it will be my point) is that those categories of dividing people up are political categories.  if you dont want to call them political, use a different term, but they are not at all the best way to divide up population.  immigrants, for example, cannot be said to have adequate representation simply because whites might be adequately represented and the immigrants in discussion have a white complexion.


b)  blunts asked a very legitimate question.  it was whether urm's are based on being previously disadvantaged as a group or not.  if it is based in that then the glaring exceptions, to name a few, that i cited should not exist.  i did respond to blunt's question have no clue how you could not see that my response was on point.

a) I effectively responded to your post in my reply to UBH.  I did not feel like hashing through the same argument twice.  You are saying the same thing and I will counter your points the same way.

b) Your response to blunts failed to address the focus of his question.  Normally, when educated people are asked why something functions in a certain way, they do not repond by telling you why it doesn't function in other ways, because that's called avoiding answering the question.  The exceptions your provided and the conclusions you drew are based on the erroneous premise that URM's for AA purposes were not selected becuse of a historical group disadvantage that continues to be prevalent today.