Quote from: parsley on November 15, 2006, 05:14:36 PMOh come on ... race in America has changed since 1976.Wow, big bold statement that is.White is the new black, people, haven't you heard?
Oh come on ... race in America has changed since 1976.Wow, big bold statement that is.
Socio-economic AA instead o race-based AA. I ask, why? Why instead? Why can't we acknowledge that just as poverty, class and yes, caste, have some role in limiting one's GPA and LSAT, so too does race, independent of income and parental profession?
Color-blind admissions for equal opportunity, aka "racial preferences". This strikes me as jumping ahead in the argument. If the playing field isn't even in the first place -- if race and the burden of racism is indeed a factor in creating an uneven playing field, then correcting for that strikes me as closer to the equal opportunity objecive than does ignoring it.
"Just by ticking a box". This strikes me as a facile attempt to reduce the experience of race in this country to nothing at all. Further, URMs aren't the only ones that 'just tick a box': in-staters do, too; legacies do, too.
Merit. This is surely the most disingenuous argument of them all. Yes, a 120 and a 180 are differently prepared for law school. But what about a 173 and a 169? What about a 166 and a 161? The score band, at the very low 68% confidence interval is 7 points wide; at the more usual 95% confidence interval, it's 11 points wide. In that context, even assuming that the LSAT could predict what it is valuable to know, the differences between the median LSAT of admitted URMs and the median LSAT of the class does not suggest that the URMS are 'unprepared'. When compared to the lower tenth decile of admitted white students, the difference is one and sometimes 2 LSAT points. What's that, in terms of preparedness for law school? Nothing at all.
AA hurts URMs. Silly. Especially when it is deployed in the context of an argument about AA at T1 schools. The most important indicator of future career success is the law school that you attended. Period. Not LSAT (which has no relationship at all to any career indicators), not UGPA, not ECs or personal statements. You know what hurts URMs? Atending a school with a low barpassage rate, attending a school with poor placement records etc. But that also hurts whites. In absolute terms it hurts more whites than blacks or hispanics or both combined.
AA causes whites to be mean to URMs. Hmm. Guess what? Same story when women were first admitted to UGs and law schools and offices in the grandmother AA program. Men kicked up a fuss then. They really did. they reached for their biology textbooks to show why it couldn't work. Who cares now? Who thinks that women were hurt by it now? Would I have been able to apply and attend law school without that AA program generations ago? Same story with Jews (stndardized tests were first used in college admissions in order to keep Jews out of Harvard and Princeton. It didn't work). Same story with Asians.
3. They really do believe that black and hispanic people are inherently incapable (the IQ argument) or inherently lazy (the culture argument
1. They really have no idea of how the admissions process works, what the data is, etc; or2. They are being just selfish (and anxious) about their own opportunities and will support whatever will (or would have) helped them to the exclusion of anyone else3. They really do believe that black and hispanic people are inherently incapable (the IQ argument) or inherently lazy (the culture argument); or4. They just plain old don't like people who are black or hispanic or whatever, and blaming them is the first thing that they reach for when things don't go their way -- round up the usual suspects, etc.
You expressed doubt over the mere existence of racial injustices in our society today; that is a "big bold statement." (It's kind of like me saying, "I suppose there's a chance that Bill Gates might be wealthy." The doubt is absurd.) Further, I don't see why it's at all clear that "the injustices in our society" have necessarily changed since 1976.
I just have a hard time comprehending that a student whose numbers suggest Loyola/Colorado/Wisconsin would do favorably at the schools in that range, but more likely to struggle at Penn, Columbia, and Yale. I can't see there being that drastic a change in the course-work. And to get back to my bigger point, I can't understand how a URM, whose numbers likewise suggest UConn or UGA but was "bumped" into NYU, would also be more likely to struggle. I would think that if she were to struggle, could the reasons not be more varied than just "her grades/scores weren't up to par"?I would further think that those who look at URM admits as mercy cases are doing a fine job at projecting their own biases and prejudices.
missed it sorry