Would AA make you less likely to hire a black lawyer/doctor?

[petitschoque]

Now do you see why I hold the beliefs that I do?

Ooh, ooh, pick me! pick me!

Does the answer have to do with the fact that you're a rather sheltered tool utterly ignorant of your own foolishness and lacking the sense to shut up while your betters converse? It isn't hard to see why you hold the beliefs you do. The only mystery is why you think you're qualified to share them. I don't think anyone with a discerning mind has any doubt at this point just how ill-suited you are for anything better than ditch-digging and it's all your fault for outing yourself. Talk about unqualified law school admits. Numbers really must cover a multitude of sins.

----------------------

SC, I'm going to pause to put you back under my shoe for just a second but after this point, you get no more attention. I mentioned your mother not to be mean but simply because my conscience demands I tell the truth. When I encounter particularly unworthy lowlifes like you, I know they were parented by equally unworthy embarrassments. Simple deduction. Duh.

founder of the "nobody likes you" club

est.- the day you were born 

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds," and your mind is especially vile and base in its mediocrity so why should it come as any surprise that you dislike me? Did you think expressing that would make me change my wicked ways? Lol. People better than you have disliked me so join the club quietly. Silly cretin.

[SCgrad]

Now do you see why I hold the beliefs that I do?

Ooh, ooh, pick me! pick me!

Does the answer have to do with the fact that you're a rather sheltered tool utterly ignorant of your own foolishness and lacking the sense to shut up while your betters converse? It isn't hard to see why you hold the beliefs you do. The only mystery is why you think you're qualified to share them. I don't think anyone with a discerning mind has any doubt at this point just how ill-suited you are for anything better than ditch-digging and it's all your fault for outing yourself. Talk about unqualified law school admits. Numbers really must cover a multitude of sins.

----------------------

SC, I'm going to pause to put you back under my shoe for just a second but after this point, you get no more attention. I mentioned your mother not to be mean but simply because my conscience demands I tell the truth. When I encounter particularly unworthy lowlifes like you, I know they were parented by equally unworthy embarrassments. Simple deduction. Duh.

founder of the "nobody likes you" club

est.- the day you were born 

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds," and your mind is especially vile and base in its mediocrity so why should it come as any surprise that you dislike me? Did you think expressing that would make me change my wicked ways? Lol. People better than you have disliked me so join the club quietly. Silly cretin.

whatever, tool 

did your mom teach you that "deduction"?  maybe that explains how she is a lawyer and you're still poor? 

[AtlantaSteve]

I was kidding around when I tossed in my Alcoholics Anonymous joke earlier, I stumbled across this thread through the "Latest Posts..." box on the site's main page and thought the subject was funny.  I ordinarily wouldn't have seen the thread because I've never been in this board before.  Having read around a bit, I've reached the conclusion that this thread, and really this entire board, is utterly ridiculous and could be shut down.  Most of the whites posting here are transparently bigoted... and most of the blacks would do well to memorize the Serenity Prayer (google it) and chill out, when you carry around that much anger your ability to reason gets impaired and everything you say sounds stupid.

As for the question posed here... not really.  Sure, when I see a black lawyer I will of course assume that their school was a few notches above where they would have been accepted otherwise.  However, at that point you get into a discussion of how much of a ranking-whore you are... and most of the world doesn't have that bug as bad as the kiddies on LSD do.  If I think that an alumi from a school ranked #71 should have gone to #86, that really isn't even a factor in my mind.  If anything, race is just one factor that I would think of regarding school rankings.  When I meet a white or asian lawyer from Yale or Hardvard... I have to wonder if they are really a brilliantly competant attorney, or if they're a lawyer of average ability who focused on grades during undergrad and does well on standardized tests.  People love to argue that the LSAT is deeply flawed as a measure of how you'll perfrom in law school, well I would argue that law school is deeply flawed as a measure of how you'll perform as a practicing lawyer.

