A Black Woman's View

[CocoPuff]

Alright, so today I was looking at lawschoolnumbers.com and I have to admit, I began to see why some people get so angry about the AA issue. How is it possible that a minority with a 3.3/161 can get into Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown and Stanford while a non-urm gets rejected with a 3.8/175? All I can say is that, although this IS unfair, it's the only solution the government has come up with to fix the obvious discrepancies. Whites and Minorities are not equal in this country so until we find some way to fix that (good luck), this is the only alternative. Although it's not a perfect system, what would you suggest we do?

[Eh]

 

[Jwebony956]

LSN is an erroneous database. Some members do exaggerate or blatantly lie about their numbers. You also have to consider that not all schools are number whores, even some that you have mentioned (e.g. Columbia), and that law schools look at other factors like one's personal statement and experience to make their decision.

As far as taking an alternate route to ensure that all are given an equal opportunity, I do not have any suggestions, because to be quite honest the Caucasian male and elites will always be several steps ahead of the majority of minorities. I am in full support of the policy, even though it has only helped some minorities get through the door since the 1960s.

[jwilcox1024]

My suggestion would be to base preferential admission standards on socioeconomic conditions rather than race. This would still help the truely downtrodden minorities as well as those whites who have lived through difficult circumstances. It would also eliminate the AA cases of minorities who are middle class or above who have had the same opportunities (or more) as the average non-minority. By removing these individuals who seemingly do not need AA I think it would help maintain support for the system; it is easy to become angry at the system when you see a well-off minority get into a top-notch program with less than stellar numbers largely because of a checkbox.

[CocoPuff]

My suggestion would be to base preferential admission standards on socioeconomic conditions rather than race. This would still help the truely downtrodden minorities as well as those whites who have lived through difficult circumstances. It would also eliminate the AA cases of minorities who are middle class or above who have had the same opportunities (or more) as the average non-minority. By removing these individuals who seemingly do not need AA I think it would help maintain support for the system; it is easy to become angry at the system when you see a well-off minority get into a top-notch program with less than stellar numbers largely because of a checkbox.

That is true because afterall, some minorities are better off than some whites. However, this still wouldn't make up for the opportunities that minorities miss out on simply because they are just that, minorities. Just because they're well off financially doesn't mean they are equal or have equal opportunities. But I do think that whites who have suffered through rough situations should get a leg-up. And they do, when they write about it in their PS. I think. 

[Jwebony956]

My suggestion would be to base preferential admission standards on socioeconomic conditions rather than race. This would still help the truely downtrodden minorities as well as those whites who have lived through difficult circumstances. It would also eliminate the AA cases of minorities who are middle class or above who have had the same opportunities (or more) as the average non-minority. By removing these individuals who seemingly do not need AA I think it would help maintain support for the system; it is easy to become angry at the system when you see a well-off minority get into a top-notch program with less than stellar numbers largely because of a checkbox.

To a certain extent, I share your same sentiments. However, keep in mind that there aren't many URM applying to, and graduating from law school. Caucasian males have been and will continue to dominate the legal profession. Even if AA was to be based on one's socioeconomic background, I doubt it would help much the people that really needed a chance but was never able to get one because of how this system works.

Think about it, how many poor URM and non-URMs do you think are actually on this board? How many do you think would actually have the time to come on a discussion forum to talk about law school and get pointers on how to go about the application process? More than likely, most on this board come from working class or upper middle class families--myself included. I don't know where I'm getting at, but the system is made to allow the poorer class and poor URM to fail and keep them where they belong because everyone isn't provided with the same access as others.

[dbgirl]

I wish people would stop assuming that poor URMs, and poor people in general are not going to law school and/or don't read this board.
I'm poor. I'm a URM. I'm going to law school.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

My suggestion would be to base preferential admission standards on socioeconomic conditions rather than race. This would still help the truely downtrodden minorities as well as those whites who have lived through difficult circumstances. It would also eliminate the AA cases of minorities who are middle class or above who have had the same opportunities (or more) as the average non-minority. By removing these individuals who seemingly do not need AA I think it would help maintain support for the system; it is easy to become angry at the system when you see a well-off minority get into a top-notch program with less than stellar numbers largely because of a checkbox.

