Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Hope for Diversity at a top Law School  (Read 5650 times)

the REAL desi

  • Guest
Re: Hope for Diversity at a top Law School
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2004, 10:58:50 AM »
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?

i'm talking about racial diversity in general.  i've seen some schools in the southeast and a few in the midwest. 

ImVinny!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2242
  • What am I?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hope for Diversity at a top Law School
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2005, 05:02:19 PM »
Well, I suppose I should add my two cents in here. Has anyone ever thought of just eliminating that whole section, forget about asking what race/ethnicity someone is, and we'll probably get diversity anyways, because anyone can score as high as they are capable of, and everyone needs to study, no matter where you are from to get a good score on the LSAT, so I don't see how people with lower LSAT scores should benefit from something they can't even control!

hilljack

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
    • View Profile
Re: Hope for Diversity at a top Law School
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2005, 01:20:23 AM »
*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!!!


1. This is true, AA was intended to eliminate discrimination
2. By the left-wingers in American LSs, no way
3. Not true, only a blind person cannot see that minorities, for better or worse are given preferensial treatment.  I is imposible to give one group pref. treatment and not discriminate against those who do not get it.
4. It was not, but other people on this board will not admit that minorities are given a boost in the admission process know. And by other people I might be refering to you.
5. That is true, NU prefers students who are not straight out of UG.  Law schools look at other things.  The main other thing is URM status.  Although being published, having WE and other things can help, but that is off the subject.
6. The point here is that a student who has not proven himself to the extent that "YOUR" has should not get in 'over' said "YOUR."  That is if you beleive in a meritocracy.  Or in other words if you beleive that no one should be denied something bc of skin color/ethnicity
7. Good, then there is no reason to even concider race, we will have a proportional 1L class w/o it.
8. Are you kidding me, yes Yale is a racist school with racist adcomms, so is Colombia and Berkely.  Damn racists are only admitting blacks and hispanics because of AA.  And if AA is based on socio-economic status, they will get the white-bread class they have always wanted.  The "u" you are refering to are the people who decide how many minorities they want to admit.  They have no legal responsibility to admit underqualified students and they do it anyway.
9. I hope you do not see this as an attack and I appoligize for any sarcasm or if I misinterpreted what you said or if what I said is unclear.  Obviously it is a complex issue and a few points cannot accurately portray one side or the other.


jd.me?

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Hope for Diversity at a top Law School
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2005, 01:47:46 AM »
 OK folks let me make this clear. I don't want to burst anybodies bubble but I just so happen to be a "URM" who did apply to UVA (fall 2005). I also had a 150ish LSAT score which in my opinion sucks. 13 points lower from my practice exams. So my recs where great and so was my personal statement along with my resume and course work. I got a letter in the mail from UVA last week and not to my surprise it was a flat out REJECTION!!. Moral of the stories is, don't hold your breath if you are below that is way below their numbers. You just might pass out. And just a little FYI, being a URM is not a free pass to law school you do have to prove yourself to the admissions committee just as every applicant must. If you have the numbers yes you probably will get in. If you don't you probably won't,(in 2005 at least) unless there is something sooooo compelling about you candidacy that causes admissions to think otherwise. Heck I have even seen some NON-URM get into schools with no chance at all. But then again I can count these candidates on one hand. Point is law school admissions is one sick numbers game. URM only helps when you are close to the numbers or right on it at top 14 schools. 150ish isn't going to cut it in this day in age. (Unless it is coupled with a 3.8-4.0 gpa, A average in  grad school, a letter and evidence like old SAT scores that show you suck at standardizes testing, 2 years work experience, paying for college on your own while helping pay for your families rent sob story and a bunch of community service
Good luck to all in your applications cycle ;)