Proposal 2 and UofMich

[redemption]

RED: haha. Wow, there's a completely worthless argument.

If you'll recall, this is assuming that we can isolate all other variables. I never said we could. If you could isolate all those variables, and were SURE that they were not the relevant factor (or some combo of them), then yes, I think that it would appear that the skill required for the LSAT - whatever that is - is lacking from whatever group is scoring lower. Obviously there is a relevant skill set here. I don't know exactly what it is. I just hazarded a guess. Blacks/hispanics are obviously not "dumber" or less articulate than whites/asians.

As to the Asian gap, I would say that if all of the assumptions hold as we've said (which I am not at all pretending they do), then whites would appear to have less of that skill in general.

I never said anything about articulate. You are truly incredible - in a very bad way.

So, wait a minute.

First you doubt that empirical evidence exists even though it's in front of you and that I've pasted in this thread.

Then, you get hysterical when I repeat what you've said? What's the difference between 'facility with the English langage' and being 'articulate'?

In any case, you say, you're just hazarding a guess. Okay, fair enough. That brings up the next question, If you don't know the facts and you have no ideas as to how to reconcile the facts put in front of you, how is it that you can be against AA? How can you have an opinion on it one way or another?

[Ever]

Ever . . . your analysis is spot on. I won't go in circles. You're right - I don't "get it."

You do not argue against the idea that a economic status standard would be defensible, right? If so, go back and examine the institutionalized entitlement of whites throughout this country's history, which only ended roughly 30 years ago. Try and anticipate what impact that has had on future opportunities as a nonwhite and what that means for your children as a non white. You have been forced into a lower economic status based on nothing more than your racial status as a non white. Affirmative Action is an imperfect and overly simplistic attempt to correct that; that it possessed those lesser qualities though does not negate its merits.

Does that make more sense, or is this a repeat of what others have already said?

[mae8]

even if one agrees with racial preferences in general, the problem specifically at law schools is adcomms are dishonest (at best) by accepting people with little or no chance of becoming practicing attorneys. first time bar passage rates for law students as a whole are 88%. for blacks that number is 61%. 22% of black law students will not have passed the bar after FIVE attempts, so how exactly did aa benefit them? it gave them the opportunity to waste three years of tuition and greater opportunity costs spanning 8 years? well meaning support of aa is carried to this ridiculous conclusion, hurting everyone including the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system.

Oh, yes. The 'blacks at Harvard will fail to get a job' argument. Well done for bringing that up.

"the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system."

this was obviously referring to harvard students, not the bottom quarter of black aa "beneficiaries." gee thanks, aa helped me get into a law school where 40%+ of blacks are in the bottom decile of their class (the national average), this will surely help end racial stereotypes! i will be 4-6 times more likely than my peers to pass the bar, but judges wont care and hear my arguments because they believe in my functionality as an attorney. dont be stupid, my argument was clearly about the least qualified urm students and how aa *clearly* benefits them. it does not, and a race-blind admissions system would still allow the vast majority of urms to go to law school, just a law school where they're equally qualified and equally likely to succeed against their peers. but that would be racist.

[redemption]

"the small black minority that would not be accepted into law school in a race-blind system."

this was obviously referring to harvard students, not the bottom quarter of black aa "beneficiaries." gee thanks, aa helped me get into a law school where 40%+ of blacks are in the bottom decile of their class (the national average), this will surely help end racial stereotypes! i will be 4-6 times more likely than my peers to pass the bar, but judges wont care and hear my arguments because they believe in my functionality as an attorney. dont be stupid, my argument was clearly about the least qualified urm students and how aa *clearly* benefits them. it does not, and a race-blind admissions system would still allow the vast majority of urms to go to law school, just a law school where they're equally qualified and equally likely to succeed against their peers.

Well, kid, I hate to tell you this, but you're kind of off-topic. Check the title of the thread.

[bandaidstick]

RED: haha. Wow, there's a completely worthless argument.