I'm going to break my own rules for a second if I may and hop into this AA discussion because its still rather peaceful at this point and the ears seem to be open.

The suggestion for the socioeconomic status is a valid suggestion, but still doesn't address the entire problem.  By basing AA on socioeconomic status ONLY, a presumption attaches that race is no longer a factor so long as an individual has money.  This may seem to be true to some extent, however in America in 2005 (some 40 years past the civil rights movement) race is STILL a factor in everyday life at an arguably equal footing to one's socioeconomic status. 

We all recognize the power of the mighty dollar.  What we sometimes to not recognize are those factors that either allow or deny generations of individuals access to the mighty dollar.  The "good ol' boy" network is alive and well today much like it was in the 1900's.  In law firms in particular, it's even worse.  Two people walk into an interview, one shares the same race as every partner in the firm, the other does not.  Who gets the job?  Even if they both got the job, who foreseeably gets to become partner?  It doens't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.  So what does that have to do with AA in school admissions? 

Everything. 

We all have parents and grandparents. We all came from some family somewhere who either had been denied access to the mighty dollar, or was granted access to the mighty dollar.  Unfortunately, race kept some families in while others out, and still does in 2005.  So to exclude race from the criteria pool of AA is not addressing the problems we still have.

Socioeconomic status DEFINITELY should be included in the consideration of who AA should help, but I don't think we're quite to a level of progress yet where we can preclude race from the equation.  I wish we were.


Sands

[Jwebony956]

I wish people would stop assuming that poor URMs, and poor people in general are not going to law school and/or don't read this board.
I'm poor. I'm a URM. I'm going to law school.

Its not an assumption, its a fact, and you're an exception to that fact. Go to any top tier law school in the country and tell me what you see. You don't see many poor, or URM students. The majority of law students are Caucasian and they come from middle, upper class, or wealthy families. This, however, shouldn't deter you or any other poor URM from applying, getting into the top law schools in this country and defying the odds. Much kudos to you in reaching this far.    

[Jwebony956]

My suggestion would be to base preferential admission standards on socioeconomic conditions rather than race. This would still help the truely downtrodden minorities as well as those whites who have lived through difficult circumstances. It would also eliminate the AA cases of minorities who are middle class or above who have had the same opportunities (or more) as the average non-minority. By removing these individuals who seemingly do not need AA I think it would help maintain support for the system; it is easy to become angry at the system when you see a well-off minority get into a top-notch program with less than stellar numbers largely because of a checkbox.

I'm going to break my own rules for a second if I may and hop into this AA discussion because its still rather peaceful at this point and the ears seem to be open.

The suggestion for the socioeconomic status is a valid suggestion, but still doesn't address the entire problem.  By basing AA on socioeconomic status ONLY, a presumption attaches that race is no longer a factor so long as an individual has money.  This may seem to be true to some extent, however in America in 2005 (some 40 years past the civil rights movement) race is STILL a factor in everyday life at an arguably equal footing to one's socioeconomic status. 

We all recognize the power of the mighty dollar.  What we sometimes to not recognize are those factors that either allow or deny generations of individuals access to the mighty dollar.  The "good ol' boy" network is alive and well today much like it was in the 1900's.  In law firms in particular, it's even worse.  Two people walk into an interview, one shares the same race as every partner in the firm, the other does not.  Who gets the job?  Even if they both got the job, who foreseeably gets to become partner?  It doens't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.  So what does that have to do with AA in school admissions? 

Everything. 

We all have parents and grandparents. We all came from some family somewhere who either had been denied access to the mighty dollar, or was granted access to the mighty dollar.  Unfortunately, race kept some families in while others out, and still does in 2005.  So to exclude race from the criteria pool of AA is not addressing the problems we still have.

Socioeconomic status DEFINITELY should be included in the consideration of who AA should help, but I don't think we're quite to a level of progress yet where we can preclude race from the equation.  I wish we were.


Sands

Here, here!