Other Non-URM Borderline Candidates in favor of AA?

[ORM2007]

First: I am a white male who is convinced that affirmative action is an important tool that ultimately helps to protect long term societal stability. Why and how I reached that conclusion is not relevant to this post, which I hope will not be taken as yet another invitation to anti-AA folk to remind us how they feel.

My question is, does anyone have a suggestion for a more...satisfying...perspecti ve for a borderline non-URMs to take? Because when I take the short (i.e. self-interested) view, I can't help but feel inner tension, particularly when I look at lawschoolnumbers.com and think:

"School [Top14] accepted about two dozen people last year with my 165ish/3.7ish, which means I've got a halfway decent shot--I think my soft assets will dominate most others with similar GPA/LSATs out there in a head to head. If I apply to 10 such schools, I should get in to one or two."

Then I filter to exclude URMs. Suddenly all the 165ish/3.7ish candidates disappear. 

Thus far, I've only come up with the following:

1: "If they didn't account for URM's, those lower-score slots simply wouldn't exist--fewer applicants would be accepted."

2: "Promoting societal stability and ensuring URM role-models are represented in adequate numbers in professional career tracks is more important than whether one or two white kids get to go to the University of Michigan this year."

3: "No one is a victim in this world. If you wanted to go to UVA so badly, you should have worked harder to make sure that you didn't get a low borderline score like a 163 on your LSAT. And if you really care that much, go to GW and transfer."

4: "Life isn't fair to all people all the time. Get over it."

Thoughts?

[Boss]

--remember that LSN is a very small and very unrepresentative sample of the application pool. URMs with competitive numbers are overrepresented on LSN because they are likely to have less access to experienced pre-law advisors and to peers from similar backgrounds who have applied to similar schools: the internet and sites like LSD, xoxo, TLS & LSN are on average even more useful to them [for advice etc] than to the general population. that's very likely why you see the 3.5/167 admits disappear when you uncheck the URM box on LSN.

This what I hold to. 

[Ilovecheese]

1st of all use Chiashu instead of law school numbers, it's more accurate since there are a lot of profiles on LS numbers that are flames.

[==caI==]

First: I am a white male who is convinced that affirmative action is an important tool that ultimately helps to protect long term societal stability. Why and how I reached that conclusion is not relevant to this post, which I hope will not be taken as yet another invitation to anti-AA folk to remind us how they feel.

My question is, does anyone have a suggestion for a more...satisfying...perspecti ve for a borderline non-URMs to take? Because when I take the short (i.e. self-interested) view, I can't help but feel inner tension, particularly when I look at lawschoolnumbers.com and think:

"School [Top14] accepted about two dozen people last year with my 165ish/3.7ish, which means I've got a halfway decent shot--I think my soft assets will dominate most others with similar GPA/LSATs out there in a head to head. If I apply to 10 such schools, I should get in to one or two."

Then I filter to exclude URMs. Suddenly all the 165ish/3.7ish candidates disappear. 

Thus far, I've only come up with the following:

1: "If they didn't account for URM's, those lower-score slots simply wouldn't exist--fewer applicants would be accepted."

2: "Promoting societal stability and ensuring URM role-models are represented in adequate numbers in professional career tracks is more important than whether one or two white kids get to go to the University of Michigan this year."

3: "No one is a victim in this world. If you wanted to go to UVA so badly, you should have worked harder to make sure that you didn't get a low borderline score like a 163 on your LSAT. And if you really care that much, go to GW and transfer."

4: "Life isn't fair to all people all the time. Get over it."

Thoughts?

Why the hell is your name ORM if you're a white male?

[reeshard]

Affirmative Action is important, but they're doing it entirely wrong.  It should be targeted to help poorer people, not necessarily minorities.  A lot of the time those categories overlapp, but I have a feeling those cases aren't well represented among AA admits.

[dresblues]

And ya know what else, you could be filthy rich, born in Africa, immigrated to USA, and white, and get the benefit of URM.

[Ilovecheese]

I really think AA should be based on the present economic status of an applicant rather than just race. I know of some rich suburban blacks who got into Harvard and Stanford with numbers below median, and I really do not think that they should have deserved AA. There are many people with low numbers who do not have time to study for the LSAT or do very well at schools because they have to work full time and support their families. AA was created to force institutions to accept colored people into their programs, as of now the purpose of AA is being misused in many cases by under achieving persons.

[Denny Crane]

Why the hell is your name ORM if you're a white male?

ORM = overrepresented majority.

Makes sense to me.

[Boss]

Why the hell is your name ORM if you're a white male?

ORM = overrepresented majority.

Makes sense to me.

Generally on this board ORM means overrepresented minority, such as Asians.  Minority in America, but overrepresented in law schools, at least overrepresented enough to not be considered a minority.

[Denny Crane]

Why the hell is your name ORM if you're a white male?

ORM = overrepresented majority.

Makes sense to me.

Generally on this board ORM means overrepresented minority, such as Asians.  Minority in America, but overrepresented in law schools, at least overrepresented enough to not be considered a minority.

I see a good deal of LSN profiles from White applicants that list ORM as their race.