Proposal 2 and UofMich

[bandaidstick]

his point (or her, I don't know), if you care to read the next post, is that they DIDN't have to check the box. He/she makes no statement about what they would have checked had they been asked to. tralalallalalksjoei n

[parsley]

Red,

As much as you'd love for me to be some bumpkin bigot, I'm not.  What you're looking for in my statement is just not there. I'm clearly saying that I think that alternate measures of diversity will succeed in creating a suitably diverse class -- and in some ways more diverse than just a check in a box as a measure of diversity.  I'm NOT saying that black people can't play the cello and Hispanics can't paint well.

[redemption]

Red,

As much as you'd love for me to be some bumpkin bigot, I'm not.  What you're looking for in my statement is just not there. I'm clearly saying that I think that alternate measures of diversity will succeed in creating a suitably diverse class -- and in some ways more diverse than just a check in a box as a measure of diversity.  I'm NOT saying that black people can't play the cello and Hispanics can't paint well.

Not saying you are. Not even thinking it. I'm just saying that that paragraph is badly expressed (that much is clear), and that I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

You say, "instead", and I think, hmm, false choice: I have no reason to believe that anything other than LSAT scores separates the average black or hispanic candidate from the average white candidate. I wonder if parsely knows something I don't. Do you?

[parsley]

Red,

I post on this board while at work (sh, don't tell my boss) so every once in awhile, I may not express something with the thought and care that perhaps I should.  But at any rate, I don't mean "instead" in the way you suggest.

Maybe URM and non-URM candidates a separated by more than LSAT.  But I think what separates them is pure speculation on anyone's part without seeing the applications.  And in the cases when a URM is also socioeconomically disadvantaged, there are likely to be gaps in other areas of the application as well but I would attribute that to $$ rather than race.  Which is why I favor socioeconomic AA and not race-based URM AA.

[redemption]

Maybe URM and non-URM candidates a separated by more than LSAT.  But I think what separates them is pure speculation on anyone's part without seeing the applications.  And in the cases when a URM is also socioeconomically disadvantaged, there are likely to be gaps in other areas of the application as well but I would attribute that to $$ rather than race.  Which is why I favor socioeconomic AA and not race-based URM AA.

It's not pure speculation -- there's data, lots of it. It's not socioeconomics, it's the LSAT.

[parsley]

Care to share?

[redemption]

Google -- it's the great equalizer

[parsley]

Red - I was wondering specifically which data YOU were referring to.

[redemption]

Red - I was wondering specifically which data YOU were referring to.

LSAC data -- it's the only data set there is.

[parsley]

Red - LSAC data mysteriously seems to lack the applicants' LORs, GPA corresponding with undergraduate school, PS, and resumes.  Maybe mine is broken?