How much does race affect admissions?

[fincavigia]

Do you think the average GPA/LSAT (which let's face it, is all they really care about) is substantially lower at a given school for the black students?

By that I mean, do you think a school with a 3.5/172 average has a 3.2/165 average for it's black students?

[oldblackman]

If they did, you would never find it in writing.  I'm sure no school wants to be the next Michigan or SIUC. 

Only those who have access to a school's database of applicants/admitted students could provide you with a definitive answer.  However, I think your assumption is probably true (at some schools), but minority applicants still have to be exceptional in some other way if their GPA and LSAT are lower.

[rugger]

i don't know for students, but i spoke with a black prof. from one of the ivy league schools, and he admitted (even though he was brilliant) that there were more qualified white prof than he, but the school needed to raise its number of black prof. so he was offered the job

he then went on to say that black prof. were the hottest thing to have for all the ivy league schools, and you could be a slightly above average black male prof. and get offered a lot more money than you were worth

just throwing this out there for waht its worth

[pikey]

i don't know for students, but i spoke with a black prof. from one of the ivy league schools, and he admitted (even though he was brilliant) that there were more qualified white prof than he, but the school needed to raise its number of black prof. so he was offered the job

he then went on to say that black prof. were the hottest thing to have for all the ivy league schools, and you could be a slightly above average black male prof. and get offered a lot more money than you were worth

just throwing this out there for waht its worth

Of course there are more qualified white profs than him.  There are more black, white, asian, hispanic professors than him.  I'm going to let you in on a secret from the working world.  There's always people who are more qualified than the one who gets the job.

Hiring usually has to do with the person who is qualified according to certain aims or biases, which the person doing the hiring has a lot to do with.  In my company, they try to find the most qualified Bermudian.  Some people may be trying to find the most qualified white person.  Maybe its the most qualified female or the person who promotes themselves the most (not the same as most qualified).  You get the point.

Just because the aims aren't blatantly stated, as in the case of AA, does not mean that they aren't there and aren't active in hiring and promoting decisions.

[merde]

Well if you search this board you'll find URMs with LSATs in the 163 area who get into Columbia, and URMs with scores lower than 170 who got into Yale and Harvard.

While no matter what their experiences and GPAs, unless they have absolutley phenomenal connections no white male with a LSAT lower than 175 is getting into Yale. 

I'm not neccisarily implying that I'm against AA, that's a very complex debate involving many diffeent variables, but it's ridiculous to deny that being a URM doesn't play a significant role in law school admissions.

[Lsassy]

Hummm, are you sure that "unless they have absolutely phenomenal connections no white male with a LSAT lower than 175 is getting into Yale", because I happen to know a few of them who got admitted with a 172, 170 and (gasp!)a 168 .  Oh and by the way, when schools publish their median LSATs and GPAs, it inherently means that some people will fall below and above that number. Sheeshhh, one would hope that someone planning on attending (or who is currently in) law school could figure that out, à moins que tu sois un imbécile, hein Merde?

[pikey]

Well if you search this board you'll find URMs with LSATs in the 163 area who get into Columbia, and URMs with scores lower than 170 who got into Yale and Harvard.

While no matter what their experiences and GPAs, unless they have absolutley phenomenal connections no white male with a LSAT lower than 175 is getting into Yale. 

I'm not neccisarily implying that I'm against AA, that's a very complex debate involving many diffeent variables, but it's ridiculous to deny that being a URM doesn't play a significant role in law school admissions.

Why is it that nobody gets upset about the fact that legacies also get a boost in admissions processes?  If anything, they should be the people who need it the least, because if your parent(s) graduated from a top school it's highly unlikely that you're suffering from any type of hardship.

By the same token, everyone like to attact AA, conveniently forgetting that the people who have benefitted the most from AA are white women.

[plaintext]

legacies can be of any race?  I don't support it, but there are notable differences between legacy and AA?

[pikey]

legacies can be of any race?  I don't support it, but there are notable differences between legacy and AA?

What's the difference?  Where's the fairness in that?  If one opposes AA because he or she feels that it's a blanket policy that rewards people for things that are beyond their control (their race) then how are legacies, which rewards people for being lucky enough to be born to someone who went to a certain school, any different?

If a school is allowed to have a goal of rewarding alumni or encouraging legacy admits and using a certain policy to acheive this, then why is it any less legitimate for them to have a goal of encouraging diversity and using a similar policy to acheive it?

I think it's pretty ironic that the rich conservatives who attack AA and social programs benefit from the most from their own system of handouts (from tax cuts to legacy admits to govt subsidies).

[plaintext]

that assumes the same principle(s) are applied to all candidates, which I seriously doubt happens.  a white person, a URM, a poor person, and a legacy are each evaluted by different criteria... at least with the acknowledgement there isn't a universal yardstick for a cross comparison. 

If a school is allowed to have a goal of rewarding alumni or encouraging legacy admits and using a certain policy to acheive this, then why is it any less legitimate for them to have a goal of encouraging diversity and using a similar policy to acheive it?

my understanding is most schools with legacy admits also have URM boosts, so it's difficult to address that.  the only point in commenting is justifying a policy based on the illegitimacy of another policy just sticks out.  For example, I do support some URM boosts for diversity and representation reasons, but not on the basis of another wronged policy such as legacy admits.