Affirmative action = bullsh*t

[CocoPuff]

"Wah!!!
I'm an upper-middle class white male, who hasn't a clue about personal racism or discrimination, and because my Uncle's membership as a Harvard fellow wasn't enough to get me accepted, I'm going to piss and moan about RACISM...boo-hoo-hooo.."

Seriously...enough already. This thread, like the 2 million+ other A.A. threads, has managed to go absolutely nowhere.

LOL!!!

I completely agree. There are some undeserved harsh words being thrown at Annable Lee and it's really pointless. You can go on and on about this forever, but at the end of the day you haven't changed a thing.

Even if AA is not the best way to make up for discrimination, which it is not, no one has come up with a better way of equaling the scales or increasing minority representation in law school. Maybe you should argue about some ways of fixing the problems that AA is trying to solve.

[TrojanChispas]

Look at it this way, You have the security of knowing that your parents are able to help and if all else fails you have a safety net.  I doubt your parents are heartless to the plight of their son.  Plus, you would get a boost for having a good work ethic.

Well, that's all well and good, but do you really believe that a sense of security would account for a huge difference in GPA and LSAT scores? It seems to me that the amount of hours worked is more important as they specifically take time away from studying. Perhaps it's just because I've always had a sense of security, but I don't understand how lack of it would lead to significantly lower grades. It's possible I suppose, so I'll keep an open mind if you can attempt to explain it to me.

First, we do not know how much difference it actually would make.  Second, not to diminish your accomplishments, but the hypothetical person that you compared yourself to is under much more pressure.  It is one thing to go to work because your parents encourage you and quite another to go because the welfare of your family depends on it.  Third, your hypothetical is not about race but socioeconomic status.  Fourth, for race to be a factor it must have a bearing on your application or life experience.  People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity.

[blk_reign]

choose your battles guys..this one isn't worth it

[steve112sms]

First, we do not know how much difference it actually would make.  Second, not to diminish your accomplishments, but the hypothetical person that you compared yourself to is under much more pressure.  It is one thing to go to work because your parents encourage you and quite another to go because the welfare of your family depends on it.  Third, your hypothetical is not about race but socioeconomic status.  Fourth, for race to be a factor it must have a bearing on your application or life experience.  People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity.

First, the fact that we don't know how much of a difference it makes doesn't justify the need to objectively allow it to make a difference in admissions procedures. In fact, I'd think it'd do the opposite. Second, while that may be true that the other person is under pressure moreso than I, pressure is going to be extremely prevelant as a lawyer and all this would demonstrate to me is that this particular individual has difficulty facing such pressure. Third, socioeconomic status is linked with race especially when it comes to personal statements regarding diversity. Your fourth point coincides with the third point. The fact that they had to work will be the factor that had bearing on their lives as a minority whereas the fact that I've worked will not be given the same weight. I've personally read personal statements by URMs with low numbers accepted at top schools of this sort, so I can attest to its verity.

[TrojanChispas]

First, we do not know how much difference it actually would make.  Second, not to diminish your accomplishments, but the hypothetical person that you compared yourself to is under much more pressure.  It is one thing to go to work because your parents encourage you and quite another to go because the welfare of your family depends on it.  Third, your hypothetical is not about race but socioeconomic status.  Fourth, for race to be a factor it must have a bearing on your application or life experience.  People are not given a free pass because they are a certain ethnicity.

First, the fact that we don't know how much of a difference it makes doesn't justify the need to objectively allow it to make a difference in admissions procedures. In fact, I'd think it'd do the opposite. Second, while that may be true that the other person is under pressure moreso than I, pressure is going to be extremely prevelant as a lawyer and all this would demonstrate to me is that this particular individual has difficulty facing such pressure. Third, socioeconomic status is linked with race especially when it comes to personal statements regarding diversity. Your fourth point coincides with the third point. The fact that they had to work will be the factor that had bearing on their lives as a minority whereas the fact that I've worked will not be given the same weight. I've personally read personal statements by URMs with low numbers accepted at top schools of this sort, so I can attest to its verity.

1.  I think the difference is minimal
2.  The kind of pressure that the person has endured is a testament to his perseverence and resolve.
3.  They are correleated but clearly there are some poor white people that get a boost for their hardships
4.  You may have personal experience, but we know as LSAT afficionados that a quality of a part does not necessarily translate to a quality of the whole

I repeat! Where is the outrage against legacy admits?

[DMG]

I don't even know what a "legacy admit" is.   

[TrojanChispas]

Haveny you noticed on either your ls or ug application the question that asks if you have any relatives that went to the school?  People are admitted not only on grades and SATs but also their heritage

[steve112sms]

1.  I think the difference is minimal
2.  The kind of pressure that the person has endured is a testament to his perseverence and resolve.
3.  They are correleated but clearly there are some poor white people that get a boost for their hardships
4.  You may have personal experience, but we know as LSAT afficionados that a quality of a part does not necessarily translate to a quality of the whole

I repeat! Where is the outrage against legacy admits?

1. Well, then it would seem you agree with me.
2. But at the same time that individual's numbers are lower in the hypothetical, so their perseverence is questionable. They graduated, sure, and that's an accomplishment, but apparently the pressure got to them enough to adversely affect their performance significantly. I don't see that as a good quality.
3. It is my belief that such boosts are much less substantial and more rare. I believe law schools want a certain amount of minorities so that their schools appear diverse. Their publishing of what percentage of minority X attends their school is one of the reasons I feel this is the case. In my opinion all the poor white kid gets is a better financial aid package once already admitted.
4. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here.

Personally I dislike legacy admits as well. In fact it's worse really since they can't even argue adversity as an excuse. However, just because it's worse doesn't make AA acceptable.

[DMG]

The law, and the constitution of Canada (and I presume the US) claim to protect discrimination on the basis of several grounds. These include race, ethnicity, sex, religion, and probably a few more. However, I am quite confident that nowhere is the alma matar of someone's dad an off limit area for discrimination.

[steve112sms]

Remember that the constitution is not exactly gospel. Just because something isn't in there doesn't mean it's fine. Based on merit, I'd say legacy admits are worse in regards to individual fairness. AA may be more dangerous though for reasons I stated earlier that were ignored.