If you'll recall, this is assuming that we can isolate all other variables. I never said we could. If you could isolate all those variables, and were SURE that they were not the relevant factor (or some combo of them), then yes, I think that it would appear that the skill required for the LSAT - whatever that is - is lacking from whatever group is scoring lower. Obviously there is a relevant skill set here. I don't know exactly what it is. I just hazarded a guess. Blacks/hispanics are obviously not "dumber" or less articulate than whites/asians.

As to the Asian gap, I would say that if all of the assumptions hold as we've said (which I am not at all pretending they do), then whites would appear to have less of that skill in general.

I never said anything about articulate. You are truly incredible - in a very bad way.

So, wait a minute.

First you doubt that empirical evidence exists even though it's in front of you and that I've pasted in this thread.

Then, you get hysterical when I repeat what you've said? What's the difference between 'facility with the English langage' and being 'articulate'?

In any case, you say, you're just hazarding a guess. Okay, fair enough. That brings up the next question, If you don't know the facts and you have no ideas as to how to reconcile the facts put in front of you, how is it that you can be against AA? How can you have an opinion on it one way or another?

1. I don't doubt that empirical evidence exists. I doubt your quick and silly interpretation of it. You assume that all of these factors are "accounted for." You make no argument to show the connection between those facts and that conclusion. I don't pretend to know things I don't.
2. I didn't get hysterical, and you didn't repeat me. You said I think this or that race is dumber than whites. I never said that. In fact, I denied the LSAT as an IQ test. I deny that the facts you cite can "account for" the gap. I never said or assumed any of those things. So lazy today you are . . .
3.Difference between command of the language and articulate is - among other things - a person may be very articulate and have no command over THE language. For instance, a Brazilian writer, may be very articulate and at the same time have no command over THE language relevant to the LSAT (english). There are other differences, but this is a decent one that I think you may be able to understand if you try REAL hard.
4. I am not against AA in terms of your yet to be proven relevant facts. I am against it as a policy. I think it does more harm than good both for those it discriminates for and for those it discriminates against. My views on the subject are public on other threads, and I have to go work now. Try again, but this time, change your tone and don't be lazy.

[redemption]

1. I don't doubt that empirical evidence exists. I doubt your quick and silly interpretation of it. You assume that all of these factors are "accounted for." You make no argument to show the connection between those facts and that conclusion. I don't pretend to know things I don't.



2. I didn't get hysterical, and you didn't repeat me. You said I think this or that race is dumber than whites. I never said that. In fact, I denied the LSAT as an IQ test. I deny that the facts you cite can "account for" the gap. I never said or assumed any of those things. So lazy today you are . . .


3.Difference between command of the language and articulate is - among other things - a person may be very articulate and have no command over THE language. For instance, a Brazilian writer, may be very articulate and at the same time have no command over THE language relevant to the LSAT (english). There are other differences, but this is a decent one that I think you may be able to understand if you try REAL hard.


4. I am not against AA in terms of your yet to be proven relevant facts. I am against it as a policy. I think it does more harm than good both for those it discriminates for and for those it discriminates against. My views on the subject are public on other threads, and I have to go work now. Try again, but this time, change your tone and don't be lazy.

I assume nothing, bandaid, and have made no conclusions. What I have done is pasted the results of 2 studies that show that:

a) when you match GPAs, Majors and schools of candidates to a particular school, there's an LSAT gap by race; and that

b) upper class black kids had LSAT scores lower than lower-income white kids.

I then asked you if you could account for this. You said, 'wild guess: they may have weaker deductive skills and weaker facility with the English language'.

Fine. How do you account for the fact that their UGPAs are matched, then? In other words, the 6 point gap exists among people who have the same college GPA. How come? Does an white kid with a GPA of 3.6 in English Lit have a greater 'facility with the language' tha a hispanic kid with a 3.6 in English lit from the same school? Does the black engineer with a 3.4 GPA have lesser deductive skills than the white engineer with the same UGPA from the same school? If you think so, explain what makes you think so.

