Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?  (Read 44887 times)

eruffin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?
« Reply #190 on: May 17, 2009, 08:52:21 PM »
Ok...

First Lawdog posts this...

"Race-blind or not, I would have gotten into top schools...for the record."

I say that this is factually incorrect, and quote his stat from LSN.  Lawdog, incidentally, then deletes his LSN account.  His original statement remains factually incorrect, as he admits in the following screed, which I will quote in its entirety:

Race-blind or not, I would have gotten into top schools...for the record.

I actually don't believe that you've gotten into top schools anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.

Though to be fair, you've been noticeably less ridiculous lately.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Lawdog3/jd

The credited response is no--no top schools with 3.58, 163.

You say that without looking at a transcript, resume or letter. You've never read a siongle essay, but you can suspect that I do not have the qualifications for top law schools.

That shows how little you actually know about admissions (Law or other). Or, maybe you are just reeeeaaaallllyyy jealous.

Whether you like it or not, almost any URM with a 163 can get into a top school. My 163 on the LSAT is like your 170; it puts me in the 98th% (or better, I think) for URM's. Do you realize that? And not many URM's apply to law school. Top schools want top talent, so they must evaluate URM's against each other, not just the general pool.

And my record looks extremely strong. It would be downright irresponsible for an adcom anywhere to look at a GPA and LSAT and make a decision on those alone. Let's take a closer look, shall we? Since you love rankings so much, I have a 3.587 Cum from a top-10 Public Undergrad and a University ranked #59 in the WORLD, one that really should be ranked higher. My drama degree is from the #4 program in the country, and My GPA within that major was 3.8, and that excludes the straight-A's I received in my acting courses.

What I have done isn't even remarkable, considering that people have gotten into top schools with a less stellar accomplishments.

The first thing you need to know is that I write better than 75% of the people who apply to law school, thus, I was able to make Vandy's waitlist in my first time out with a 145!

I am from the west coast, applying to mostly east coast schools, that's geographic diversity, as well as racial. I am an older student; that's another type of diversity. I am an actor; that's professional background diversity.

Moreover, my best grades were in my last two years, where I held a 3.72 average. I completed my first two years in '96 and '97,  and many law schools won't even count grades that are 10 years old. That means the grades that held all of the weight came from 2001-2003. I also took my most difficult courses during that same period; all were advanced, and almost all had difficult writing requirements. I made the Dean's List and Vice President's list every eligible term. Remember, an upward grade trend is compelling. On top of that, my best grades were in Science, Mathematics, Political Science and English. I received a double-degree.

I also excelled in philosophy and psychology, courses notoriously difficult, yet recommended for law. Six of my last 15 courses required term papers of at least seven pages. I worked full-time (+), managing a non-profit and as an account executive (where I was a top salesman). In fact, I have been a top salesman at all of my jobs and received numerous awards. Those awards are documented, and my SIX very strong letters of recommendation have come from faculty or employers who had a big part in my receiving those awards.

I overcame socio-economic hardship, from a single-parent home; neither parent graduated from high school. I have received numerous civic awards, which I will NOT name b/c they are on the 'net. I have served as a motivational speaker, touring lower-income middle schools for several years. I co-directed a date-rape and domestic violence project. And I have performed as an actor in theater (at major regional theaters, I might add) in one Off-Broadway show (correction). Remember, I majored in Drama. I have also done television commercials. More professional diversity. 

There's much more that I could mention. Like the fact that I was a non-scholarship division-I athlete as a freshman (basketball).

And if you look at other T14 URM's on this site (there's a post on African American T14 admits), you will notice others with grades and GPA's similar to mine. In fact, someone got into Harvard with a 156. And I happen to know of people who got in with far less impressive records than mine.

And my posts are always on-point. If they weren't, you wouldn't be stupid enough to respond to them, now would you?

As the quotes rather clearly demonstrate, I did not say anything regarding whether you would get into a top law school with those numbers as a URM.  I expect that you have/did.  I didn't even say anything about whether this is right, fair, etc.  All my statement implied was that you would not get into a "top law school," whatever that is exactly, with your numbers without applying as a URM.  Search LSN, see if you can find any non-URM's with similar stats who get into t-14, or whatever your definition of top law school is.

I tried, and unless I missed one their aren't any this cycle.  Had you applied as a caucasion, you would literally be the only person on LSN this cycle to get into a t-14 with 3.58, 163 (unless I missed one or two).  If you want to make the assertion that you would be the only one, then fine, but it reeks of arrogance and is likely incorrect (though that would be nearly tough to demonstrate). Moreover, the very fact that you say "my 163 is like your 170" demonstrates my original point.
3.65, 175

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?
« Reply #191 on: May 17, 2009, 09:02:21 PM »
Ok...

First Lawdog posts this...

"Race-blind or not, I would have gotten into top schools...for the record."

I say that this is factually incorrect, and quote his stat from LSN.  Lawdog, incidentally, then deletes his LSN account.  His original statement remains factually incorrect, as he admits in the following screed, which I will quote in its entirety:

Race-blind or not, I would have gotten into top schools...for the record.

I actually don't believe that you've gotten into top schools anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.

Though to be fair, you've been noticeably less ridiculous lately.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Lawdog3/jd

The credited response is no--no top schools with 3.58, 163.

