Does AA help *TOO* much?

[lawstudent3]

Let me preface this discussion with a caveat:  this will not turn into a hatefest.  I will not hesitate to lock and/or delete this, so lets keep things civil.

Now, I have ALWAYS been a supporter of AA.  My understanding of it, however, has been more of a "benefit of the doubt" and/or "tiebreaker" sort of thing.  But, at least with law school, it seems almost as if it helps too much and that could be a disservice in the long run.  For instance, I'd have no problem whatsoever if a URM with a 161 and 3.5 got into a school I wanted to get into over me.  To me, that's fair.  It's within the margin of error and that's the benefit of the doubt.  What I have a harder time understanding is the huge boost some get, sometimes even the equivalent of 10+ points.   I don't think typical 164s, URM or not and barring any extraordinary circumstances (there will always be some amazing stories), should be regularly getting in to HYSCCN.  That, to me, is stretching it.  What are your thoughts?

[lawstudent3]

Agreed. But where exactly would you draw the line? And could you clarify what you mean by benefit of the doubt?

I guess I mean that when two candidates are roughly even, the benefit should always go to the URM.

[lawstudent3]

Okay, so at what point would you say AA helps too much?

That's the tough part.  Maybe when it's outside the statistical margin of error, or score band, as LSAC puts it.  So a 3 point difference would be alright but 4 not.  Of course, this is a lot harder to put into practice, and there gets to be a point where we can't really assign that sort of precision to it, unfortunately.  What do you think?