I have no clue what the underlined means, so I'll skip it.

Don't forget what you complaint was when you were tugging at my skirt earlier on. You were whining that I wasn't taking your argument (read: you) seriously. Well, I am now. I'm paying close attention. I await your answers.

[parsley]

Your empirical evidence leaves a lot to be desired.  Laughing at me doesn't address that concern.

You love to point out all of the fallacies in someone's arguments, but you engage in plenty of your own.  You mischaracterize other's arguments, you ridicule, you dismiss your opponent as inferior (the peasants are engaging in an uprising?) so you don't have to respond, ignore the strong parts of other's arguments while going for the jugular on their weakest examples that are clearly tangential to the main thrust of their argument, you criticize other's data but then laugh when someone suggests that a study of LSAT scores controlling for very few factors isn't definitive...

Red, you're about 10% substance and 90% smoke and mirrors.  And on top of that, you're just plain mean and nasty.

[bandaidstick]

Nobody was tugging at your skirt. If I were as arrogant as you - thinking the entire world revolves around me - I, too, might make such a mistake.

I make no claim when you pull your assumptions away and bring in other factors. I only played along with your ridiculous and ungrounded hypothetical. "Hypothetically, if we took every relevant criteria away so that it was just race vs. race, and one race unquestionably did worse at something, would you dare so they are actually worse at something? Yes, I would. The something is taking the LSAT. IT doesn't make them dumber, and it's not even realistic, because there is no such set of circumstances. There are many factors that play into this. I waited for about an hour for you to give me a precise question. Since you went through all that work, I rewarded you with an answer. However, truth is, I think the study, your conclusions based on it (there must be some other factor determining things because of this study), and your way of putting words in my mouth (like, you think blacks/hispanics are dumber than whites/asians) are all blatant examples of ridiculous, arrogant, lazy, and fruitless brand of argumentation.

 I think it is honestly difficult to tell (at least for my puny southern, lost in a world of bud light and nascar mind to "apply the learnin my daddy spent on me" that far). Sorry

[redemption]

I only played along with your ridiculous and ungrounded hypothetical. "Hypothetically, if we took every relevant criteria away so that it was just race vs. race, and one race unquestionably did worse at something, would you dare so they are actually worse at something? Yes, I would. The something is taking the LSAT. IT doesn't make them dumber, and it's not even realistic, because there is no such set of circumstances. There are many factors that play into this. I waited for about an hour for you to give me a precise question. Since you went through all that work, I rewarded you with an answer. However, truth is, I think the study, your conclusions based on it (there must be some other factor determining things because of this study), and your way of putting words in my mouth (like, you think blacks/hispanics are dumber than whites/asians) are all blatant examples of ridiculous, arrogant, lazy, and fruitless brand of argumentation.

Listen, I understand that it's hard to be confronted with facts that don't ft your world view. I sympathize. But really, you mustn't say that it's a hypotheical that's ridiculous and ungrounded: I'm telling you that these are real numbers from real applicants, not only at Boalt (in the case of one study), but also from all applicants at all ABA schools (the Wightman study). It's about as grounded and sensible a starting point as we're going to get.

Take away socio-economic factors (parental level of education, household income), and there's a gap. Take away academic achievement as reflected in UGPA/Major/School, and there's a gap. These are facts.

Not suprisingly, you don't have an explanation. Significantly, you have never thought to ask for an explanation. Crucially, you have a ready-made answer that is resistant to the evidence before you.

Ananse provided you with some personal testimony. I suggest that you chew on that, think about whether it may be generalizable, whether it may consitute a plausible explanation for the disparity that you see, and come to your own conclusions the honest way.

kisses.

[parsley]

Anyone as manipulative as you should probably stop preaching the gospel of "honesty", intellectual or otherwise...