Why I don't agree with AA

[Somewhere]

Asians, Indians and Persians DESTROYED the false assumption that poor minority groups cannot rise from poverty to upper-middle class/rich without AA type help. Chinese and Japanese citizens showed that even when unfairly oppressed by the US, they could still quickly overcome this and became among the most successful groups in America. We are about to (hopefully) have a Black president.

Like I said earlier, the only people who support AA are (1) Blacks, Latinos, etc (2) Liberal white kids who usually don't fully understand the true implications of AA. Even the most liberal Asian and Indian kids I know are STRONGLY opposed to race based AA. Do you realize it is harder for an Asian to get into a good school than a WHITE person (no, that is not a typo. There has been research on this involving Ivy league schools)? America is NOT Black and White. It's also Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Irani, Arabic, Israeli, Vietnamese (you get the picture). Almost all the first generation immigrants from these countries come with little money. Many of them don't speak English well (or at all). Yet they have to climb a higher hill than even the white student! WTF! My URM roommate in college had an SAT score 200 points lower than mine and a lower GPA (no, he didn't have great ECs). Not only did he get accepted to my dream school (which I got rejected from while being in their target range), he got a FULL RIDE to our school. I didn't get any scholarships at all.

Honestly, if AA was a case of "in a tie, give the Black/Latino person the edge" I wouldn't have a problem with it. But look at the URMs on LSN. It's total horseshit the schools these URMs get into with low numbers. URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!

So seriously, @#!* race based AA. It IS racism.

Now where are the cliche "300 year head start" responses at?

I am guessing you are Asian or Indian. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

The only people who are hurt by the use of AA by law schools are high (not extremely high) number candidates, and possibly the students who are admitted via AA (that is a whole different debate, though).

If we could magically go back in time to last year, and there was no AA in the law school admissions process, your life would be no different than it currently is. There are some minority students that probably wouldn't get into Harvard or Yale--many still would. Any minority student admitted through AA at a T6 school is still extremely qualified, AA is not a huge boost in most cases, so the students who benefited from AA would simply shift down a level or two. This would happen all the way down the ladder. There wouldn't be any openings at Notre Dame, or anywhere else.

[The Artist]

URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!

Why do you care though....you had no shot at Columbia anyway.

You are pretty stupid if you can't see what I'm trying to say.

[The Artist]

URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!

Why do you care though....you had no shot at Columbia anyway.

You are pretty stupid if you can't see what I'm trying to say.

Nah I get what you're saying - I just don't think the URMs getting into Columbia with your numbers have any actual effect on you, other than maybe causing you jealousy and a sense of "injustice".  Those URMs don't seem relevant - unless maybe you're going to talk about some trickle down effect.  There's a good chance AA didn't have an effect on you in terms of getting into schools.  Even if it did, it maybe dropped you from a school ranked 22 to a school ranked 25.  But it seems like the relevant URMs you should be pissed about are the ones with lower numbers than you that got into Notre Dame (I'm making the assumption that you think you deserved to get into Notre Dame)

It's not the fact that I didn't get into (or bother applying to) Columbia. It's the fact that if I was born Mexican I would have gotten into a T5 instead of a T40. That's almost an entire Tier. And I'm a minority to top things off, though non-URM.

[The Artist]

It's not the fact that I didn't get into (or bother applying to) Columbia. It's the fact that if I was born Mexican I would have gotten into a T5 instead of a T40. That's almost an entire Tier. And I'm a minority to top things off, though non-URM.

I'm not sure it's that big a boost, but I'll take your word for it (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm)

But I understand what you're saying better now - you're more pissed about the sense of injustice because you didn't get a boost some other people got.  You're not pissed because of any loss you actually suffered (because if you felt any real effects of AA, they were probably small) - you're pissed because others got some gain.

But for some reason I just can't get worked up about the supposed injustice to the victimized non-URMs.

I looked at LSN to get the numbers of URMs admitted to Columbia.

I do not want special treatment, actually. I want equal treatment. Right now, it is harder for an asian/indian than a WHITE person. Yet nobody ever publicizes this when talking about AA.

[Somewhere]

It's not the fact that I didn't get into (or bother applying to) Columbia. It's the fact that if I was born Mexican I would have gotten into a T5 instead of a T40. That's almost an entire Tier. And I'm a minority to top things off, though non-URM.

