Law School Discussion

Just really frustrated about the lack of unrepresented minority at law schools..

mugatu

  • *****
  • 21790
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
 :D :D :D



<-- excited for end of July

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Please allow me to preface my comments by explaining that I am going to play the role of the Devil's Advocate in this post, so I don't want anyone trying to draw the conclusion that my actual opinions are represented here.  I simply want to bring up some things for people to think about.  I do think, however, that it is important for readers to know that I support AA to some degree, though I think it is a detestable practice.  (Sort of like my opinion that we have the worst government in the world, except for all the others.)


I'm sure I will put my foot in my mouth at least several times, so I might as well get started. 

First, I noticed quite a few posts in this thread by (purportedly) minorities (including the OP) who have less than impressive grammar.  While I completely understand the factors that could possibly have led to that fact, and I also understand that bad grammar is not in any way limited to minorities, I would like you to consider a premise for the sake of argument. 

If it is true that URM's have a statistically higher chance of having bad grammar (and I'm not saying it is true, I am simply making an argument), and they are let into law school in greater numbers because of AA, is it not also true that the quality of lawyers (who rely on the written and spoken word for much of the work they produce) will decline?  In a field where so much importance is placed on the precise construction of arguments, wouldn't the overall quality of the work produced by sub-standard writers be inherently inferior?

Further, even if it were not true that substantive mistakes would occur more frequently, would it not be true that arbiters reading obvious grammatical and spelling errors in legal documents presented to them would be (consciously or subconsciously) likely to be prejudiced against the client being represented?

Again, I am not trying to argue that all minorities have bad grammar and spelling.  If there is any correlation at all, it would almost certainly be between students at substandard schools and bad grammar/spelling.  I am not even making an argument based on my opinions.  I am just saying that there are other things to consider when you make an argument that URM's should be given preferential treatment when being considered for admission to law school.  If you are making the argument that AA does not have a detrimental effect on society, remember that you cannot possibly know or recognize the effects of AA (and neither, by the way, can politicians).  Just because you can't see all of the possible consequences of something doesn't mean they don't exist.   


If you're going to play devil's advocate, there needs to be a relevant point to it all.

What's your point?

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile

I think his overall point is that people who argue in favor of violating the 14th amendment through AA, do so because they think there are such great benefits.  He's just questioning the ability of those people to know what those benefits actually are.  I don't know if that really qualifies as playing devil's advocate.


That's what I understood from it as well. 

Which led me to the same conclusion you came to.  Hence my confusion.  Who's he playing devil's advocate to, and how is it devil's advocacy?

Please allow me to preface my comments by explaining that I am going to play the role of the Devil's Advocate in this post, so I don't want anyone trying to draw the conclusion that my actual opinions are represented here.  I simply want to bring up some things for people to think about.  I do think, however, that it is important for readers to know that I support AA to some degree, though I think it is a detestable practice.  (Sort of like my opinion that we have the worst government in the world, except for all the others.)


I'm sure I will put my foot in my mouth at least several times, so I might as well get started.  

First, I noticed quite a few posts in this thread by (purportedly) minorities (including the OP) who have less than impressive grammar.  While I completely understand the factors that could possibly have led to that fact, and I also understand that bad grammar is not in any way limited to minorities, I would like you to consider a premise for the sake of argument.  

If it is true that URM's have a statistically higher chance of having bad grammar (and I'm not saying it is true, I am simply making an argument), and they are let into law school in greater numbers because of AA, is it not also true that the quality of lawyers (who rely on the written and spoken word for much of the work they produce) will decline?  In a field where so much importance is placed on the precise construction of arguments, wouldn't the overall quality of the work produced by sub-standard writers be inherently inferior?

Further, even if it were not true that substantive mistakes would occur more frequently, would it not be true that arbiters reading obvious grammatical and spelling errors in legal documents presented to them would be (consciously or subconsciously) likely to be prejudiced against the client being represented?

Again, I am not trying to argue that all minorities have bad grammar and spelling.  If there is any correlation at all, it would almost certainly be between students at substandard schools and bad grammar/spelling.  I am not even making an argument based on my opinions.  I am just saying that there are other things to consider when you make an argument that URM's should be given preferential treatment when being considered for admission to law school.  If you are making the argument that AA does not have a detrimental effect on society, remember that you cannot possibly know or recognize the effects of AA (and neither, by the way, can politicians).  Just because you can't see all of the possible consequences of something doesn't mean they don't exist.    

Interesting that you pointed this out. Ever heard of the idea of cultural capital and lingusitic capital?? Well as a URM I can tell you that my vocab and grammar is severly limited compared with, forgive me for generalizing "white America," But, its something I have to deal with, and its a big obstical for me in many ways.

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
I wouldn't really pay attention to his argument.  It was ridiculous.

H5CS

I wouldn't really pay attention to his argument.  It was ridiculous.

thanks for the warning.

H5CS

are you guys sure that reading this wouldn't have some entertainment value?

H5CS

I laughed.  He thinks he's being thoughtful and provocative.

everybody thinks they're like that.  not everyone's funny about it.

mugatu

  • *****
  • 21790
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
::grabs popcorn::

::knows this isn't going anywhere::

::throws popcorn away::

---

I don't think people who haven't worked very hard at educating themselves deserve my spot

That isn't what happens.  At all.