Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?  (Read 3598 times)

clayfu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2005, 12:39:37 AM »
The Reason for AA isn't because you're mocked or put under a situation where you aren't represented well. Its based off of the fact that blacks,mexican,NA, and etc are not given the same opportunities in school and hence their education process was much harder. Most people that are lgb don't come out until college most of the time and that doesn't affect the way they were brought up in elementary and high school

Amanda H.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2005, 01:12:52 AM »
The Reason for AA isn't because you're mocked or put under a situation where you aren't represented well. Its based off of the fact that blacks,mexican,NA, and etc are not given the same opportunities in school and hence their education process was much harder. Most people that are lgb don't come out until college most of the time and that doesn't affect the way they were brought up in elementary and high school


This is inaccurate in several respects.

First off, many URM's actually have higher household incomes, and better education, than most whites.  So this clearly can't be the only reason for AA. 

One primary reason for AA is because law schools feel it is important to have traditionally (politically) "unrepresented" groups have a greater voice in society.  This is the only possible rationale for giving extra points to wealthy blacks and hispanics (which, of course, does occur).

Given that gays have suffered persecution equal to (or greater than) many minorities, it therefore only makes sense for law schools to seek out gay students, who will perhaps add their (minority) perspective to class discussion, and then hopefully act as agents of change and protection for others down the road.

I will note, however, that it would probably be inaccurate to claim that everyone was "straight" in law school 30 years ago.  (Women and minorities actually started being admitted about 40 years ago.)  Odds are, gays were a proportionate part of the population at the time -- they just weren't "out".  By favoring gays, law schools would presumably be seeking to ensure that people can now be open about their orientation.

(And ultimately, unless you're applying to Liberty or Ave Maria, I do think law schools would probably favor an openly gay applicant at least somewhat over a traditional applicant.)

As far as economics goes, this to me should be a far greater factor than skin tone in admissions.  If a primary rationale for favoring URM's is because they (at times) have less educational opportunity, then we should obviously favor all individuals who have less educational opportunity.  The students around you are largely irrelevant to this analysis -- you'll be less well-prepared from college coming from such an environment, and you'll also apparently have a harder time doing well on test scores.

My advice:  Hit both issues, especially the economic issues, if you reapply next year.  (Obviously, the whole POINT of economic disadvantage is that you were STILL able to accomplish a lot DESPITE facing greater challenges than most.  This bodes well for your success in law school, and as an attorney.

Finally, bear in mind that your LSAT will need to at least be close to the 25th percentile to have any chance at admission to most schools.  If it's not close, you may want to retry. 

SkullTatt

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2005, 07:16:53 PM »
Yes, I've overcome a lot of "challenges" and have faced some "discrimination", but how do you describe that without coming off as just another a sob story? I've obviously accomplished a lot despite it all, so what's the point in dragging up what I see as irrelevant parts of my identity?

If there was ever a time for your sob story, it's your PS. A lot of schools explicitly ASK if you have suffered any disadvantages that have prevented you from performing optimally. If you don't tell them, how are they going to know?

And I think if you think about it a little harder, the environment in which you were raised is not an irrelevant part of your identity.

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2005, 07:26:58 PM »
Catgarookey,

With the URM status of your species, you should have no trouble getting in anywhere.

 ;D

SkullTatt

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2005, 12:25:27 PM »
Personally, I think for one year, law schools should admit only gay people. Then straights can see what it feels like to be discriminated against! Consider it reparations.

At the very least, the government should issue a three-dollar bill and make it pink...

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2005, 12:38:07 PM »
Personally, I think for one year, law schools should admit only gay people. Then straights can see what it feels like to be discriminated against! Consider it reparations.

At the very least, the government should issue a three-dollar bill and make it pink...

Piss off, Catgarookey!

SkullTatt

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2005, 03:55:22 PM »
I take it you have a problem with US Government money? TRAITOR.

SCgrad

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2005, 05:53:43 AM »
Personally, I think for one year, law schools should admit only gay people. Then straights can see what it feels like to be discriminated against! Consider it reparations.

At the very least, the government should issue a three-dollar bill and make it pink...

Yeah, if this happened, I think I would have to go find a boyfriend for the application cycle.  A joke, but brings relevance to the problem with "special treatment" for sexual orientation minorities.  It would be impossible to verify any of this.  If you are extremely active in some sort of Gay/Lesbian groups in the communitee, then I think you would get and deserve a boost in soft factors, just like other ECs, but to have a checkbox, and give bonus credit would be a mistake.  First, anyone could check this box, how are they going to prove you lied.  Unlike race, you can realistically change from one team to the other.  Also,  I really don't think academia is the main area of descrimination based on sexual orientation.  It's fairly liberal if you haven't noticed.  I just graduated from one of the most conservative universities there is and my last year there our student govt. president was openly gay.  On the other hand, if anything in your life has been a tough obsticle to overcome and has made you a stronger person, you can always put it in your PS.

gosox

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2005, 03:33:20 PM »
a$$

SkullTatt

  • Guest
Re: Non-Racial AA... was I too naive?
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2005, 03:41:51 PM »
but to have a checkbox, and give bonus credit would be a mistake.

"Checkbox" AA is never going to happen for gay people. However, the thought of it does have great entertainment value, since str8 (white) people get so worked up over it. "Oh, no, they're 2% of the population, if they get special treatment, there will be no spots left in law school for anyone else!"