I'm not sure it's that big a boost, but I'll take your word for it (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm)

But I understand what you're saying better now - you're more pissed about the sense of injustice because you didn't get a boost some other people got.  You're not pissed because of any loss you actually suffered (because if you felt any real effects of AA, they were probably small) - you're pissed because others got some gain.

But for some reason I just can't get worked up about the supposed injustice to the victimized non-URMs.

I do not want special treatment, actually. I want equal treatment. Right now, it is harder for an asian/indian than a WHITE person. Yet nobody ever publicizes this when talking about AA.

This is simply not true in law school admissions.

[Susan B. Anthony]

I find it's useful to step back for a minute and think about the cosmic insignificance of these programs.

Although I'll be attending law school in the fall, I currently work in the information technology field, which fails to recognize AA in any way, shape, or form.  On one hand, I can count the number of times in which a minority applicant earned a boost on the basis of his background:

Zero.  You either have SQL Server and Sharepoint, or you don't have a job.

This problem, as I see it, is mostly confined to the legal field, and the related issues of "fairness" and "justice" that hover around the profession like a smoke screen.  I think it's more important to take a step back in order to see that we're in a bubble.  Business doesn't reward AA.  IT doesn't reward AA.  And fast food doesn't reward AA.

Once you realize that you're angry over something so minor, you might understand its greater significance, or lack thereof.  Why does AA exist specifically in the legal field, and where does it exist there?  Do firms put you on a quicker track to partner?  Do clients trust you?  Are you a better judge?  Pondering that question might help you understand why AA might be all right after all, even if it means you won't be going to CLS with a sub-165 LSAT.

law schools are the only ones that engage in AA?

Also, if there were professional schools that were required to learn and be certified in the skills necessary to have an IT job, the landscape would probably be different. (And yes, I'm well aware that in CA you can sit for the bar without attending an accredited law school/attending law school at all, but that is a minor exception to the general rule, and not generally a reasonable alternative to attending an accredited law school).

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that underrepresented candidates don't get a boost. Many, many employers seek diversity in their workplace.

[Susan B. Anthony]

No, the landscape wouldn't be different.  Most of the companies which work with us require a BA or even Master's, but it doesn't matter from where because skills are valued.  Law can be the same way: high-profile lawyers are hired because they've won cases in the past, not because they attended a school.

Again, I think that, as law students, we suffer from myopia.  I wonder where some of these "unqualified" AA admits end up in ten years.   

Law is a porous profession.  What makes advocate A better than advocate B?  One may be smarter or harder-working.

Finally, I can tell you that our IT firm doesn't care about AA.  At all.  And I work with the boss who determines these practices.

I'm a little unsure what point you're trying to make here, Wally.

A few things about the IT field in particular, since you insist on using it as a comparison:

Colleges also engage in AA.

The skills required by the IT field are, in ways, more particularized and concrete than the skills required by the legal field. That's not to say that there isn't variation among individuals who have those skills as to how good they are at what they do, but they probably are, in ways, more measurable.

As to the point about how the landscape would be different...perhaps it wouldn't be different for employers (although I'm only conceding that point for the sake of argument), but if the mechanism for gaining the skills to work in IT was as highly regulated as the legal education industry, unless there simply weren't enough people who wanted to get those skills that it was an issue. This is certainly not the case with the legal field, and it behooves an institution that regulates admission in this way to be cognizant of the ways it includes and excludes people. Whether or not you agree with the particular ways AA does that, the general principle remains. If the requirements for working in IT are not similarly regulated, it's hardly a good comparison.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that "unqualified" AA admits must not be very successful lawyers? If you're going to make assertions like that, you're going to need to back it up with facts and statistics. I hope I'm misunderstanding you there.

Finally, if that's the case where you where, okay then. That's the case where you work. That's not necessarily representative of the industry as a whole, or the business landscape as a whole. Further, companies and industries may engage in diversity-minded hiring practices without engaging in what we might qualify as AA.

[Susan B. Anthony]

I'm a little unsure what point you're trying to make here, Wally.

A few things about the IT field in particular, since you insist on using it as a comparison:

Colleges also engage in AA.

