Affirmative action = bullsh*t

[DMG]

None-the-less, the fairness or unfairness of a "legacy" admit does not make AA any less acceptable. The fact that this has somehow gotten injected into this argument by the proponents of AA shows how weak their rationale for supporting this racist garbage is.

[TrojanChispas]

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.

1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

[TrojanChispas]

None-the-less, the fairness or unfairness of a "legacy" admit does not make AA any less acceptable. The fact that this has somehow gotten injected into this argument by the proponents of AA shows how weak their rationale for supporting this racist garbage is.

I have supported it just fine.  I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of outrage against AA and ignorance of legacy admits.

Learn more about the history of the US and racism and then get back to me.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed and then talk to me.  Until then, you know too little and are hardly in a position to judge from your ivory tower.

[DMG]

I have supported it just fine.  I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of outrage against AA and ignorance of legacy admits.

Learn more about the history of the US and racism and then get back to me.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed and then talk to me.  Until then, you know too little and are hardly in a position to judge from your ivory tower.

So when you use the word "oppressed" you are actually refering to specific races of people. Thats painting with a pretty wide brush, don't you think? Also, it is quite telling that you jump to the conclusion that I live in some "ivory tower". What basis, other than the colour of my skin do you have to make that assumption? Your soft bigotry only highlights the racism behind AA.

[steve112sms]

1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

1. I disagree. For example: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=indigo
2. LSAT 101 Appeals to the masses are fallicious.
3. I'm just basing it on the fact that of all the outliers I've seen on LSN, they're all URMs and not poor white kids.
4. Ah, now I see what you were referring to. I didn't know what part and what whole you were referring to. I've never said minorities are necessarily of poor quality. I've merely said that I've seen some that I believe to be underdeserving and got the boost because of a form of AA. I suppose my sample size isn't great so I cannot say that X happens all of the time and is always the case, but I can say that substantially less qualified URMs have been admitted on the basis of AA and say that this is a bad thing.
5. There isn't a thread about legacy admits at the top of the board. Create one and perhaps I'll protest proportionally against that as well. But most likely I won't. Why, you ask? Because I doubt most people would argue vehemently for legacy admits and so there won't really be much to argue against. On the contrary AA is very much a heated debate. Remember, that the self-interest will be the same for me anyway as I am neither a URM nor do I have any sort of legacy.

[TrojanChispas]

I have supported it just fine.  I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of outrage against AA and ignorance of legacy admits.

Learn more about the history of the US and racism and then get back to me.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the oppressed and then talk to me.  Until then, you know too little and are hardly in a position to judge from your ivory tower.

So when you use the word "oppressed" you are actually refering to specific races of people. Thats painting with a pretty wide brush, don't you think? Also, it is quite telling that you jump to the conclusion that I live in some "ivory tower". What basis, other than the colour of my skin do you have to make that assumption? Your soft bigotry only highlights the racism behind AA.

Specific races of people have been repressed.  ANd if you are a poor white person then you will get your own boost for diversity, so I would relax if I were you.

[TrojanChispas]

1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

1. I disagree. For example: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=indigo
2. LSAT 101 Appeals to the masses are fallicious.
3. I'm just basing it on the fact that of all the outliers I've seen on LSN, they're all URMs and not poor white kids.
4. Ah, now I see what you were referring to. I didn't know what part and what whole you were referring to. I've never said minorities are necessarily of poor quality. I've merely said that I've seen some that I believe to be underdeserving and got the boost because of a form of AA. I suppose my sample size isn't great so I cannot say that X happens all of the time and is always the case, but I can say that substantially less qualified URMs have been admitted on the basis of AA and say that this is a bad thing.
5. There isn't a thread about legacy admits at the top of the board. Create one and perhaps I'll protest proportionally against that as well. But most likely I won't. Why, you ask? Because I doubt most people would argue vehemently for legacy admits and so there won't really be much to argue against. On the contrary AA is very much a heated debate. Remember, that the self-interest will be the same for me anyway as I am neither a URM nor do I have any sort of legacy.

