Chances of black 3.57, 169 from UCLA getting into T 14?

[ssas]

oh i get it.  a legacy should get in with sub-par scores, but a URM should not?  makes perfect sense.

Because an URM should get in with sub-par scores but a legacy shouldn't? Makes perfect sense.

Let's all play the circular logic game. Or maybe figure out that one ridiculous standard doesn't make another ridiculous standard acceptable.

[ssas]

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.

Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

[Miss P]

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.

Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

[ssas]

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.

Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

[Kirk Lazarus]

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.

Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

Actually, a phenomena that no one talks about is the fact that unqualified whites are let in over more qualified asians routinely. Nobody ever talks about this though.

[MauveAvenger]

phenomena is plural. i think you meant phenomenon 

[Miss P]

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.

Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

My "argument," if that, was merely that people who complain about their rejections when they don't have the standard credentials for admission are unjustifiably positioning themselves as victims.  Doing so displays a sense of entitlement.  This assessment may have been unsolicited, perhaps even slightly rude, but it is in no way "fallacious" or "reactionary." 

Moreover, I question your assumptions about the relative strengths of legacy and race-based affirmative action "boosts."  My (possibly cynical but widely held) perspective is that law school admissions are largely guided by rankings.  If I am correct, law schools have no particular incentive to value a higher LSAT score over a lower LSAT score when choosing between candidates whose scores are definitively below the target 25th percentile, as long as each candidate appears to meet minimal qualifications of likely bar-passage and employability.  Schools are much more likely to base marginal admissions on non-numerical credentials such as personal attributes (legacy, diversity, "fit"), admissions essays, work history, personal accomplishments, dedication to public service, etc.   

The fact that one black marginal candidate was admitted while one white legacy marginal candidate was not evinces no preference for black students over white legacies.  These were just two candidates who brought different sets of attributes and experience to the table.  Assuming that the black student got in merely because of his/her race reveals a tremendous amount of bias.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

Affirmative action is not an "ends-based philosophy"; it is a policy.  Policy-making is all about tailoring means to particular ends.  If it is the ends you question, just say that racial diversity in the profession is not important to you.  That way, we can have a more honest discussion of the issues. 

The kinds of extra consideration some racial minorities receive in admissions would not benefit most Asian American applicants and are unnecessary to ensure that critical masses of Asian American (particularly East Asian and South Asian) students attend most law schools.  Applicants from some Asian American subpopulations, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and other national-ethnic groups that immigrated as refugees, likely do receive some form of extra consideration. 

I do agree with you about one thing: Asian Americans probably face more discrimination than people generally acknowledge.  I don't see how this is an argument against race-based affirmative action.

[ssas]

The SCOTUS AA case revealed stat indicating that a number of african americans with high 150 scores got into UVA.

Isn't that wonderful.  I had a 163 and I didn't get in, despite being a legacy and having an above-average GPA.  I guess my skin was the wrong color.  I sure am glad Americans don't discriminate anymore, that would be bad.

Unintentional humor or well-developed sense of irony? victimhood despite apparent privileges.

^fixt changed from one ridiculous viewpoint to another even more ridiculous viewpoint

Oh, look at how I can play this game too. Fixt. ^^;;

What makes my perspective on the matter "even more ridiculous"?  Absent some significant personal achievements or special characteristics, an applicant with a 163/"above-average GPA" is, at best, a marginal candidate at UVA.  (I believe the middle 50% LSAT range is 167-170.)  NoUsername's expectation that s/he should get in because s/he is a legacy reveals not only privilege (as a relative of someone who attended this elite institution*) but also an outsize sense of entitlement.  Why should s/he get in just because another marginal candidate did?  Surely there are plenty of legacy applicants with higher scores or who have something to say about themselves other than their relatives' accomplishments.  There are also plenty of people with higher numerical credentials who were rejected.


*UVA, by the way, admitted its first black student in 1950.

More ridiculous was hyperbole designed to highlight the point that your argument is equally fallacious and reactionary at that.

 Legacy is indeed a consideration for both undergraduate and graduate admissions and assuming there's a relatively similar boost on the law school level as the one on the undergraduate level as indicated by the Princeton AA study, then it's a relatively large boost. So with better academic credentials and a strong boost from legacy, there are still Black students getting in over him. My interpretation would be that he's complaining about just how much of a boost AA is giving these kids. It trumps legacy significantly and using the stated assumption, that would make AA even more tremendous of a boost.

He also makes a valid point that AA is just reverse racism and there is a certain irony to using discrimination to fight past discrimination. Maybe we'll use even more discrimination in the future to fix the issues caused by AA.

To make another point, I'm curious when UVA admitted its first Asian student. I'm guessing around the same time or later as Blacks. Maybe we need some AA to repay us for building the railroads or to make up for the Jim Crow-esque regulations regarding Asians. We obviously also didn't have the same opportunity as Whites to have parents with legacy either. That obviously needs to be rectified.