You say that without looking at a transcript, resume or letter. You've never read a siongle essay, but you can suspect that I do not have the qualifications for top law schools.

That shows how little you actually know about admissions (Law or other). Or, maybe you are just reeeeaaaallllyyy jealous.

Whether you like it or not, almost any URM with a 163 can get into a top school. My 163 on the LSAT is like your 170; it puts me in the 98th% (or better, I think) for URM's. Do you realize that? And not many URM's apply to law school. Top schools want top talent, so they must evaluate URM's against each other, not just the general pool.

And my record looks extremely strong. It would be downright irresponsible for an adcom anywhere to look at a GPA and LSAT and make a decision on those alone. Let's take a closer look, shall we? Since you love rankings so much, I have a 3.587 Cum from a top-10 Public Undergrad and a University ranked #59 in the WORLD, one that really should be ranked higher. My drama degree is from the #4 program in the country, and My GPA within that major was 3.8, and that excludes the straight-A's I received in my acting courses.

What I have done isn't even remarkable, considering that people have gotten into top schools with a less stellar accomplishments.

The first thing you need to know is that I write better than 75% of the people who apply to law school, thus, I was able to make Vandy's waitlist in my first time out with a 145!

I am from the west coast, applying to mostly east coast schools, that's geographic diversity, as well as racial. I am an older student; that's another type of diversity. I am an actor; that's professional background diversity.

Moreover, my best grades were in my last two years, where I held a 3.72 average. I completed my first two years in '96 and '97,  and many law schools won't even count grades that are 10 years old. That means the grades that held all of the weight came from 2001-2003. I also took my most difficult courses during that same period; all were advanced, and almost all had difficult writing requirements. I made the Dean's List and Vice President's list every eligible term. Remember, an upward grade trend is compelling. On top of that, my best grades were in Science, Mathematics, Political Science and English. I received a double-degree.

I also excelled in philosophy and psychology, courses notoriously difficult, yet recommended for law. Six of my last 15 courses required term papers of at least seven pages. I worked full-time (+), managing a non-profit and as an account executive (where I was a top salesman). In fact, I have been a top salesman at all of my jobs and received numerous awards. Those awards are documented, and my SIX very strong letters of recommendation have come from faculty or employers who had a big part in my receiving those awards.

I overcame socio-economic hardship, from a single-parent home; neither parent graduated from high school. I have received numerous civic awards, which I will NOT name b/c they are on the 'net. I have served as a motivational speaker, touring lower-income middle schools for several years. I co-directed a date-rape and domestic violence project. And I have performed as an actor in theater (at major regional theaters, I might add) in one Off-Broadway show (correction). Remember, I majored in Drama. I have also done television commercials. More professional diversity. 

There's much more that I could mention. Like the fact that I was a non-scholarship division-I athlete as a freshman (basketball).

And if you look at other T14 URM's on this site (there's a post on African American T14 admits), you will notice others with grades and GPA's similar to mine. In fact, someone got into Harvard with a 156. And I happen to know of people who got in with far less impressive records than mine.

And my posts are always on-point. If they weren't, you wouldn't be stupid enough to respond to them, now would you?

As the quotes rather clearly demonstrate, I did not say anything regarding whether you would get into a top law school with those numbers as a URM.  I expect that you have/did.  I didn't even say anything about whether this is right, fair, etc.  All my statement implied was that you would not get into a "top law school," whatever that is exactly, with your numbers without applying as a URM.  Search LSN, see if you can find any non-URM's with similar stats who get into t-14, or whatever your definition of top law school is.

I tried, and unless I missed one their aren't any this cycle.  Had you applied as a caucasion, you would literally be the only person on LSN this cycle to get into a t-14 with 3.58, 163 (unless I missed one or two).  If you want to make the assertion that you would be the only one, then fine, but it reeks of arrogance and is likely incorrect (though that would be nearly tough to demonstrate). Moreover, the very fact that you say "my 163 is like your 170" demonstrates my original point.

TITCR.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.

JustAskin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?
« Reply #192 on: July 30, 2011, 01:11:12 AM »
The answer to how many ways to get at least one black by picking a random group of 7 from a pool of 3 blacks and 47 whites may be surprisingly high:

(n,r) = def nCr = n!/((n-r)!r!)

Odds a black applicant is admitted: ((3,1)(47,6)+(3,2)(47,5)+(3,3)(47,4))/(50,7) = 37%

Race-Blind System Hypothetical:

Yale Law has a 7% acceptance rate.

Ok, let's keep it simple. Let's say you have 100 applicants to Yale Law. Obviously, there can only be 7 admits.

Let's say that only 49 applicants have a GPA/LSAT range that Yale would accept. And an additional applicant is close numerically, but not quite at par, but he has parents who donate big money to yale.

so you're looking at an applicant pool of 50 that has to be trimmed to 7.

Also assume that 47 of those qualified applicants are white and 3 are Black.

Now stop the hypothetical right there and assume that all 50 applicants are roughly equal in their numerical scores, eductional backgrounds, and work experience (except for the 1 legacy who is not black).

What are the odds that any of the three black qualified applicants gets admitted in this hypothetical under a race-blind system?

After you answer this question, i'll ask another.