Hope for Diversity at a top Law School

[Casper]

Seriously!  The problem with AA is letting those who are NOT qualified, a spot that would otherwise be filled with someone who is.  I look at US Medical Schools using AA as a guide.  The disservice is that those who get URM treatment in getting admitted and don't past the boards, is a totally waste of resources.  Given that there are limited number of seats in med school. 

[dgatl]

People - just step into a law school, and all you will see is white people.  Give this AA *&^% a rest (because even though i've been on LSD for two months, i've seen 4 or 5 threads about it) or better yet, believe in your own ability to get into a law school on your own merits.  If you don't, its not because a URM took your spot, its because the law school didn't want you.

PEACE.

[Cheeks]

This is an interesting point ...

a school like Harvard says ~30% of its student body is 'coloured' ... I was wondering the other day if you looked at the class, this would appear to be evident.  I'm not stating an opinion on this subject either ... just a random thought

[Casper]

People - just step into a law school, and all you will see is white people. Give this AA *&^% a rest (because even though i've been on LSD for two months, i've seen 4 or 5 threads about it) or better yet, believe in your own ability to get into a law school on your own merits. If you don't, its not because a URM took your spot, its because the law school didn't want you.

PEACE.

Ok, I will take it that the world isn't fair.  And I will use every network to get me into a top law school.    

[IrishGuyJay]

Ok, in all seriousness:

Why don't we have "affirmative action" based on socio-economic status? If I'm a rich minority from the burbs who attended the best schools, why should I receive preferential treatment over a poor white kid who grew up without a father? My problem is with the OP's formation of the issue as being a uniform "let black people in with low scores" policy, which he believes is a good thing.

I couldn't agree more.  It's too bad that this isn't the current situation.  But it's not, so I think our current situation of giving a bit of an advantage to minorities who are historically socionomically disadvantaged (thus, underrepresented) is better than nothing.

It would be much more difficult to institute a uniform system based on socioeconomic status and/or those who grow up with family problems (since they're mostly complex, individual cases), but that doesn't mean that they aren't looking for poor, white kids who grew up without a father.  That's what the personal statement is for.  I "only" have a 164, but I met the admissions director from a T14 school a few months ago and after he read my PS he signed the back of one of his business cards, told me to attach it to my application instead of the $70 fee and it would act as a waiver.  He told me that I offer a diversity factor, which shocked the hell out of me -- I'm Irish and that's about as white as it gets.  I am gay, however, but he didn't know that.  Of course all this could mean nothing and I'd still get rejected, I guess.  haha. 

But, anyway, yeah -- they'll take notice of poor socioeconomic status if one writes about it.

[A_guy]

*sigh*

here we go again...


1.  AA was not designed to allow unqualified applicants into schools and jobs over qualified ones.  It was designed to keep qualified minorities from being excluded for being a non-white male.

2.  IF AA has been distorted it has been distored by the people enforcing it.

3.  It is not reverse discrimination.  Non-minorities are not being systematically excluded from admssions and jobs.  If there was discrimination we would see a decrease in non-minority representation in schools and the workforce while seeing a significant increase in minorities.

4.  People on this board and in general assume, incorrectly, that if i minority applicant gets in over a non-minority applicant he/she is benefinting from AA and is less qualified than the non-minority.  People speaking out against AA focus will not ackowledge the fact that it was not their intellectual abilitities that kept minorities on the outskirts of the american dream, it was ystem wide discrimination for years.

5.  No matter what u think law schools do look at other things besides numbers (NU comes to mind).

6.  Minorities aren't taking "YOUR" seats b/c a seat at ur first choice or any law school is not gauranteed.

7.  Minorities are pulling in numbers equal to or higher than urs.

8.  Basing AA on socio-economic status alone will not work.  In a system prone to discrimination what would happen is a situation that would lead once again to a situation where minorities will be excluded because of race.  If u could satisfy AA by excepting only poor non-minorities, based on history, we will see a decrease in the representation of minorities on college campuses and in the workforce.  there needs to be a way to use socio-economic status and URM status together without sacrificing one or the other.

9.  LET THE ATTACKS BEGIN!!!

[musicalone8123]

Well, I completely agree with you, A_guy. I think few people in this country actually know what AA is, and I find myself even frequently explaining to other minorities what it is. Besides, technically, minorities are not getting into law school under Affirmative Action simply BECAUSE Affirmative Action only means that schools are saying they will not REJECT minorities and women or anyone else based solely on race. And they aren't doing that, so, I agree--no one can yell "reverse discrimination." It's not like a committee that is going to be majority White is sitting there saying, "This applicant is White--we don't want them." They wouldn't let that happen.

