Quote from: non parata est on February 02, 2009, 08:44:03 AMQuote from: LawDog3 on February 02, 2009, 01:49:01 AM(including white women, its primary beneficiaries)All right, this has been troubling me for a while now. What's the source for this? The only report I've been able to find on this is a DoL statement from 1995. Is there anything to suggest that this is still true?There's no source for it because it's inaccurate, at least as referring to college and professional school admissions. You may be interested in this thread where this claim was discussed and/or thrown around without support.
Quote from: LawDog3 on February 02, 2009, 01:49:01 AM(including white women, its primary beneficiaries)All right, this has been troubling me for a while now. What's the source for this? The only report I've been able to find on this is a DoL statement from 1995. Is there anything to suggest that this is still true?
(including white women, its primary beneficiaries)
Quote from: Miss P on February 02, 2009, 08:50:33 AMQuote from: non parata est on February 02, 2009, 08:44:03 AMQuote from: LawDog3 on February 02, 2009, 01:49:01 AM(including white women, its primary beneficiaries)All right, this has been troubling me for a while now. What's the source for this? The only report I've been able to find on this is a DoL statement from 1995. Is there anything to suggest that this is still true?There's no source for it because it's inaccurate, at least as referring to college and professional school admissions. You may be interested in this thread where this claim was discussed and/or thrown around without support.I wouldn't say it's inaccuratehttp://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/femhist/education.shtml#historyThe link it to an article with a few important dates and institutions that shaped the way women and education have been formed.If you think just 40 years ago women were not out working in the "real world" or in law firms, or doctors offices. They were homemakers and maybe teachers or nurses if they were outside of the home.And then when women began working they were not (and still are not always) given equal compensation. They were frequently punished for trying to be successful and raise a family and usually to the detriment of their careers.Women were not always admitted to the top law schools and grad schools. They were not considered to need education that was not about cooking, cleaning or diaper changing.So there is something to be said for including women as under represented minorities. In the late 1960's and 1970's more educational institutions realized the disparity between women in school and started making special provisions to include women in their programs. Today the number of women is almost equal that of men. But in certain career fields such as medicine, science, engineering, math, and yes...law--Women are still an under represented group.It didn't happen overnight but it took a large group in the majority to realize the vast difference in educational opportunities for women and decide to make provisions to fix it.It may seem like crap now because there are so many women in school, but the point has validity.
Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!
I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.
Don't judge me. You've not had my life.
Quote from: LawDog3 on February 09, 2009, 05:39:09 PMQuote from: Dead Horse on February 09, 2009, 05:21:26 PMQuote from: LawDog3 on February 09, 2009, 05:18:26 PMQuote from: Stole Your Nose! on February 04, 2009, 06:53:17 PMA lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed. And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead. Eyeroll. I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side. Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance. Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution). Do you only post when you're high?Let me get this str8...I have to be high to admit a fault (albeit a trendy one)? You don't have it straight. There you go, reading poo into it that isn't there. I just asked if you only post high.
Quote from: Dead Horse on February 09, 2009, 05:21:26 PMQuote from: LawDog3 on February 09, 2009, 05:18:26 PMQuote from: Stole Your Nose! on February 04, 2009, 06:53:17 PMA lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed. And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead. Eyeroll. I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side. Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance. Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution). Do you only post when you're high?Let me get this str8...I have to be high to admit a fault (albeit a trendy one)?
Quote from: LawDog3 on February 09, 2009, 05:18:26 PMQuote from: Stole Your Nose! on February 04, 2009, 06:53:17 PMA lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed. And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead. Eyeroll. I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side. Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance. Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution). Do you only post when you're high?
Quote from: Stole Your Nose! on February 04, 2009, 06:53:17 PMA lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed. And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead. Eyeroll. I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side. Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance. Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution).
A lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed. And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead. Eyeroll. I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side.
No, it's the belief that minorities are inherently disadvantaged
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."
Quote from: SamE397 on February 10, 2009, 09:48:08 PMNo, it's the belief that minorities are inherently disadvantagedFalse.
Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.
I'd love to join this LGBT club. It's the Legos, Gobots, Barbies, and other Toys group, right? I'll show up with an armful of toys.
Quote from: Rachel Ray on February 20, 2009, 10:27:01 AMDo women still need AA? No, studies frequently point out today that women now outnumber men in post-secondary education. How do you think they accomplished this?
Do women still need AA? No, studies frequently point out today that women now outnumber men in post-secondary education.
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
Discussion
Resources
