Possible Consquences about lying that you are a URM?

[Matthew]

I don't really know enough about AA to answer it's technical questions.

The problem is, from what I can tell, that there is no "technical" answser.  According to the Ivey guide to law schools, when contacted, schools will refuse to say that one must be X% or anything like it.  If you say you are, they can count you among their minority population, and that's good enough for them.

[sc3pt0r]

But to answer the original question.  Don't lie on your App.  Whether or not the school can "prove" anything, or whether they check, you are going into a profession where being honest is key.  Also, the bar examiner's have the ability to keep you from getting a license.  It is not an objective test they put you through, but a subjective one.  If they interpret you to be a liar, the burden of proof shifts to you in your appeal.  It's not worth it.

[Matthew]

But to answer the original question.  Don't lie on your App.  Whether or not the school can "prove" anything, or whether they check, you are going into a profession where being honest is key.  Also, the bar examiner's have the ability to keep you from getting a license.  It is not an objective test they put you through, but a subjective one.  If they interpret you to be a liar, the burden of proof shifts to you in your appeal.  It's not worth it.

I'm still not sure what the honest answer is.  If someone happens to be 1/16 of whatever minority race, is it dishonest to indicate that they are that race?

LSAC says: Your minority status is reported by you. Law schools consider your ethnic or racial status to be whatever you indicate on your LSAT registration forms.

So I don't really believe that you can actually lie on this question.

[HAL 9000]

URM policy does not address skin color, persecution, or national heritage, but simply the chronic underrepresentation of certain racial groups in law school and the legal profession relative to their proportion of the nation's population.

Under Represented Minority.

That is why Mexican-Americans and Native Americans and African Americans, and not Jews or Greeks or Northern Africans or Asians or Poor Whites, are accorded URM status. Diversity is an entirely separate, but entirely arguable, issue.

Twenty years ago, when women were applying to law school in far smaller numbers, women of all races and backgrounds -- including the white and privileged -- were accorded preference as members of an underrepresented group. When women achieved full repreentation, preference was no longer needed and consequently revoked.

Many of the same arguments against according preference to women are being repeated  now with reference to URM racial groups. The "She's stealing the place of a more qualified man at X Law School!" argument now seems ludicrous, but was a common one.


[irony]


As white law school applicants seem to have the most difficulty understanding the simple concept of underepresentation, we will have to form the generalization that all white people are stupid and thus unfit for law school.

[/irony]


As for lying. Think about the consequences of getting caught: not passing Chatacter and Fitness review; having offer of admission or student status revoked; law school debt but no law degree; or possibly a law degree but a permanent stain on your bar record making you less (or not) employable. Is the benefit really worth the risk? Are you sure your perception of the benefit of lying entirely accurate?


On the matter of percentage of racial heritage, there are no clear answers. Law schools proceed with the assumption that law school applicants have the ability and desire to use reason and restraint and possess a conscience. We think they are foolish.

[HtownsFinest]

Why must the racial cross-section of top-tier law schools match that of the population? What are you a Marxist? What about individuals and individual achievements? Isn't that what the civil rights movement is all about? Seeing people as individuals and not as merely the member of some ethnic group?

[sc3pt0r]

HAL, maybe I am in fact stupid, but your post didn't have much in the way of substance.

[sc3pt0r]

I'm just saying that as a daughter of a successful lawyer (hopefully ) and a Biologist, my daughter should not have to rely on AA the way some do.  I'm not saying she won't benefit from it.  I'm sure she will check the box (if they even have a mixed box, I don't know).  What the school chooses to do with the information is their own prerogative.  I'm just speaking from an AA philosophy standpoint, that my daughter should not benefit from AA.

A friend of mine (who is black) went to St. Albans high school in Washington D.C.  The tuition his parents paid per year from 6th grade to 12th grade was like 16k.  The listed tuition is 24k per year.  He had financial aid or their equivalent.  He went to Duke for undergrad, and now goes to Georgetown for law school.  I cannot find any possible argument that would suffice for his needing the assistance of AA.  If he had low LSAT scores coming from a St. Albans/Duke education, then he's an idiot.  I aspire to put my daughter through a similar education program.  If she cannot compete with other students on the SAT, then she should not go to a top tier school.