Oh, sorry, Asians are too good for their own good. The need for AA is being determined by performance; if Asians were underrepresented, we'd probably benefit from AA too. I was unaware that ends-based philosophies were so popular in those ivory towers.

Actually, a phenomena that no one talks about is the fact that unqualified whites are let in over more qualified asians routinely. Nobody ever talks about this though.

Yes, Legacy is probably almost as bad and probably serves just as little purpose. Unfortunately, it's not quite as much of a hot-button topic, it's technically race-blind (besides opportunity to acquire it) and fighting against both legacy admissions and AA is probably asking to be beaten down, not that fighting one is much better.

However, the existence of legacy isn't a rationalization for affirmative action's necessity or morality.

[ssas]

My "argument," if that, was merely that people who complain about their rejections when they don't have the standard credentials for admission are unjustifiably positioning themselves as victims.  Doing so displays a sense of entitlement.  This assessment may have been unsolicited, perhaps even slightly rude, but it is in no way "fallacious" or "reactionary." 

It’s fallacious and reactionary because making that your sole argument implies that the basis of his argument is that “I am entitled to admission and AA screwed me over” and precludes other logical explanations like the one I provided. While he may not be a candidate worth admitting into UVA, his rejection with better stats DOES illustrate the profound effects of AA on admission. Too often AA has been aggressively defended by using legacy as a cover. No, neither should be used in admissions but it’s equally illogical to not properly consider the situation because the other is in action.

Moreover, I question your assumptions about the relative strengths of legacy and race-based affirmative action "boosts."  My (possibly cynical but widely held) perspective is that law school admissions are largely guided by rankings.  If I am correct, law schools have no particular incentive to value a higher LSAT score over a lower LSAT score when choosing between candidates whose scores are definitively below the target 25th percentile, as long as each candidate appears to meet minimal qualifications of likely bar-passage and employability.  Schools are much more likely to base marginal admissions on non-numerical credentials such as personal attributes (legacy, diversity, "fit"), admissions essays, work history, personal accomplishments, dedication to public service, etc.   

The same situation would apply to undergraduate admissions where median/percentiles for GPA and SAT can be massaged in the same manner. If you want to question the exact methodology of the Princeton AA study, feel free to but I see no reason why its basic premise is any less valid for law school admissions when law school admissions are (believed) to be more of a numbers game. I have yet to see extensive regression analysis on admissions factors for either besides a claimed “60-70%” of admissions being determined by LSAT.

The fact that one black marginal candidate was admitted while one white legacy marginal candidate was not evinces no preference for black students over white legacies.  These were just two candidates who brought different sets of attributes and experience to the table.  Assuming that the black student got in merely because of his/her race reveals a tremendous amount of bias.

Because of the size of the data set is 1, the comparison, in this case, is of limited value. However, until we see larger meta-analysis of law school admissions statistics (which may never happen because law schools know exactly what the analysis will say) it’s reasonable to suggest that there are similar advantages as in undergraduate admissions. I believe it is ludicrous at this point to claim that merely checking a different box when asked for race doesn’t affect your chances of admission. I would, like you I hope, like to see analysis done on the marginal value of that single decision.

Affirmative action is not an "ends-based philosophy"; it is a policy.  Policy-making is all about tailoring means to particular ends.  If it is the ends you question, just say that racial diversity in the profession is not important to you.  That way, we can have a more honest discussion of the issues. 

Affirmative action is an ends-based philosophy in college admissions. We are utilizing blatant racial preferences for the sake of rectifying “past injustices” and to even “disparities of opportunities.” In other words, we are using racism to fix racism. Great, if you replaced racism with mass murder, you’d recognize that as a Machiavellian, ends-based philosophy.

Furthermore, it’s more ends-based because it determines the specific need for racism by looking at the results. Asians are successful so they don’t need AA. Blacks are poor and have lower test scores so they do.  They are using the end result as a proxy for determining the degree of the original problem.  Do Asians and poor Caucasians not face adversity as well?  Maybe the NBA should give Asians an AA boost during the draft because we are underrepresented in the NBA.

The fundamental premise of AA is irrational, immoral, and, when applied in any other situation to other races, would seem absolutely untenable.  If anything, affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class and should be based on the inputs and not the outputs. Punishing certain groups because they have managed to overcome adversity is a poor choice.

The kinds of extra consideration some racial minorities receive in admissions would not benefit most Asian American applicants and are unnecessary to ensure that critical masses of Asian American (particularly East Asian and South Asian) students attend most law schools.  Applicants from some Asian American subpopulations, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and other national-ethnic groups that immigrated as refugees, likely do receive some form of extra consideration. 

I do agree with you about one thing: Asian Americans probably face more discrimination than people generally acknowledge.  I don't see how this is an argument against race-based affirmative action.

This shouldn’t be about just ensuring critical masses of Asian Americans in law schools; if we want racial parity in every industry, then I will be demanding my NBA contract. Schools should not be using a fundamentally unethical system to “solve” this problem. Moreover, some people can’t seem to accept that, maybe, the fundamental culture experienced by urban Blacks, is not adequate or suited for the modern economy. If they want to be NBA superstars and rappers, I don’t see why I should be punished for having the sense to pursue a professional career.

