Law School Discussion

AA: More harm than good?

just some guy

  • ****
  • 360
  • WARNING: May Contain Troll or Flame-like Substance
    • View Profile
Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2008, 09:43:49 AM »
Sometimes people use exaggeration for emphasis.

some do this better than others.

I still think Seton Hall should change its name to Princeton.

Prestjesus

  • ***
  • 15
  • GPA: 3.6 Evangelical Studies, LSAT: 173 Praise God
    • View Profile
Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2008, 11:24:15 AM »
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.

See this is exactly why AA works, and we should not be discouraged by it, it just takes time. You see there was a point in history where only white men could attend law schools. Then came AA. And we had to let women in. They got used to working hard, competing with men, and eventually some even graduated near the top of their class. With the advent of prepping for months the LSAT it made it easier for women to get in if they worked hard enough and eventually AA for them ceased.

Now we come to the point that most law schools have more women than men. This is close to the society as whole demographics wise. Yet, this poster still knows her place. AA is letting her go to law school, even a good one, but she has not shirked her womanly duties in the mean time. Sheís still doing her man,s laundry. Same with minorities, eventually they will make up a percentage of the demographics of law school equal to society the same as women. While I think you could argue the legal profession certainly has diminished since AA for women, itís not the end of the world. Itís not like they get paid the same overall or make partner very often, thank god. But we gave them a shot and now they have more choice than just marrying a lawyer they can actually try out at being one till they get board and have babies!

armada

  • ****
  • 185
  • I have people to go and places to see!
    • View Profile
Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2008, 02:09:50 PM »
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.

See this is exactly why AA works, and we should not be discouraged by it, it just takes time. You see there was a point in history where only white men could attend law schools. Then came AA. And we had to let women in. They got used to working hard, competing with men, and eventually some even graduated near the top of their class. With the advent of prepping for months the LSAT it made it easier for women to get in if they worked hard enough and eventually AA for them ceased.

Now we come to the point that most law schools have more women than men. This is close to the society as whole demographics wise. Yet, this poster still knows her place. AA is letting her go to law school, even a good one, but she has not shirked her womanly duties in the mean time. Sheís still doing her man,s laundry. Same with minorities, eventually they will make up a percentage of the demographics of law school equal to society the same as women. While I think you could argue the legal profession certainly has diminished since AA for women, itís not the end of the world. Itís not like they get paid the same overall or make partner very often, thank god. But we gave them a shot and now they have more choice than just marrying a lawyer they can actually try out at being one till they get board and have babies!

Hmm...you're funny. I laughed.l

Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2008, 04:35:56 PM »
That took a while.  Do you think it was worth the wait?

Only if my thesis ends up getting published.  So probably not.

I have laundry to do.  Enjoy your day, sweetie.

See this is exactly why AA works, and we should not be discouraged by it, it just takes time. You see there was a point in history where only white men could attend law schools. Then came AA. And we had to let women in. They got used to working hard, competing with men, and eventually some even graduated near the top of their class. With the advent of prepping for months the LSAT it made it easier for women to get in if they worked hard enough and eventually AA for them ceased.

Now we come to the point that most law schools have more women than men. This is close to the society as whole demographics wise. Yet, this poster still knows her place. AA is letting her go to law school, even a good one, but she has not shirked her womanly duties in the mean time. Sheís still doing her man,s laundry. Same with minorities, eventually they will make up a percentage of the demographics of law school equal to society the same as women. While I think you could argue the legal profession certainly has diminished since AA for women, itís not the end of the world. Itís not like they get paid the same overall or make partner very often, thank god. But we gave them a shot and now they have more choice than just marrying a lawyer they can actually try out at being one till they get board and have babies!



mofo that was the *&^%.  I wish I could get one of these bitches up my crib to do some f-ing laundry.  Yea keep em barefoot and pregnant. 

Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2008, 06:32:38 AM »
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

Matthew

  • ****
  • 1098
  • Formerly known as /\_-=-M-=-_/\
    • View Profile
Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2008, 07:02:28 AM »
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

really?  so you feel like a rich black person is not at a disadvantage compared to a rich white person? 

It depends who has more money.  The real problem is the widening gap between the rich and the super-rich: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TQt2cyzsHYg

Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2008, 07:08:26 AM »
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

really?  so you feel like a rich black person is not at a disadvantage compared to a rich white person? 

Rich and black trumps poor and white in law school admissions?  Is that fair?

Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2008, 07:19:40 AM »
AA, if it exists at all, should be based on socioconomic status, rather than race. A poor, inner city person, regardless of color, has many more disadvantages than a person of color, just because they are a person of color. Does it make sense that a child of a rich black ( or Hispanic) family gets a boost over a poor white person who has struggled much more in life and has actual, you know, disadvantages? There shouldn't be a boost because you are African American, Hispanic, Sioux, Siberian, French, Alien, Cyborg, or whatever. It should be based on the economic standing of the person, because that is where the real disadvantages lie.

really?  so you feel like a rich black person is not at a disadvantage compared to a rich white person? 

Rich and black trumps poor and white in law school admissions?  Is that fair?

you didn't answer my original question.  no cookie for you.

Dang, I need a cookie.  I'm going to get a cookie and ponder your question.  I hope you're having a great morning.

Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2008, 07:34:38 AM »
Dang, I need a cookie.  I'm going to get a cookie and ponder your question.  I hope you're having a great morning.

if you give me an answer, i'll give you an answer.  and another cookie.  a good morning to you as well.

I think if you're rich, you're advantaged all the way around.  I know if you're rich you've probably had access to a great education which probably negates being a minority. 
I have a dentist appointment at 9.15, so if I'm to get a cookie, I'd need it now because I have to leave. 


Re: AA: More harm than good?
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2008, 09:46:48 AM »
So you just sort of made the point then, that it isnt fair for rich and black to trump poor and white. Yet this is what happens in a non-socio economic based system.