I did't enslave anyone! Why cannot people get in based upon merit?

[BigTex]

Going from a general statement to a particular fact does not weaken my argument.  I have seen other T1 and T2 schools with outliers that are worse than this, but I don't really want to investigate it when the point has been made so well with my Univ of Cincinnati example.

Your picking nits does not make your argument any stronger.

If a school's 25% threshold is 3.19/157, I find it hard to believe that a person with a 2.25-2.49/150-154 would have such great non-quantifiable factors as to make it into that particular law school.

You said 2.25/145 URM's are admitted to T1 schools. That is an outrageous claim. You were called on it and are now scrambling.

[giffy]

I don't think diversity would be that much of an issue, were it not for the extreme weighting that is given to one's ethnicity.  We all want to meet a lot of different people in law school.  Age, gender, economic background, work experience, and ethnicity are all good factors for determining who gets into law school.

That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

Please tell me what T1 and T2 schools show people being accepted with these numbers.

University of Cincinnati let someone who landed on the 2.25-2.49/150-154 part of the grid.  Univ of Cincy's 25% UGPA/LSAT is 3.19/157.  That is a huge difference.  It seems like every low T1, T2 school has outliers like this.  Univ of Cincy has a few others with questionable numbers.  The school does not disclose whether or not this person was a diversity candidate, or not.

So, what you're saying is that that person who was admitted MUST have been a URM?  Because there is just no way that a person of color could possibly have scored high on LSAT's and done well in school?  Why couldn't that person have been "White" with an extraordinary application/personal statement/recommendation and real potential as a future lawyer?

I agree perhaps they had 20 years of work experience as a CEO of a large company, or perhaps they spent the last few years in the DRC helping war orphans and took the LSAT shortly after arriving back to the US while incredibly jet lagged. The point is we don't know and it is just as silly to assume that they are an URM then anything else.

I never said that the person from UC was a URM. But, it makes you wonder what great non-quantifiables they had that would get them into UC.

I think people need to realize that AA does not affect people of affluence, no matter what their race/background/gender. It disproportionately lands on people who don't have a pot to piss in, and had zero advantage at anything.

Regardless - I stand by my UC comments, and I have seen other worse examples in T1, T2 schools. I said that low T1 and T2 schools seem to have a lot of these "outliers." Which is true, just look at the grids.

Lots of schools have outliers. Its called looking beyond the numbers (WE EC ect).

[BigTex]

Regardless - I stand by my UC comments, and I have seen other worse examples in T1, T2 schools.  I said that low T1 and T2 schools seem to have a lot of these "outliers."  Which is true, just look at the grids.

I don't think anyone believes you. Show me a T1, 2.25/145 URM admit.

It's fine to say "AA bad". It's not fine to make outrageous claims to support your argument and follow it up with "I know my outrageous claims are true, i just don't want to prove it".

[I hear America singing]

I like AA because as a white person it forces me to work harder.  Without it I could probably coast on my skin color, sadly enough.  I know enough white people that do that.  They make me sad.

Aim for the top of your class, not the bottom 20% or so where such things become an issue.

If you're the best, it doesn't matter what color you are.

HTH

[I hear America singing]

I don't know- and never will know- what type of influence being a URM makes on a person.  That being said, I could probably compete with them early on from an economic level.  Most of my friends as a child are now living off the government in some form or fashion.  I'm the only one who attended college.

In other words, I had every reason to fail.  But I didn't.

After the life I've had, I'm not going to let external forces dictate my future.  Power comes from within.  If you don't get into a law school and choose to blame a URM for taking your spot, you don't deserve to go to law school. 

[I hear America singing]

Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else.

—Historian Roger Wilkins


I just thought that was an interesting quote.  Never thought of it this way.

[Infoolio]

I never said that the person from UC was a URM.

dude, lexy got into yale and she was WELL below their 25's.  and what great quantifiables did she have?  white? from the suburbs? from boston?  i mean, c'mon man.  its very easy to believe that this person at UC could have gotten in based on writing ability alone like lexy did at yale.

A masters from Stanford perhaps?

[giffy]

That said, it even disturbs me when I look at the admissions grids and I see people with numbers like 2.25/145 (or worse) get into some T1, T2 schools.

Here's an example of a Tier One (#47 US News) that fits with my statement earlier.  The school is SMU.

One person was admitted with a 2.75-2.99/145-149.

Two persons were admitted with a 2.50-2.74/150-154.

Of course, there is no way of knowing if this person is a minority, or not.  That's never been my point.

Neither of those people had stats like you methioned earlier.

[Braden]

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA, while those who are non-white, non-asian who do grow up in affluent areas should be given AA.

Why can't we live on the basis of survival of the fittest?  Is/Was Darwin that WRONG?

As soon as affluent whites are willing to give up all the advantages they have then i'm sure minorities will be willing to do the same. In short, using a succinct example, as soon as affluent whites are willing to share their property taxes with poorer and predominantly minority school districts so that both groups get the same educational opportunity growing up then minorities would be more willing to give up their AA advantage. But as long as affluent whites refuse to share and hoard all of their property taxes for their own school districts - fine, but AA will stay in place to level the playing field later on.

[BigTex]

Please be so kind to explain why those white people who do not grow up in affluent areas should not be given AA,

White kids who grow up in poverty should be given an AA advantage.

Perhaps you were intending to argue with someone else?