I'm from the "show...me...the money!" school of thought, I'm more likely to pre-judge a lawyer based on past results and personal presence.  If I were a high-powered executive shopping for corporate counsel, I would want to see resumes and references from past clients... that kind of work depends on experience and real-world knowledge.  If I were Joe Sixpack looking for a workman's-comp or divorce lawyer, I would mostly consider "soft factors" such as charisma and presense... that kind of work depends on being a strong negotiator and the ability to charm a jury.

[veg]

OK, admittedly I haven't read the entire thread, or even the first post. But in answer to the question that the thread title poses: No. It's all the same once you've been to LS or MedSchool. I usually don't ask where my doctor went to MedSchool. I do ask my lawyers, though, just out of curiosity now that I know something about rankings, etc.
I don't think the school matters once someone's been practising a long time, and I also don't care whether they got in via affirmative action or not.
My immigration attorney is Black, and it didn't occur to me that AA may have helped her get into a good school until I asked her what she got on the LSAT (after I took it). She described her score as "not very good," but she went to Vanderbilt. However, that doesn't change the fact that she's a great attorney. It just does not matter to me where they went to school OR how they got in, ultimately. It only matters to me that they're good at what they do NOW.

[bass]

I think that I am unlikely to hire a black lawyer/doctor for two reasons that have nothing to do (well, we'll see) with AA.

First, the one that has to do with AA, but not in the intended sense.  There aren't, proportionally or otherwise, a whole lot of black lawyers and doctors out there.  Even if I were to choose at random, I'm pretty sure the odds still point to white middle-aged (perhaps aging) man.  I don't have the statistics, so feel free to correct me here.

The second reason is somewhat more complicated.  It has to do with how I choose a doctor or lawyer.  I think that it's hard to know who to choose among doctors and lawyers.  My current doctor is not black, and I do not currently have a lawyer.  If I move to a new area, I'm likely to choose a doctor based on two factors that will have some effect on their likelihood to be black. 

The first is going to sound somewhat racist, but you can make your own decision there.  Since working in nice suburbs generally is more desirable, particularly for a doctor, and since, in my experience in Philadelphia, doctors in the suburbs tend to have certain advantages over the city doctors, I'm likely to look for a doctor in that sort of area.  In my experience (and again, no statistics), a greater proportion of black doctors tend to work in cities than in suburbs.  If this is true, then I'm less likely to go to a black doctor.

The second factor I'd base my decision upon is the recommendations of friends that I trust in a given area.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of my friends are white (I think this is relatively common for someone from my background), and I suspect that for their own reasons, they are more likely to go to white doctors.  If I ask them for recommendations, I'll probably get a white doctor.  Should I get a black doctor, that's fine with me--if a friend recommends him, he is probably great.  I just want a good doctor.  This is the primary factor I'd consider probably, even though it's imperfect.

This has nothing to do with the thread.

Also, there are some arguments above that have become tired, but I'll throw some unreasoned positions at them:

1) legacy and URM - you can't hate one too much without hating the other.

2) Petitschoque - I really don't think AA was designed for people of your socio-economic status.  Take it or leave it.

3) Daveman - I'm with you, for better or for worse.

4) Working - I worked between 25 and 35 hours per week during college.  10 is bs.  Work is not necessary related to race.

[Lurking Third Year]

How can you support legacies but not AA without having your head implode?  I guess the only way is if you just have never thought about it...

People always make comments like this, and while I don't really care about this argument, I think it's clear that there is a difference.  The Constitution explicitly deals with discrimination on the basis of race, and even benign racial discrimination is generally prohibited.  Indeed, Grutter -- the case that held using race as a factor in law school admissions to further diversity/diversity is a compelling state interest -- is criticized in many circles and even my liberal con law professor who admittedly likes the result confessed that the Court may not have propertly applied strict scrutiny.  There is, however, no constitutional prohibition dealing with legacy admissions (though I suppose an argument could be made that they are being used as a surrogate for race as applied in some cases). So, there is clearly a reasonto treat racial preference differently from those based on legacy.

[Lurking Third Year]

How can you support legacies but not AA without having your head implode?  I guess the only way is if you just have never thought about it...

