AA "haters"

[philibusters]

Oh, I should add that the reasoning you see above is also the reasoning behind my support of socioeconomic-based AA over race-based AA.  In fact, I hate the concept of "race" as it is commonly used. 

Why don't you write something on the socio-economic threat then, my position is that it would be too hard to adminster socio-economic AA in that thread.

Also to some extent, if the point is to bring legitimacy to the law in communities that have traditionally been alienated from it like I said in my last post, socio-economic AA just wouldn't be as good most likely.

[philibusters]

That was his intent I believe, but multiply what.  Only the number of urm lawyers?  Or does that also include multiplying the impact that the institution of the law has on those communities?

[SCgrad]

if you assume quantity most likely equals quality, i guess so.

[philibusters]

if you assume quantity most likely equals quality, i guess so.

They are two different things-but you may be right.  Would simply having more urm lawyers in a community automatically equal that people in the urm community use them to settle their disputes. Will their presence (hopefully well dressed and well mannered) be a reminder of the prestige of the law in urm communities.  I don't know the answer to these questions, but you might be right quantity might in itself equal quality-though I don't think the word quality is the word I would use, I mean more "greater impact."

[FossilJ]

You can't control quality.  You can't force a new lawyer's hand.  However, by controlling quantity, you can increase the chances that a bright new lawyer goes back to his or her disadvantaged community.  It's a numbers game -- if more are trained, more are likely to return.

The post isn't circular.  It stands.  Point 1 is necessary for Point 2.  They are not the same, but they are related. 

As for socioeconomic AA, I've hashed all this stuff out so many times on this thread, I don't really feel like doing it.  I only wrote that last post last night because I was procrastinating; technically, I'm on a post break from LSD. 

[philibusters]

You can't control quality.  You can't force a new lawyer's hand.  However, by controlling quantity, you can increase the chances that a bright new lawyer goes back to his or her disadvantaged community.  It's a numbers game -- if more are trained, more are likely to return.

The post isn't circular.  It stands.  Point 1 is necessary for Point 2.  They are not the same, but they are related. 

As for socioeconomic AA, I've hashed all this stuff out so many times on this thread, I don't really feel like doing it.  I only wrote that last post last night because I was procrastinating; technically, I'm on a post break from LSD. 

I shouldn't have said circular, all I meant was that I couldn't tell from your if the goal was to bring the law to urm communities for its own sake, or to bring law to urm communities for the sake of creating more urm lawyers.

Its not a question of does quantity = quality, its a quesiton of does quantity x = quantity y, in other words I think its assumed the quality of the law is good and an improvement in urm communities where the law has a weak influence, so theres no doubt that bring the any amount of the law in is an improvement in quality, I think the question is does more urm lawyers mean there will be more interaction between the urm communities and law.

[FossilJ]

You can't control quality.  You can't force a new lawyer's hand.  However, by controlling quantity, you can increase the chances that a bright new lawyer goes back to his or her disadvantaged community.  It's a numbers game -- if more are trained, more are likely to return.

The post isn't circular.  It stands.  Point 1 is necessary for Point 2.  They are not the same, but they are related. 

As for socioeconomic AA, I've hashed all this stuff out so many times on this thread, I don't really feel like doing it.  I only wrote that last post last night because I was procrastinating; technically, I'm on a post break from LSD. 

I shouldn't have said circular, all I meant was that I couldn't tell from your if the goal was to bring the law to urm communities for its own sake, or to bring law to urm communities for the sake of creating more urm lawyers.

Its not a question of does quantity = quality, its a quesiton of does quantity x = quantity y, in other words I think its assumed the quality of the law is good and an improvement in urm communities where the law has a weak influence, so theres no doubt that bring the any amount of the law in is an improvement in quality, I think the question is does more urm lawyers mean there will be more interaction between the urm communities and law.

And I'm saying that it's the best way of doing so.  The more lawyers you have in an area, the higher the likelihood that the community will interact with them.

I'm saying that the goal of AA is to bring law to URM communities for the sake of creating more URM lawyers, the feedback loop of which brings law to URM communities for its own sake (I assume you mean for the sake of actually being useful/helpful to such communities).

[Gary Glitter]

too bad most of these URM candidates get sucked up into the big law machine and forever disappear into some office or cubicle writing summary judgement memos for some big time partner

there is now a dearth of URMS in most biglaw institutions and thus they are now being recruited *heavily* - not sure how this effects your trickle down to the URM communities theory

[catamount]

I think Alcoholics Anonymous is fine. If you need to quit drinking before law school, then why not? I don't understand how someone could hate AA.

[dbgirl]

I think Alcoholics Anonymous is fine. If you need to quit drinking before law school, then why not? I don't understand how someone could hate AA.

Actually most people start drinking a lot MORE once they're in law school, so the need for AA increases