1.  Again, this one person does nothing for your overall point
2.  Call it what you want, but the LSAT is all about logic and fallacies and using a small sample is falacious
3.  Maybe the explanation for that is not AA, but special circumstances that would separate thier experiences significantly from a white person's.
4.  You think that numbers=qualification and adcoms seem to think that experiences are valuable too.  Who is right?  IDK, but I do know that adcoms have more experience in the admissions process and that minorities are woefully inderrepresented.

[TrojanChispas]

1.  The difference in the boost to admissions is not that great
2.  You can look at the lesser grades as a partial failure from your ivory tower, but I think the majority of people would not see it that way.
3.  I do not know what the numbers are either way, but I would imagine that since there are more white people then there would be more white applicants and therefore more poor white applicants.  It seems unlikely that the adcom would lump them together with their middle/upper class counterpart.  But what do I know?
4.  LSAT 101.  I am arguing that your logic is flawed because your sample is too small to say anything meaningful about the quality of minority applicants.  How many personal statements did you read 10,000?  The fact that the small part of the population that you assessed was found wanting does not necessarily mean anything for the whole population of minority applicants.
5.  People are generally self interested but will base their arguments on principle.  If the principle of AA really bothers you, then why dont you also actively protest legacy admits? Your reaction is not proportional.

1. I disagree. For example: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=indigo
2. LSAT 101 Appeals to the masses are fallicious.
3. I'm just basing it on the fact that of all the outliers I've seen on LSN, they're all URMs and not poor white kids.
4. Ah, now I see what you were referring to. I didn't know what part and what whole you were referring to. I've never said minorities are necessarily of poor quality. I've merely said that I've seen some that I believe to be underdeserving and got the boost because of a form of AA. I suppose my sample size isn't great so I cannot say that X happens all of the time and is always the case, but I can say that substantially less qualified URMs have been admitted on the basis of AA and say that this is a bad thing.
5. There isn't a thread about legacy admits at the top of the board. Create one and perhaps I'll protest proportionally against that as well. But most likely I won't. Why, you ask? Because I doubt most people would argue vehemently for legacy admits and so there won't really be much to argue against. On the contrary AA is very much a heated debate. Remember, that the self-interest will be the same for me anyway as I am neither a URM nor do I have any sort of legacy.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  You chose that guy as an example of an outlier with all these accolades and accomplishments?  Dude got a full 4 year ride and 3 shoolwide leadership awards!  This convo is ridic and unless you say something intelligent I am done here
Student government (chair)
A cappella group (president)
Senior Leadership Society
Black Senior Honor Society
3 school-wide senior leadership awards
Full 4-year merit/need scholarship to undergrad
3 years work experience (2 in IB, 1 in higher education)
Co-Founder of Non-profit org (homelessness awareness)

[steve112sms]

1.  Again, this one person does nothing for your overall point
2.  Call it what you want, but the LSAT is all about logic and fallacies and using a small sample is falacious
3.  Maybe the explanation for that is not AA, but special circumstances that would separate thier experiences significantly from a white person's.
4.  You think that numbers=qualification and adcoms seem to think that experiences are valuable too.  Who is right?  IDK, but I do know that adcoms have more experience in the admissions process and that minorities are woefully inderrepresented.

1. It isn't just one person though. The one person was just an example. Look at this graph. http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/graphs.php?cycle=0405&code=0008 Every green dot that strays from the others is a URM. Look at another school's graph. You'll see the same.
2. This point is entirely irrelevant as I was merely pointing out that your point rested on an appeal to masses which is a fallacy. There is no sample size in this example.
3. I guess it's possible but having read some personal statements of accepted URM's their unique experiences didn't really come across to me leading me to believe that the reasons for their admittance are otherwise. Law schools have always wanted to appear diverse. In fact U Mich law originally had racial quotas until the supreme court knocked it down. I think it naive to believe race alone isn't what matter the most, but that's my opinion. I suppose so long as you agree that it should not on its own matter and that if the system were set up this way, it'd be faulty.
4. Also, appeals to authorities are fallicious. Adcoms have their own self interests and biases. The way they do things isn't necessarily the best.

[DMG]

DMG is just mad b/c he's canadian, get over it.

lex, go f*ck yourself. If you had half a brain you would be able to get into lawschool on your own merit and not need this bullsh*t.