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

[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...

[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.

[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.

There, someone finally phrased the question in an intelligible way. Thank you.

Yes, the school admits people that are "qualified" based on their criteria and awards scholarships the same, but how does that make people with poor numbers and a convenient skin color anything besides un/underqualified compared to other applicants that are not admitted despite having superior numbers and an inconvenient skin color? And the same with scholarships. What entitles someone with an LSAT and GPA below a school's 25%s to a scholarship (and usually a generous one) when someone with vastly superior numbers will get little or no money? Is the debt they both leave with not measured in the same currency?

I've got jobs before that I knew I was underqualified for. The fact that I got them didn't change that at all, and that's what I'm saying. To assume your qualified for something just because you get it when you know you should have no such feelings is a recipe for disaster.

I don't have any sense of entitlement, I just have a good sense of what is fair and what is discriminatory. I got into a good school with my own good numbers and wanted nothing more. However, I see it happen often enough that people get jobbed for being the wrong color, and what isn't wrong about that?

[CTL]

Ugh...I shudder at the thought of New Jersey.  I promised myself, my friends, and my family I will never move there.

[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.

There, someone finally phrased the question in an intelligible way. Thank you.

Yes, the school admits people that are "qualified" based on their criteria and awards scholarships the same, but how does that make people with poor numbers and a convenient skin color anything besides un/underqualified compared to other applicants that are not admitted despite having superior numbers and an inconvenient skin color? And the same with scholarships. What entitles someone with an LSAT and GPA below a school's 25%s to a scholarship (and usually a generous one) when someone with vastly superior numbers will get little or no money? Is the debt they both leave with not measured in the same currency?

I've got jobs before that I knew I was underqualified for. The fact that I got them didn't change that at all, and that's what I'm saying. To assume your qualified for something just because you get it when you know you should have no such feelings is a recipe for disaster.

I don't have any sense of entitlement, I just have a good sense of what is fair and what is discriminatory. I got into a good school with my own good numbers and wanted nothing more. However, I see it happen often enough that people get jobbed for being the wrong color, and what isn't wrong about that?

First of all, placing quotes around qualified indicates that you're either quoting it from somewhere, or using it ironically. Both are improper in this case. Whether the school chooses to admit any student based on any criteria as long as it's not deemed discriminatory is entirely their business. Theirs is the final decision on who is qualified, so if they choose to select a candidate with a lower LSAT, lower UGPA and a convenient skin color, in the eyes of the admissions committee, that person is imminently qualified, not un/underqualified and certainly not ironically "qualified." And the extra money going to a candidate being accepted on the basis of URM status generally goes to offset a statistical fact that URMs have a harder financial situation than white candidates. But all of that is actually moot, because nothing belongs to anyone--not the seat, and certainly not the check--until it's given to them. No one is losing out on anything, because it never belonged to them in the first place. No one is deserving of anything in law school admissions until it's given to them.

Quotes for debatability more than anything else, but neither here nor there.

I agree it's up to the schools to decide the criteria, but what is not discriminatory about basing admissions on basically on skin color? You give an awful lot of deference to the schools here, probably too much.

You can lose a lot by not getting a seat that, by the numbers, should be yours. See: Any of the million or so threads on here about higher ranked v. lower ranked schools.

[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.

There, someone finally phrased the question in an intelligible way. Thank you.

Yes, the school admits people that are "qualified" based on their criteria and awards scholarships the same, but how does that make people with poor numbers and a convenient skin color anything besides un/underqualified compared to other applicants that are not admitted despite having superior numbers and an inconvenient skin color? And the same with scholarships. What entitles someone with an LSAT and GPA below a school's 25%s to a scholarship (and usually a generous one) when someone with vastly superior numbers will get little or no money? Is the debt they both leave with not measured in the same currency?

I've got jobs before that I knew I was underqualified for. The fact that I got them didn't change that at all, and that's what I'm saying. To assume your qualified for something just because you get it when you know you should have no such feelings is a recipe for disaster.

I don't have any sense of entitlement, I just have a good sense of what is fair and what is discriminatory. I got into a good school with my own good numbers and wanted nothing more. However, I see it happen often enough that people get jobbed for being the wrong color, and what isn't wrong about that?

First of all, placing quotes around qualified indicates that you're either quoting it from somewhere, or using it ironically. Both are improper in this case. Whether the school chooses to admit any student based on any criteria as long as it's not deemed discriminatory is entirely their business. Theirs is the final decision on who is qualified, so if they choose to select a candidate with a lower LSAT, lower UGPA and a convenient skin color, in the eyes of the admissions committee, that person is imminently qualified, not un/underqualified and certainly not ironically "qualified." And the extra money going to a candidate being accepted on the basis of URM status generally goes to offset a statistical fact that URMs have a harder financial situation than white candidates. But all of that is actually moot, because nothing belongs to anyone--not the seat, and certainly not the check--until it's given to them. No one is losing out on anything, because it never belonged to them in the first place. No one is deserving of anything in law school admissions until it's given to them.

Quotes for debatability more than anything else, but neither here nor there.

I agree it's up to the schools to decide the criteria, but what is not discriminatory about basing admissions on basically on skin color? You give an awful lot of deference to the schools here, probably too much.

You can lose a lot by not getting a seat that, by the numbers, should be yours. See: Any of the million or so threads on here about higher ranked v. lower ranked schools.

Discriminatory against whom? People the school is under no obligation to admit?

Would've been, could've been, should've been. All immaterial. No one has any claim to that seat until the deposit's paid.

Discriminatory against whites (especially white males) and, debatably, asians.

Why was it a problem to discriminate against blacks in the South and not allow them to enter certain restaurants/trains/most anything else? The proprietors of those business were under no obligation to admit them, so that was cool, right? This is the same problem that I see with basically all arguments for aa; proponents of it, by inference, are either arguing that all discrimination historically has been ok or that it's ok to discriminate against people so long as they're of the right color.

Lost opportunity is not immaterial to this discussion. In fact, it's actually pretty central to the whole discussion; who gets the shot and who doesn't, and why. You're correct that the seat is no one's until they pay their deposit, but that isn't really what we're talking about.

Odd that Goon goes away and NJ shows up...

[Ninja1]

Ugh...I shudder at the thought of New Jersey.  I promised myself, my friends, and my family I will never move there.

I have a long standing, well document anti-New Jersey bias. The place gets used as a waste dump by everyone else for a reason.

[Ninja1]

Actually, I showed up because I had some free time, which I no longer do. And I usually avoid AA threads because they end up just like this: same arguments, around and around.

True. Everyone's pretty entrenched in their views on the topic and I've never seen anyone have a change of heart in one of these threads. These topics are mostly just fun to argue and race bait. Good lawyer practice I guess.

[Matthies]

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? 

[This is wrong.]

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.)