Minorities are diversity admits, and oftentimes even more than that because sometimes we have more to bring to the table than our ethnic background...and we even sometimes score as well as Whites and Asians and perform as well in the classroom. If you look at the materials top law schools hand out, many of them state that diversity is ONE of their MANY criterias and that diversity does not solely pertain to race/ethnicity--meaning ANYONE can bring diversity and, thus, have that advantage in admissions working for them. Just as A_guy and some others state, if an applicant from the "majority" is rejected, it's that applicant's fault...especially since many applicants from the "majority" refuse to believe that anything matters but numbers and race. If you underestimate the importance of your diversity, work experience, extracurriculars, personal statements and recommendations, then of course you're going to get rejected--so blame yourself. Even the woman who brought the suit against the U of Michigan was logically in the wrong because she was trying to blame Affirmative Action and "reverse discrimination" for getting rejected when she only scored a 161 on the LSAT, as if that's SO impressive that she should have been an auto-admit there. She obviously had to be assuming that other factors were going to come into play for her--oh, such as her being 49, a mother of two, having work experience and being a Michigan residence--and, yet, diversity is not supposed to be a factor?

And, to me, the importance of diversity is not too different than (and CERTAINLY not worse than) admissions offficers saying things like:

-"This person's parents graduated from our law school, and THIS person's parents didn't--let's take the legacy applicant."
-"This person's family donated hundreds of thousands to our school, and THIS person's family didn't--let's take the donators' kid." (And how do you think George W. Bush got into Harvard and Yale, and how do you think his DAUGHTER got into Yale--go complain about THAT for a change!)
-"This person is coming from an Ivy League undergraduate, but THIS person is coming from a fourth tier undergraduate--let's take the Ivy League graduate."
-"This person made a 3.3 in physics, but THIS person made a 3.7 in political science--let's take the physics major."
-"This person is a resident of our state, but THIS person is not--let's take the resident."
-"This person is from Montana, and we're a New York school that gets tons of New York applicants--let's take this Montana applicant over this New Yorker."
-"This person has several years of interesting work experience, but THIS person is coming straight from undergraduate--let's take the person with work experience."

And several other examples of, what you could classify as, inequality if you even cared to. There are MANY unfair facets of the admissions process, but you people only insist oncomplaining about one.

I agree with the original poster (way back when) about minorities not letting numbers discourage you away from top schools. UVA IS one of the top schools that looks beyond the numbers and is very interested in getting African Americans, for example, mainly due to UVA's history of racism. They DO accept Blacks with scores in the 150's...and, if you think about it, it makes sense. Blacks and other minorities with higher numbers are going to get into and attend higher-ranking schools than UVA (I know UVA isn't exactly my top choice, ESPECIALLY with it being in the South and Virginia--which is something a lot of Southern schools know they have to overcome with many minorities applying to top law schools). A lot of top schools might be claiming that they are 30% minority, but the majority of whom they are calling minorities usually are Asians...who aren't going to have any problem applying and getting into top schools anyway, especially in areas such as California, Texas and Florida where they are concentrated in high numbers. Schools have to work harder to attract and get minorities from groups such as African American, Latino and Native American (for example, I'm trying to figure out why a city that has as many Blacks as Chicago does has schools that has way more Asians than Blacks...and, at Northwestern, even has more Latinos than Blacks). The fact remains that, yes, top law schools--and law schools in general--look lily-White when you go on campus. At most, usually, a top law school will have 50-70 Blacks in its first-year class...and to have 50-70 Blacks, the school usually has to be a big one like Georgetown (450 1Ls) or Harvard (550 1Ls). Yale has about 15 Blacks in its first-year class...out of 190 or so first-year students. So White applicants really aren't hurting that much except for what they do to themselves by ignoring the importance of the admissions criteria set forth by the law schools.

In terms of socioeconomics--I think we all have personal examples of ways in which how our parents grew up affects us. Just because a minority is upper-middle class today doesn't mean they don't still feel the effects of the past. Just because a minority is upper-middle class doesn't mean they have been immune to discrimination and other experiences that might have held them behind their White counterparts and would richly benefit a law school classroom discussion. And, to be honest, I don't believe, what many of you call, "AA by class" would make THAT much of a difference because guess who the majority of the poor and lower-middle classes are? Minorities. That's not going to benefit Whites any more than "AA by race" does.

[heyya]

Excellent post A_guy.  You hit all the main points.

People have such frustrating misconceptions about AA. 

[the REAL desi]

can I just point out that the law schools that I have personally seen (including my own) are not diverse at all.  if you count jewish as a separate race, then yes, it would be diverse.  of course my own people are richly over-represented, but in general, not too diverse.

[amelus]

can I just point out that the law schools that I have personally seen (including my own) are not diverse at all.  if you count jewish as a separate race, then yes, it would be diverse.  of course my own people are richly over-represented, but in general, not too diverse.

when you say not diverse do you mean very few minorities within the school or are you referring to some other measurement of diversity (e.g. diversity of thought)?

which schools that you have seen are you referring to?