Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?

[Matthies]

You can lose a lot by not getting a seat that, by the numbers, should be yours.

Since this is clearly the bee in your bonnet, let's just blow this wide open, shall we?

Defend, in numbered point form, what "numbers" are ideally determinative of being "qualified" to study law and eventually hope to practice it at a school, and explain why.

This is easy, I don't even need numbers to do it, its called self entitlement. I deserve to get in, its unfair if I don't get in with X numbers and the system is screwing me out of what is rightfully mine. Ironically though, no thought is ever given to the person with the same numbers who you screwed out of a spot by accepting and attending. It only works in one direction: what benefits me at the expense of others = good and fair to everyone, what benefits others at the expense of me = bad and unfair to everyone.

 Of course all this requires admitting the individual is really selfish basterd who only wants what best for himself damn the expense to others, so it just easier to call it reverse discrimination and pretend you’re guilt free and wholesome of thought all responsibility lays elsewhere and everyone would live in harmony if whatever factor personally benefited you played more of a role in the admissions process, regardless of if it hurt some else, because your goal is not really fairness, its personal advantage to reach your self entitlement that makes you think you deserve to be at any given school over someone who does not deserve to be there instead of you.  (That’s one long run on sentence; I blame the gayz and their lifestyle that is destroying the grammar and punctuation of the traditional family unit because its not my fault I write like that).

[dashrashi]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

[CTL]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

I like this.

Signed,
not-angry white person

[Ninja1]

I'm sure this will start a rant from someone, but whatever.

If someone can explain how the below situation is fair (without referencing slavery as none of us have been/owned slaves) in terms that I can understand and appreciate and I will forever favor AA.

Two students apply to the same law school. Both are male and around age 22. Both went to the same public high school and the same public college. They lived in the same upper middle class suburb throughout school. Both have fathers that are lawyers. Both of their mothers stayed at home when the boys were young. Both studied political science. One is white and one is black. The white student had a GPA of 3.66 and an LSAT of 162. The black student had a GPA of 3.30 and an LSAT of 159. Both chose not to work in undergrad or high school. Both belonged to the same pre-law society on campus and no other organizations. The black student was admitted to the school. The white student was not. How is this fair?

Becuase at the school the black kid got into there will be about 250 carbon copies of the white kid in his class, 1 rich black kid, 3-4 other not rich black kids and a few token mexicans and indians thrown in. Repeate at every law school other than the handful of traditinallly balck ones, and you get the picture. There are a alot of white rich kids applying to law schools, I have yet to meet the mythical Cosby family balck guy. Maybe they are out there, but I know allot of the 900 people at my school, but I can count all the balck ones just using the digets on my feet and hands.

And that matters... how?

I still fail to see how admitting unqualified/underqualified people in any way helps the legal profession. Great for giving people a shot, but give them a shot where they deserve to be. Someone with a GPA that you can earn by sleeping through UG and an LSAT several points lower has no business taking a seat from someone that actually worked in college and did well on their LSAT.

And the real kick in the balls is the black kid will probably get bank for being black. It's kind of disgusting listening to URMs talk about the scholarship offers they get based solely on being URMs.

and that matters... how?

Of all the ways to waste your first post...

of all the ways to answer the f-ing question...

and you've only been here about four months longer, so try stepping off the high horse, d-bag.

Oh, you're one of those cowardly post deleters.

I'll get off my high horse when you get up on my level.

I never thought I'd ever agree with Goon Squad, but I still don't see how you've addressed the question. The people the school admits are perfectly qualified according to their admissions requirements, so your "unqualified/underqualified" statement is totally false. Same goes with scholarship money: the school is giving those students what the school feels they deserve. Sounds like you've got an overblown sense of entitlement. Just like dash mentioned earlier.

I got into a good school with my own good numbers and wanted nothing more.

So why didn't you go there instead of Florida State? 

Hater from Hateville.

[Ninja1]

You can lose a lot by not getting a seat that, by the numbers, should be yours.

