Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LSAT discrepancies  (Read 16607 times)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2007, 07:12:33 PM »
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.
saying someone is an a-hole because they dont agree with affirmative action is a pretty ignorant statement.

Also, saying somebody who got in is 'unqualified' is pretty stupid.  If she got in, she's qualified. 

Yeah.  tms... You do realize that "qualified" is a subjective consideration, right?  And you also realize that it's ADCOMS who decide the definition of qualified, not you, right?  And nobody cares whether or not you think a particular candidate is qualified?


So if you had to be white to be "qualified", that would be okay with you?

This is also a pretty crappy definition of qualified. That's why objective criteria like grades and test scores have become more important over the last century.

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2007, 07:14:48 PM »
Why are you responding to posts from 2005?

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2007, 07:22:57 PM »
tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races


Does the fact that your leader believes something automatically make it true?

Even if it is, does it justify automatic ethnic preferences?


and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors. 


How is he benefitting any more than you from the past?  Do you know his family income compared to yours?  If they are "our" ancestors, aren't we all equally blameworthy (or, more accurately, blameless?)  Isn't the idea of ancestral guilt the flawed premise for slavery in the first place?


After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself. 


How is this relevant?  All kinds of people suffered in Katrina, not just minorities.  


If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character. 


Couldn't this apply just as easily to minorities?  Why should anyone have to work any harder than anyone else simply because of the color of their skin?



 
The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.


This is an argument for judging people differently based on their educational opportunities.  It is in no way a justification for automatic ethnic preferences.  

In fact, given that you say it's "the only reason", you've effectively conceded that there is no real justification for automatic ethnic preferences.  Under your own logic, the only considerations should be economic and educational opportunity, which almost no one would argue with.




Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2007, 07:32:40 PM »
Your leader: you, white people who would complain about affirmative action.  Racists, republicans.


As noted, many democrats and even many minorities have issues with automatic ethnic preferences.  Michigan, a state that is predominantly Democratic, recently approved a referendum outlawing ethnic preferences.  That's because such preferences are inherently unfair, discriminatory, divisive, and stigmatize the achievements of all minorities.  You don't have to be racist to be troubled by such policies or effects.


If you've looked at any law school applications, you'll see that the schools try very hard to find out what adversity you've overcome.  They are not interested in your race, but rather in your background and your travails.  At the same time, the racial make-up of their student body is public, so race is an issue as well.


While law schools may and should look into adversity, the truth is that most URM's that benefit from AA today have higher household incomes than most white families.  This would seem to contradict your above point.


AA drives deeper wedges between racist white people and URMs.  It certainly doesn't drive a wedge between me and other races.  As I said, I would give your spot at school to a URM any day of the week.


AA drives a deeper wedge between URMs and any reasonable disadvantaged or working-class white person who sees an unfair advantage given to a more privileged or equally positioned minority. It's not hard to understand why.
 

If you go by the applications, AA _is_ based on socioeconomic factors.  Who knows how representative the apps are of their actual acceptance policies, but ostensibly at least that is the case.


I assume you mean "by the law schools rhetoric", or "by fuzzly liberal thinking", when you say "by the applications".  What matters, of course, is the reality.  No one has a problem with disadvanteged people recieving preferences.  The questions is 1) wheter affluent minorities need or deserve them, and 2) whether such preferences require any ethnic component at all, given that most poor people are white, and given that many whites are poorer than most minorities.






Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2007, 07:34:19 PM »
There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Um....not really.  When you start being indexed on things OTHER then LSAT, gpa and race.  Get back to me.

so how, pray tell, did ruskiegirl get into Boalt Law with a 157, being a pasty white?

if you can't back up your generalizations, then stfu.


This is also true -- ethnicity is not the only non-numerical factor worked in, simply the most obvious.

That said, I don't believe Ruskie girl deserved any preference either. 

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2007, 07:34:22 PM »
Why are you responding to posts from 2005?

.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2007, 07:35:36 PM »
Wow...this is simply an overall pathetic thread.  It just goes to show there are some damn ignorant people out there and it is true of both sides of a divisive issue.

don't forget about all the people who are here to sit on their high horses and point this out without letting the minions know the errors of their way.

 ::)


I think his approach was pretty much right-on.  Criticize the idiots on both sides, and not wrestle with the pig.  After all, you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.   ;)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT discrepancies
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2007, 07:36:35 PM »
Why are you responding to posts from 2005?


Bored, obviously.

I also don't check the dates, and someone else had already bumped it.