I honestly believe you'd get better results if there was a tax reduction for corporations/firms who meet certain diversity factors. I don't say I necessarily agree with this policy, but can guarantee the end goal of diversity would be reached much more quickly than trying to push the agenda at the university admissions level.Ever see Boeing, Intel, Microsoft, or Lockheed recruiting high school students? And yes, this would go closer to the source of problem.
I don't blame my grades (well deserved) on my urm status. I just hope that the question continues to change from urm to economically disadvantage and WHY.
If your numbers are borderline for a school, you're hoping something beyond the numbers will make them want you. Race is that factor for people who benefit from AA. Geography might be that factor for others. A family connection for another. It may not be something you have any control over and it may seem unfair that these things are more valuable to law schools than the things you do have control over, but... those are the breaks. What you're saying, essentially, is that life isn't fair -- so suck it up. And I tend to agree. But I also think that life should be as fair as possible. I have just as big a problem with legacies as I do with AA. But I think your argument that geography is as important as race in admissions is specious at best. I understand life isn't always fair. But institionalized injustice should be stopped wherever it occurs. I'm not just talking about not getting into one of your reaches either. I'm talking about how unfair it is that a significant portion of those applying to law schools have a substantial boost before the process even begins. And you say that I shouldn't complain b/c white people aren't underrepresented in law schools, firms, etc. Alright, it's true that they aren't. But what if I don't want to just be known as another white person?! As far as I'm concerned, there's only one of me -- and I'm underrepresented in law schools