People always make comments like this, and while I don't really care about this argument, I think it's clear that there is a difference.  The Constitution explicitly deals with discrimination on the basis of race, and even benign racial discrimination is generally prohibited.  Indeed, Grutter -- the case that held using race as a factor in law school admissions to further diversity/diversity is a compelling state interest -- is criticized in many circles and even my liberal con law professor who admittedly likes the result confessed that the Court may not have propertly applied strict scrutiny.  There is, however, no constitutional prohibition dealing with legacy admissions (though I suppose an argument could be made that they are being used as a surrogate for race as applied in some cases). So, there is clearly a reasonto treat racial preference differently from those based on legacy.

This distinction only really applies to public schools, however. 

True, the difference is only legally relevant to state actors.  But in a general debate, I still think that the fact that one type of discrimination is arguably unconstitutional and the other bengin is sufficient to think of them differently, or at least that drawing a distinction b/w the two isn't absurd.

[Lurking Third Year]

True, the difference is only legally relevant to state actors.  But in a general debate, I still think that the fact that one type of discrimination is arguably unconstitutional and the other bengin is sufficient to think of them differently, or at least that drawing a distinction b/w the two isn't absurd.

Hey, race is very closely aligned with legacies, which are significantly more white than the rest of the population.  If legacies were given more preference, it's not clear there'd be any URMs at universities (we called that the Ivy League in the 50s).  They're interrelated.

I noted in my post that legacy status may be a surrogate for race in some instances -- I understand the relationship.  However, at least as a constitutional matter, disparate impact alone isn't enough.  In other words, when interpreting the equal protection clause, the courts distinguish b/w the use of race directly, and the use of factors that, while not directly involving race, have a correlation with race.  My point still stands that, as a constitutional matter, it makes sense to treat legacy admissions policies differently than those that those based on race.  All I'm trying to say is that it's not absurd to have a problem with one and not the other, and that factors other than self-interest could justify that belief. 

[Lily Jaye]

just to play devil's advocate here...you have a doc and a lawyer for parents with rich clientle.  obviously you never suffered monetarily/were economically disadvantaged. yet your race WILL help you out in admissions processes

not that im saying that a bad thing..just noticing things

Hey suzieq, nice catch, I like your style. You're quite right that my parents are well off now however your assumption that I've never suffered monetarily or been economically disadvantaged is wrong. It wasn't so long ago that things were very different for us and I think part of my self-esteem is derived from knowing we turned nothing into a heckuva lot whereas most people in the same income bracket were born with a lot and just stayed there.

So you worked 40 hour weeks while you were 12 to help your parents out?  Because if not, I don't see how you had anything to do with it.

[Special Agent Dana Scully]

My last two doctors have been black (West Indian actually), so I have no problem with it.  Why would I, being black and all.  My dentist is white--again no problem.  I'm going to go to the person who knows what they are doing and knows how to treat their patients.  End of story.  I never ever thought to ask my doctors where they went to school or what their gpa/scores were.  For what?  Obviously, they have to past some type of medical board--which are graded blind.  THus if they past, they know their stuff (hopefully--that goes for all doctors bc malpractice does not work based on skin color).

Additionally, I agree with whoever said that if one dislikes AA then they should dislike legacy admissions.  I know some legacy admits, and a lot of them are dumb as hell.  As a matter of fact, my friend worked in the admissions office and told me that this one kids scores were so low (way lower than an avg URM) that there is no way he would have gotten in otherwise.

Also, the whole idea of one being qualified or not is totally subjective.  One call say that someone is not qualified for entrance into a grad program just because their board scores were in the 90th percentile instead of the 99th.  That's ridiculous. 

All of these AA comments tlaking about unfairness and unqualified urms seem to come about full force during admissions.  "They took my spot"  I always laugh at that.  Did anyone ever think that maybe schools have an unwritten number of urms that they want--thus the urms are competing for spots against other urms?  With that, they may have a set number of white or asian students that they want, so these people are competing against each other.

blah, I hate these arguments...