The skills required by the IT field are, in ways, more particularized and concrete than the skills required by the legal field. That's not to say that there isn't variation among individuals who have those skills as to how good they are at what they do, but they probably are, in ways, more measurable.

As to the point about how the landscape would be different...perhaps it wouldn't be different for employers (although I'm only conceding that point for the sake of argument), but if the mechanism for gaining the skills to work in IT was as highly regulated as the legal education industry, unless there simply weren't enough people who wanted to get those skills that it was an issue. This is certainly not the case with the legal field, and it behooves an institution that regulates admission in this way to be cognizant of the ways it includes and excludes people. Whether or not you agree with the particular ways AA does that, the general principle remains. If the requirements for working in IT are not similarly regulated, it's hardly a good comparison.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that "unqualified" AA admits must not be very successful lawyers? If you're going to make assertions like that, you're going to need to back it up with facts and statistics. I hope I'm misunderstanding you there.

Finally, if that's the case where you where, okay then. That's the case where you work. That's not necessarily representative of the industry as a whole, or the business landscape as a whole. Further, companies and industries may engage in diversity-minded hiring practices without engaging in what we might qualify as AA.

You're missing the point of my comparison.  I'm saying that, AA or not, almost everyone can get into a law school.  As law students, we suffer from a myopia that doesn't allow us to see what happens after we graduate.  Regulation or not, everyone can be a lawyer, and, after a few years, I would expect the skills to matter more.  Whether they matter as much as they do in the IT field is open to argument, but I think that they matter as much.  Wouldn't you hire a lawyer with deposition skills for a deposition, regardless of where they learned the law?  In this way, Law becomes more IT-like by the time that graduates reach the ten or twenty year mark.  That's why my comparison is valid.

Skills take over, degree no longer matters.  That's IT and, hopefully, Law after a few years.  And, once degree no longer matters, then AA isn't as significant. 

"make assertions like that."

(see rolling eyes)

"where you work"

Yes, NYC.  The heart of the IT industry, the bowels of the finance world.  I'm fairly sure that my perspective is vast enough to be taken seriously.

FFS, Wally.

Okay - I missed where you were going with all of that. I don't agree with your point, but whatever. I don't care enough to argue with you, if that's what you're trying to say.

Re: "make assertions like that": @#!* off with the rolling eyes. IF that is what you were trying to say, then that is something that needs support - idle speculation like that is at best useless and at worst harmful. I fully acknowledged that I may be misunderstanding where you were going with that.

Re: "where you work." FFS, Wally. OMG YOU WORK IN NEW YORK! You still work at one company. You've had what, one job since graduating college? I'm not saying that your experience there is unrepresentative of your company, just that your company is not fully representative of the entire industry or the workforce in general. (As a corollary, I know female computer science types who are drooled over by some employers because they are female and so few females enter the field)

[Susan B. Anthony]

You're comparing apples and kittens.

[mugatu]

Fine.  I'll make this point very simple.

A: It's not fair that I didn't get into CLS!

B: Wait a minute, why don't you just beef up your skillz and get the same legal job?  I work in IT and we're all fine, provided you have SQL Server.

A: Never thought of that.  Cuz that would be wierd and IT-like.  I thought that CLS was the most important thing.  It's not like I can advertise myself as a crack deposition guy.

B: I earned my degree from CUNY.  Nobody cares.  I'm some dude who knows SQL.  Stop focusing so much on the AA and CLS; it's not like you can't use the deposition skill like I use SQL.  Just tell them, "I can do good deposition work."

A: NO!!!!  AA makes me mad!!!  I didn't get into CLS ten years ago because of AA!!!  ::throws bucket a la Donkey Kong::  Bah, my career is ruined because schools use AA.

eh

it depends. 

some/many things in law depend on your school. 

---

i think there are many people who would disagree that NYC is the center of IT.  Ha. 

You're comparing apples and kittens.

Can you explain why depositions and SQL server are "apples and kittens"?

Again, you're being myopic.  Ten years from now, nobody will care where we learned if we can't bring the skillz to the house.  We'll have a track record.

LS students can't see that; they're blinded by the fact that you go to a top school and they don't.  Years from now, I doubt that'll be the case.

i.e. - your opinion works in IT.  differing law schools open up different/bigger/shinier doors for people.