The destruction of individual responsibility and the weakening of the incentive structure system when you have AA is a much longer argument and my lunch break is almost up.

[Kirk Lazarus]

My "argument," if that, was merely that people who complain about their rejections when they don't have the standard credentials for admission are unjustifiably positioning themselves as victims.  Doing so displays a sense of entitlement.  This assessment may have been unsolicited, perhaps even slightly rude, but it is in no way "fallacious" or "reactionary." 

It’s fallacious and reactionary because making that your sole argument implies that the basis of his argument is that “I am entitled to admission and AA screwed me over” and precludes other logical explanations like the one I provided. While he may not be a candidate worth admitting into UVA, his rejection with better stats DOES illustrate the profound effects of AA on admission. Too often AA has been aggressively defended by using legacy as a cover. No, neither should be used in admissions but it’s equally illogical to not properly consider the situation because the other is in action.

Moreover, I question your assumptions about the relative strengths of legacy and race-based affirmative action "boosts."  My (possibly cynical but widely held) perspective is that law school admissions are largely guided by rankings.  If I am correct, law schools have no particular incentive to value a higher LSAT score over a lower LSAT score when choosing between candidates whose scores are definitively below the target 25th percentile, as long as each candidate appears to meet minimal qualifications of likely bar-passage and employability.  Schools are much more likely to base marginal admissions on non-numerical credentials such as personal attributes (legacy, diversity, "fit"), admissions essays, work history, personal accomplishments, dedication to public service, etc.   

The same situation would apply to undergraduate admissions where median/percentiles for GPA and SAT can be massaged in the same manner. If you want to question the exact methodology of the Princeton AA study, feel free to but I see no reason why its basic premise is any less valid for law school admissions when law school admissions are (believed) to be more of a numbers game. I have yet to see extensive regression analysis on admissions factors for either besides a claimed “60-70%” of admissions being determined by LSAT.

The fact that one black marginal candidate was admitted while one white legacy marginal candidate was not evinces no preference for black students over white legacies.  These were just two candidates who brought different sets of attributes and experience to the table.  Assuming that the black student got in merely because of his/her race reveals a tremendous amount of bias.

Because of the size of the data set is 1, the comparison, in this case, is of limited value. However, until we see larger meta-analysis of law school admissions statistics (which may never happen because law schools know exactly what the analysis will say) it’s reasonable to suggest that there are similar advantages as in undergraduate admissions. I believe it is ludicrous at this point to claim that merely checking a different box when asked for race doesn’t affect your chances of admission. I would, like you I hope, like to see analysis done on the marginal value of that single decision.

Affirmative action is not an "ends-based philosophy"; it is a policy.  Policy-making is all about tailoring means to particular ends.  If it is the ends you question, just say that racial diversity in the profession is not important to you.  That way, we can have a more honest discussion of the issues. 

Affirmative action is an ends-based philosophy in college admissions. We are utilizing blatant racial preferences for the sake of rectifying “past injustices” and to even “disparities of opportunities.” In other words, we are using racism to fix racism. Great, if you replaced racism with mass murder, you’d recognize that as a Machiavellian, ends-based philosophy.

Furthermore, it’s more ends-based because it determines the specific need for racism by looking at the results. Asians are successful so they don’t need AA. Blacks are poor and have lower test scores so they do.  They are using the end result as a proxy for determining the degree of the original problem.  Do Asians and poor Caucasians not face adversity as well?  Maybe the NBA should give Asians an AA boost during the draft because we are underrepresented in the NBA.

The fundamental premise of AA is irrational, immoral, and, when applied in any other situation to other races, would seem absolutely untenable.  If anything, affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic class and should be based on the inputs and not the outputs. Punishing certain groups because they have managed to overcome adversity is a poor choice.

The kinds of extra consideration some racial minorities receive in admissions would not benefit most Asian American applicants and are unnecessary to ensure that critical masses of Asian American (particularly East Asian and South Asian) students attend most law schools.  Applicants from some Asian American subpopulations, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and other national-ethnic groups that immigrated as refugees, likely do receive some form of extra consideration. 

I do agree with you about one thing: Asian Americans probably face more discrimination than people generally acknowledge.  I don't see how this is an argument against race-based affirmative action.

This shouldn’t be about just ensuring critical masses of Asian Americans in law schools; if we want racial parity in every industry, then I will be demanding my NBA contract. Schools should not be using a fundamentally unethical system to “solve” this problem. Moreover, some people can’t seem to accept that, maybe, the fundamental culture experienced by urban Blacks, is not adequate or suited for the modern economy. If they want to be NBA superstars and rappers, I don’t see why I should be punished for having the sense to pursue a professional career.

The destruction of individual responsibility and the weakening of the incentive structure system when you have AA is a much longer argument and my lunch break is almost up.

WOW.