Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Proposal 2 and UofMich  (Read 27774 times)

!!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2006, 01:18:52 PM »

Are you doing an LRW assignment? You seem grumpy. Where's the sparky IR kid that I once knew?

You're smarter than I gave you credit for! I am doing an LWR assignment and I am grumpy because of it.  You win a cookie.

But now, I'm off to conlaw.  We're doing Roe v. Wade today.  Yay!  Talk to you guys later.

PS: You lose any and all "spark" around mid-October, when your first memorandum is due.

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2006, 01:38:29 PM »
Quote
I just don't like stupid arguments -- it's a matter of taste, that's all.

So, is the "stupid argument" the part where I say "instead"?


redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2006, 01:42:59 PM »
Quote
I just don't like stupid arguments -- it's a matter of taste, that's all.

So, is the "stupid argument" the part where I say "instead"?



No. It's the part where you don't say what you were trying to get at. Your conclusion is "socio-economic AA" not "race-based AA". Okay, how did you get there? Where are your facts and your reasoning? That's what I asked, and you came back with... I don't know what. Adhoms, I think. I'm all for pre-determined conclusions, but I think a story should come with it. Where's the story?

bandaidstick

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2006, 01:46:59 PM »
Red, he did have an argument. His argument was that if you replace race AA with socioecon. AA you still get the diverse class, but the diversity is preferable because it is not JUST skin color - it has to do with background, overcoming adversity, and being very unique. They didn't just check a box, they lived a life and have experiences that MERIT special consideration.

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2006, 01:52:26 PM »
Red, you jumped on me about "instead" ...

I didn't mention socioeconomic AA until my 4th post and even that was a side comment.  I said that I personally am OK with socioeconomic rather than race-based. 

My reasoning is:
1) I find race-based AA discriminatory. 
2) I think that subpar achievement for admissions is better explained by overcoming socioeconomic factors rather than "overcoming" one's race, gender or national origin. 

But those were all late-entry side arguments to the relatively benign argument I was first making: There can be a diverse class without using race as a determining factor in admissions.

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2006, 02:02:45 PM »
I thought the socio-economic statements were made in support of the original conclusion, which was that there was more to diversity than race.  I didn't think it was a seperate conclusion.  Although, I didn't read too closely, because I was mostly interested in the Michigan situation specifically and not in yet another debate over the merits of AA in general.    

'There's more to diversity than race': Yup -- I followed his reasoning that far.

What I didn't get was the assumption that the black or hispanic applicant pool at Michigan shows either less or more diversity in life experience (including socio-economic variation) than does the white applicant pool. If he isn't making that assumption, I don't have any idea what his post was even roughly about. If he has data on it, even better.

All I know is that the referendum that passed said that of all the diversity factors that go into an admissions decision, race is the only factor that is not allowed to be considered. Combine that prohibition with the lower median LSAT scores of black and hispanic candidates, and the number of enrolled URMs at Michigan is going to plummet. That's what happened at Boalt, at UCLA, at Texas, etc.


Red, you jumped on me about "instead" ...

I didn't mention socioeconomic AA until my 4th post and even that was a side comment.  I said that I personally am OK with socioeconomic rather than race-based. 

My reasoning is:
1) I find race-based AA discriminatory. 
2) I think that subpar achievement for admissions is better explained by overcoming socioeconomic factors rather than "overcoming" one's race, gender or national origin. 

But those were all late-entry side arguments to the relatively benign argument I was first making: There can be a diverse class without using race as a determining factor in admissions.

See?





parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2006, 02:04:35 PM »
Quote
If he isn't making that assumption, I don't have any idea what his post was even roughly about.

Then you're lost.  Not my problem.

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2006, 02:07:49 PM »
Nah. He's a pre-L

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2006, 02:09:36 PM »
I was reading the 6-word personal statements thread and had come up with clever ways to summarize mine, so I was thinking in 6-word blocks.  I just realized that I wrote that last post in the 6-word style too...

I don't get what you don't get.  I didn't say anything about the African American or Hispanic applicants or the white applicants except that merely checking the box won't be good enough.  So the identified diversity that gets people accepted won't be "black" or "Hispanic" it will be based on the other factors.  I mean, is this so controversial that you just can't let go?  Like I said, I thought it was a pretty benign point...

BrerAnansi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1276
  • Thread Killer
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2006, 02:24:05 PM »
Parsley...I don't want to make any statements until I'm clear about what you're saying...

So in your ideal admissions system, poor applicants would be asked to perform as well as middle-class+ candidates...to give the same output but with less input??  Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you can declare two 3.6, 173 candidates to be comparable if one worked 30 hours a week yet found time to commit to a few extracurriculars and the other had a few extracurriculars...I don't know about you, but I would think "Hey Guy2 had so much more free time and still didn't manage to do any better than Guy1. I'm gonna take Guy2."  You???...

Quote
Gosh, but I thought being socio-economically disadvantaged wasn't a problem as long as you follow your dreams! A little Google, a little common sense, and nothing should stand in your way!

I still say there's pretty much no excuse for an empty resume.  But I have much more sympathy for someone who worked 20 hours a week working in the computer lab and still managed to get a 3.6 and hold leadership positions in three clubs.  In my dream system, a socioeconomic AA applicant should say "This is what I accomplished in spite of these specific challenges that I faced" not "I accomplished nothing, but hey, I was poor!" 


Grrr...

Quote from: 1LCorvo
If there aren't any arguments against my claims, then I'll depart gracefully. Feel free to continue the concordant attack on my character, it's funny.

Quote from: Saxibbles
Hugs,
Look to the f-ing left.