Where is the outrage over these numbers?

[Hybrid Vigor]

I was referrin to UG admissions.  And the cause, among other things, is the rampant illegitimacy, parents who don't care, and warped values. 

I don't get it. How does illegitimacy (in and of itself) lead to low test scores?

Also, if these things are the basis of low test scores...I don't get why you would hold them against the kids who somehow manage to get past it (by insisting that the LSAT be the yardstick to measure their qualifications)

[Hybrid Vigor]

It's important to a point.  However, as most people who have attended LS will tell you, those who work hardest in law school don't necessarily get the best grades.

Do I think LSAT measures intelligence perfectly?  No.  Do I think there's a very strong correlation?  Yes.

As for the second question, I don't know.  Do you? 

Very true @ working hard =/= good law school grades. I am still not of the opinion that schools should pick who will do best in law school - as someone else pointed out, half of the people will be in the bottom half of the class anyway. They might as well use some other criteria.

A correlation in which direction? I would say that people who well on the LSAT are in fact very intelligent. However, that's not the same as saying all intelligent people do well on the LSAT or not doing well on the LSAT means one is not intelligent (but given your emphasis on logic, I'm sure you already know that). What do you define as "doing well"? 90th percentile? 95th? 99th? Do you think there are great differences in intelligence between people who score 90th percentile and those that score 99th?

[Hybrid Vigor]

It's important to a point.  However, as most people who have attended LS will tell you, those who work hardest in law school don't necessarily get the best grades.

Do I think LSAT measures intelligence perfectly?  No.  Do I think there's a very strong correlation?  Yes.

As for the second question, I don't know.  Do you? 

Very true @ working hard =/= good law school grades. I am still not of the opinion that schools should pick who will do best in law school - as someone else pointed out, half of the people will be in the bottom half of the class anyway. They might as well use some other criteria.

A correlation in which direction? I would say that people who well on the LSAT are in fact very intelligent. However, that's not the same as saying all intelligent people do well on the LSAT or not doing well on the LSAT means one is not intelligent (but given your emphasis on logic, I'm sure you already know that). What do you define as "doing well"? 90th percentile? 95th? 99th? Do you think there are great differences in intelligence between people who score 90th percentile and those that score 99th?

Obviously, "doing well" is relative, and depends on the school in question.  Do I think there are differences in intelligence between people who score 163 and those that score 172?  Probably.

True. And I wouldnt disagree that there might be differences in "intelligence" in whatever kind of intelligence is measured by the test, but I wouldn't say those differences are substantial or nuanced enough to warrant differentiation between candidates based on it.

Informative discussion. See yall tomorrow.

[cp4three2]

can't minorities get the same treatment if they have legacy?

[galex]

Don't be silly.  There's no such thing as a urm with legacy status. 

[some weird girl]

Alumni fuel donation campaigns. Admitting legacies is good business. They're a sucker bet.

100% correct. 

actually it's true, if a family member is alumni, and they donate well, then the school will think your likely to donate after grad, and that your family might up your donations. I go to school with a kid that one of the dorms at my school are named after his grandfather, the kid is dumb as a post, but he never gets in trouble, and is graduating in 4 years (wow).

[Catherine Morland]

Don't be silly.  There's no such thing as a urm with legacy status. 

Oh no! Apparently, I don't exist 

[nick1]

Nobody wants to talk about legacy admissions; everybody wants to female dog about affirmative action.  Why?  Because the people who benefit from legacy admissions are the elites of our society.  Of course the whole matter is going to be kept quiet. 

Sure, some legacy admits are also minorities, but most are wealthy white students from historically elite families.  I couldn't believe it when I found out that, among kids on my hall in college, nearly half of them had a parent who went to the school. 

No outrage.  Because it keeps the elites.. elite.

[flyaway]

Nobody wants to talk about legacy admissions; everybody wants to female dog about affirmative action.  Why?  Because the people who benefit from legacy admissions are the elites of our society.  Of course the whole matter is going to be kept quiet. 

Sure, some legacy admits are also minorities, but most are wealthy white students from historically elite families.  I couldn't believe it when I found out that, among kids on my hall in college, nearly half of them had a parent who went to the school. 

No outrage.  Because it keeps the elites.. elite.

I think that legacy admissions are just a drop in the bucket, and there is at least the impression that AA has a much larger impact on the admission process.  I don't think anybody (other than the elite) likes legacy admissions or wants to maintain that system; it's just perceived to be a very small-scale problem.

[nick1]

Yes, they are wrongly perceived to be a much smaller 'problem' than affirmative action admits.  But I believe that this, partially, is attributable to the difference between the beneficiaries of legacy vs. affirmative action.  Beneficiaries of legacy admissions are in power; want to keep it that way; control dialogues.