Is it right to give someone preference because of their race?Isn't that the question here. We would all probably agree that it was an immoral practice for schools to give preference to someone because they were White and Protestant when they did.One of my professors would always emphsize that ethics should always be consistent- otherwise they are just justifications. Why can't they have an application with no RACE box? If Harvard wants to admit URM's despite their lower scores, why would it be wrong for another school to admit whate males over minorities with lower scores because they want more white males?
Is it right to give someone preference because of their race?
There is always the choice not to record your race if it means that much to anyone.
Quote from: TopGunna on March 07, 2006, 09:35:42 AMOur LS has had about 8 dropouts from our class this far, and 5 of them are of URM status. I read an article about the problems with dropout rates in LS. People are going to schools where they're not qualified to attend, therefore they're either in the bottom half of their class, or drop out after a semester. This does not apply to all URM's, but this is a trend among many schools. You can not take a dropout rate of one school into account when opposing AA. But, even if all but one person who got in due to AA were to dropout and that one person goes on to be a lobbyist, is it not all worth it?It is not like HYS or any other T14 school has a tough time recruiting. A spot that opens up after the first year will promptly be filled by a majority transfer student.AA is not about cheating majority people, it's about trying to create a better society with its long term mission. A small number make up people that actually get in because of AA in the first place. I would be happy to give up a spot into a T14 for someone less fortunate in life than I was.
Our LS has had about 8 dropouts from our class this far, and 5 of them are of URM status. I read an article about the problems with dropout rates in LS. People are going to schools where they're not qualified to attend, therefore they're either in the bottom half of their class, or drop out after a semester. This does not apply to all URM's, but this is a trend among many schools.
re: urms leaving schoolyou do realize that finances do play a part in this, right? what happens if you lose your scholarship because you have a 3.2 and you needed a 3.25 to keep the $$$$? is that your fault? re: bottom 10% this depends on the school. bottom 10% at harvard likely has the numbers to be there without aa. bottom 10% at a 4th tier, if the rumour about cooley failing out half the class is true, is not so terrible. data can interpreted in many ways. the problem with aa action is not found in the statistics but in the minds of the majority. they all too quick to hitch their prejudicial wagon to it. aa does not 'harm' the black community. the idea that it does is just asinine. the best schools in the country are supposed to provide the best education. 90% of the best education is better than 100% of the worst. even a bottom 10% harvard grad has a better career outlook than a top 3rd/4th tier grad. damn, sometimes i just wish i could go around smacking sense into people. i love how people keep using the same ideas about how aa is "the wrong way to do it." well what is the right way? how do you even out economics. how do you take personal preference in job hiring (i.e. prejudice) into account? how does the poor student afford that expensive suit for his interviews? if you honestly think blacks would be more competitive for jobs coming from low ranked schools with higher gpa's your crazy. let's say for example that EVERY worthy black applicant was funneled into the 15-30 ranked schools. what is to stop many big firms from adopting a "only top 14 grads" approach? in many ways the law IS about who you know and where did you go.
re: 146s at tier1 and tier2. prove to me that these are the urms that are failing out of law school. i bet these individuals likely have very high gpas and are capable students. where do you get that data. in general urms have stats at the 25s (at least one of the numbers is usually at the 25 for those given any boost). you are first going to have to show me data on how many 146 scores getting into tier1 and tier2. i bet it's not that many in the tier1. even if its 50 total in the top 50 schools and 100 in the tier 2 that would not have a really strong impact on the data. that's only 1/2 students per school. and some of these students will presumeably do just fine. i love how you said you were talking about the people in the middle. a 146 does not place anyone in the middle. you just implied that most urms in law school have sub 150 lsats and good percentage have sub 146s. i don't care what the averages say. only a small percentage of urms scoring that low are going to get in anywhere. i bet these students are the highly motivated, poor standardized test taker, types who will do quite well in law school or atleast study hard enough to pass their classes. "If you're trying to promote diversity, is it better to have a small percentage of people eek by in the bottom 10% of their respective classes, or a higher percentage of people graduate period from a less acclaimed school? Is it better to have 10 URM grads from Harvard and 50 dropouts of schools between 15-30, or reverse those numbers?"reverse those numbers? do you mean 50 grads from harvard and 10 dropouts from schools between 15-30? i really don't think this was clear, but i get what you are trying to say. i have to say (if i have to choose) that it IS better to have more prestigious urm grads than shear volume of grads, for the short term. the thing is that this whole profession has a strong prestige component. it does matter where you went to school. it does matter who you know. the thing that many people don't do is look at the extremes. say you have 1000 tier4 urm grads entering the market but there is no urm representation in the highering firms and no desire to do so. those 1000 tier4 grads are going to be looking for work somewhere else. that's what the aba is trying to prevent. corporations, which tend to be representative of the face of america want diversity in the firms representing them. the thing is that no firm is going to be forced to higher a tier4 lawyer who they can argue is incompetent. it is very hard to say a top 20 grad is incompetent. if this means that some tier 2 numbers student gets bumped into the tier 1, so be it.