Since this is clearly the bee in your bonnet, let's just blow this wide open, shall we?

Defend, in numbered point form, what "numbers" are ideally determinative of being "qualified" to study law and eventually hope to practice it at a school, and explain why.

(Please keep in mind that school rankings mostly represent the effect, not the cause.  If I see "USNews Rankings" anywhere, I'll flip.  There is a time and place to bring them into the discussion, but your challenge here is not to do so.  There are reasons for this.)

Don't worry, I treat US News numbers with only slightly less contempt than aa.

There are no numbers in particular that make someone qualified or unqualified, it's going to naturally vary from school to school. Where the problem surfaces in my mind (and most non-racists) is when someone with numbers well below the 25%s at a school is admitted (and often rewarded a scholarship for good measure) for no apparent reason beyond the fact that they're some sort of URM. Like I said in an earlier post, how is it at all equitable that someone with a piss poor GPA that most of us could sleep our way to and an LSAT that indicates they may have been drinking before the test (or they're dumb as all hell) deserve a spot over someone that actually worked in UG and either took the LSAT seriously or was smart enough to do well on it? And how has anything the underachiever done indicate that they will, in any way, perform better than the person that has a long track record of success?

Honestly, the fact everyone is not offended by this notion, especially URMs who actually earn their spots, is beyond me.

[Ninja1]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

Dear angry black people:

Mind your own business. The back of the bus is better anyway. All the cool kids hang out back there. Maybe you should just chill and calm down on this "civil rights" nonsense. Yeah, you can't eat in some restaurants or have decent jobs, but aren't those overrated anyway?

[CTL]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

Dear angry black people:

Mind your own business. The back of the bus is better anyway. All the cool kids hand out back there. Maybe you should just chill and calm down on this "civil rights" nonsense. Yeah, you can't eat in some restaurants or have decent jobs, but aren't those overrated anyway?

[Ninja1]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

Dear angry black people:

Mind your own business. The back of the bus is better anyway. All the cool kids hand out back there. Maybe you should just chill and calm down on this "civil rights" nonsense. Yeah, you can't eat in some restaurants or have decent jobs, but aren't those overrated anyway?

My point exactly. It never ceases to amaze me how utterly racist the arguments for aa are.

At least if you argue that it should be income/poverty based or something, you have some kind of defendable point. Racism, on the other hand, is racism is racism. One group getting over on another group on account of skin color.

[This is wrong.]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

Dear angry black people:

Mind your own business. The back of the bus is better anyway. All the cool kids hand out back there. Maybe you should just chill and calm down on this "civil rights" nonsense. Yeah, you can't eat in some restaurants or have decent jobs, but aren't those overrated anyway?

My point exactly. It never ceases to amaze me how utterly racist the arguments for aa are.

At least if you argue that it should be income/poverty based or something, you have some kind of defendable point. Racism, on the other hand, is racism is racism. One group getting over on another group on account of skin color.

Problem here is your definition of "racism".

Please define it as you see it.  Please make the negative connotations explicit.

[Ninja1]

Dear angry white people:

Mind your business. Perhaps the reason you can't succeed on your own is because you're too busy looking at what other people have and whining about how desperately unfair it all is.

Dear angry black people:

Mind your own business. The back of the bus is better anyway. All the cool kids hand out back there. Maybe you should just chill and calm down on this "civil rights" nonsense. Yeah, you can't eat in some restaurants or have decent jobs, but aren't those overrated anyway?

My point exactly. It never ceases to amaze me how utterly racist the arguments for aa are.

At least if you argue that it should be income/poverty based or something, you have some kind of defendable point. Racism, on the other hand, is racism is racism. One group getting over on another group on account of skin color.

Problem here is your definition of "racism".

Please define it as you see it.  Please make the negative connotations explicit.

Your schtick has apparently dried up. Tis a sad day...

I think it's pretty apparent what I'm going for by implicating racism here.