I think quite possibly that I should have benefited from AA to some degree.  My mother was 16 when I was born, and my dad was 17.  Both of my parents quit high school and their paths then diverged. My mother has been in prison most of my life.  My dad, after working as a surveyor went to junior college, transferred to University of Houston, and then attended law school at American University.  He didn't graduate law school until I was 14.  I lived with my grandparents until I was 11, then with my father until I was 16, and then I moved back in with my grandparents, who were relatively poor (grandmother worked at a gas station, grandfather was a dispatcher for a trucking company).  I never really benefited from my father's income, because he was still paying back student loans by the time I moved back in with my grandparents.  The sole benefit from my father was that I got to see him in law school.  I discovered that I wanted to be a lawyer, by watching him.  (This was a huge benefit mentally.)

I just think that AA is a system that is too black and white (no pun intended).  I think there are too many extenuating circumstances that the admissions office will not take into consideration.  My friend should not benefit from AA.  My situation is somewhat arguable.

[sc3pt0r]

Well, my own personal views are that affirmative action should be severely limited in scope.  I think it should be limited to those who can establish a documented financial disadvantage.  The use of affirmative action should be limited to once per life.  Perhaps it should only be used in college admission.  The big problem is that inner city schools cannot compete with the "suburban" schools.  There are definitely exceptions to every rule (dumb kids in suburbs, smart kids in inner city schools), but I think I've stated what the rule tends to be.

No one race is smarter than the other, that is absolutely a valid point.  However, I think the key to success is exposure.  If I would not have been exposed to my dad's law school experience, I can assure you I wouldn't be going to law school.  I'd likely have followed the plight of my mother.  My grandparents are a prime example.  As much as I love them, they don't know a thing about raising a productive member of society.  They worked hard all their lives, but of their 6 children, 5 have spent time in prison (or are currently in prison) and the other is a cop (hilarious isn't it). 

Reiterating my point, I think exposure is the key to success.  It is definitely difficult growing up when everyone around you thinks it is cool to be dumb.  This is exactly what it was like when I was in the D.C. public school system.  It is difficult as a child to choose isolation and education, over popularity and ignorance.  That being said, I often tell people who ask me about my education (biology major, chemistry minor in undergrad) and whether or not it was "hard".  To which I respond: "not nearly as hard as working for 8 bucks an hour".  I mean, I get to sit in the air conditioner all day long, and listen to esteemed professors talk about the things they probably love.  I didn't go to a prestigious undergrad university (Texas Southern University) and I'm not going to a prestigious law school (University of Houston), but I enjoy my life, and consider myself to be successful. 

It is a serious undertaking to reshaping the thoughts that pervade the minds of inner-city youth.  A resistant (rap, though not all forms) culture does not assist in the process.  It's kind of hard to get a high verbal SAT score when other kids make fun of you for talking "white".

Another issue is the lack of guidance you receive in the inner-city schools.  My wife graduated number 6 in her high school class, and attended Texas Southern University.  That is a f*ing travesty.  She scored an 1170 on the SAT, which is not a particularly high score.  But either way, her high school rank would have gotten her automatically accepted to the University of Texas.  The lack of provided guidance, is repulsive.

[LeveragedSellout]

i find it absurd, and somewhat amusing, that people are so riled up about a system that applies to such a miniscule number of applicants. seriously, if you were rejected by a school and you're a non-urm, it is not likely that it was because some urm took your spot.

aa provides a viable excuse for people to justify and ignore their own inadequacies
   

[sc3pt0r]

Talib, who exactly are you referring to?  I don't recall seeing many people complaining that their spots were taken by minorities.  That being said, if you have read the above posts, do you think my friend (from St. Albans/Georgetown) needs further assistance from AA?  Or what about my daughter (1/2 white, 1/2 black) with two parents with graduate degrees?  Or do you agree with me that AA should be limited to the people who need it?