Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Proposal 2 and UofMich  (Read 28769 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #280 on: November 15, 2006, 04:06:02 PM »
A refresher:
[snip]


maybe i'm slow...what does this mean, red?

Ditto (not that you are at all slow, Galt). One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #281 on: November 15, 2006, 04:07:31 PM »
Quote
One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?

Wait. 

Maybe red = parsley!

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #282 on: November 15, 2006, 04:17:17 PM »
Okay, you don't trust Lani Guinier.

But there were other aspects of Galt's post that you rejected, and that had nothing to do her. Which is actually why I bolded them.

Why do you not trust the Lempert, Chambers & Adams study? [Who would you trust not to lie about data? Law Schools themselves? LSAC? Anyone?]

Is it okay that 300+ out-of-state applicants with higher GPA/LSATs were rejected at UT in 1997-8, so tha 109 in-state white kids could be admitted 'just because' they 'ticked a box' on the application form?

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #283 on: November 15, 2006, 04:18:00 PM »
mae8 has been waiting for a response.  As I understand it, her question is why the disproportionately low first-year grades of URM students do not indicate that the LSAT is, in fact, highly predictive for URMs.

I don't have the energy to get into it or to step much further into this thread, but here's a sketch of a start from about a year ago:

Some of the dumbest people at my law school are white. What explains that?
I am pretty sure there have been studies done that show that URMs consistantly perform poorer on average than other students in law school.  Of course there are going to be many exceptions in both directions, but that does not negate the empirical evidence.  

I am assuming for the sake of this argument that you and the OP think that affirmative action means admitting URMs with lower UGPA and LSAT scores than their white peers, and that relying on these indices in a race-blind fashion would produce better matches of students to schools.

Yes, there have been studies like the ones you imagine, though most of them concerned with bar passage rates (not law school grades per se).  LSAC conducted a bar passage rate study in the late 1990s (published in 98) that most seem to agree is reliable(www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAC-National-Longituinal-Bar-Passage-Study.pdf).

The study showed that African-American students with the same UGPA and LSAT scores as similarly situated (same-tier LS) white students earned lower grades in LS.  This implies that something else, aside from the UGPA and LSAT scores of the applicants, led to differences in LS performance.  (The same was true for Latino/a, Asian-American, and older students.)  The reigning hypothesis (I think) is that environmental features of the average law school (such as professors' lowered expectations of, classmates' hostility toward, and feelings of alienation among students in underrepresented groups) are to blame for the lower grades.  Ironically, this suggests that increased efforts to recruit and enroll URM students would be the best way to "help" URM students who have a hard time in law school.
 
So...I guess you can drop an controversial statement with the preface "I am pretty sure there have been studies done that show..." if you're the kid with the 180?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, really, but this is a pretty lame argument if you're trying to say that affirmative action puts URMs at a disadvantage.  :)
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #284 on: November 15, 2006, 04:20:28 PM »
Ditto (not that you are at all slow, Galt). One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?

Haha. I just wanted to highlight parsnip's arguments to show him that his objections apply equally well to in-state programs.


Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #285 on: November 15, 2006, 04:22:40 PM »
Ditto (not that you are at all slow, Galt). One almost suspects that this was meant to be posted from another account... ?

Haha. I just wanted to highlight parsnip's arguments to show him that his objections apply equally well to in-state programs.



I eventually got it, but it didn't quite work for me.  You're so Mr. Miyagi lately.  :D
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

lawschoolgulf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #286 on: November 15, 2006, 04:37:41 PM »
answer the question. yes or no.

I think I can dig up an old answer for you:


im glad to see that you have provided evidence for all races having equal intelligence. your response is purely faith based. you dont think its fair that some races would be less intelligent, so you deny the possibility and cuss out anyone who disagrees.

I'll prove that all races have equal intelligence the day you prove that all angels can move through the ether at the exact same speed.

I've read that male angels can travel through the ether faster and this study is validated because they had better calibrated speed guns.

So, based on my posting history, I believe that if there is an inherent difference in angel velocity, than the state should not step into the ether.

what exactly is that old answer answering? cause it certainly isn't answering my question.

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #287 on: November 15, 2006, 04:38:49 PM »
Quote
Why do you not trust the Lempert, Chambers & Adams study? [Who would you trust not to lie about data? Law Schools themselves? LSAC? Anyone?]

1. The study covers 1976 - 1996.  See comments above about the changes to affirmative action, attitudes about race, government policies and public education changes since 1976. 

They survey 700 African Americans, 300 Latinos and 60 Native Americans and use a sample of 900 white students from the time period. 

The survey then relies on self-reported data for job satisfication, bar passage, etc.  Only 51% of blacks responded (and guess what? if you failed the bar, hate your job and suck at life, you are less likely to respond to a "professional development" survey reminding you of all that) but 62% of whites did.  Many respondents skipped questions. Many of the questions called for a self-assessment.  Lemper uses only ultimate bar passage, and not first-time bar passage.  Just a quick skim of the old google came up with some of these flaws, and I'm guessing I could find more.

And, according to an article I skimmed (that was actually lauding the study) it shows that Lani Guinier seems to have presented the data in a biased way.

Lani says:
Quote
That study was followed by one at the University of Michigan Law School that found that those most likely to do well financially, maintain a satisfying career, and contribute to society, were black and Latino students who were admitted pursuant to Affirmative Action.

Wrong.  It in fact showed few racial differences among responding alumni... but the Guinier presentation of the data seemed to suggest that minorities did BETTER than whites on the measures in the study.  I haven't checked the study to see the exact measures that Lani lists, but it sure isn't an accurate representation of the study as a whole. 

The only thing I saw that minorities exceeded whites on was pro bono hours, although both minority and white alumni averaged over 50 pro bono hours per year. 

lawschoolgulf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #288 on: November 15, 2006, 04:39:31 PM »
Okay, you don't trust Lani Guinier.

But there were other aspects of Galt's post that you rejected, and that had nothing to do her. Which is actually why I bolded them.

Why do you not trust the Lempert, Chambers & Adams study? [Who would you trust not to lie about data? Law Schools themselves? LSAC? Anyone?]

Is it okay that 300+ out-of-state applicants with higher GPA/LSATs were rejected at UT in 1997-8, so tha 109 in-state white kids could be admitted 'just because' they 'ticked a box' on the application form?

you seriously don't see the difference between a state school funded by state taxpayers giving preference to its own residents and giving people a boost based solely on the color of their skin? if anything, your argument cuts the other way because blacks and hispanics are more likely to require financial aid and be a financial burden on the school, not a benefit.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #289 on: November 15, 2006, 04:40:03 PM »
Wait, no one else came to the same conclusion as me? Maybe I got it wrong. But I digress... Not that I'm even here. Miss P, fancy meeting you here ;)

I'd much rather be meeting you for a drink in the Embarcadero, love. ;)

No, your explanation made perfect sense. I was just teasing redemption for being so damned didactic.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.