-

[angelus]

Why would they necessarily ALL be white dudes being helped, I think that the race of the helped individuals would be varied. Then everyone that has some sort of problem getting in can get the extra boost.  Personal hardships would relate to socioeconomic status. Through AA people say that the white person working 40 hours still hasthe home support system, and the black person working 22 hours doesn't so they get the boost. This would help fix that sort of problem i think.

reread his post. He didn't say "ALL", he said "the main beneficiaries".

[lawstudent3]

Lion, with regard to #4, I think the same thing.  I've always been under the impression, and I am a strong supporter, of the policy that gives preference to the minority with roughly comparable criteria.  That shouldn't mean URMs with *much* lower numbers should get in over much more qualified people.

I also agree with the fact that it masks the problem rather than solves it.  Hundreds of years of discrimination can't be rectified instantly but we need to do more than what we're doing.  We need to fund and rebuild rundown schools SO badly.  These kids don't even have a chance.  A disgrace.

[dbgirl]

Alright Lion, I'll try to answer your questions from my perspective.

#1 How important is diversity?
I think diversity is very important. Right now IMO there are not enough URMs in the legal field. Therefore, do believe that a *small* amount of preferential treatment for URMs in application decisions is appropriate.

#2 What do numbers really mean?
I think numbers are good general measures of an applicant's ability and potential, but should not be used as absolute measures of a person's ability to succeed in school and in life.
There are many factors that can drag a person's grades and test scores below that person's "potential" and I think it's appropriate for a law school to consider those factors.
I'm not saying anyone should get into Yale with a 2.7/150 ... but I don't think someone with a 165 LSAT is automatically more qualified than someone with a 162.

#3 I think we need to increase the numbers of minorities AND disadvantaged people attending law school. I don't think that makes "the group" more important than "the individual."

#4 I see AA the way you do -- if two are more or less equally qualified, give the preference to the "diversity" candidate.
I don't see AA as giving HUGE preferences, but modest preferences. And I don't see anything wrong with that.