Law School Discussion

[Some] minorities [agree]....Class based AA.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #70 on: September 11, 2007, 07:36:01 AM »





Lindbergh:

where is your link for this "relatively few legacy preferences?"

Your position seems to be dangerously resource related in the wrong way. Legacies are OK (not as bad as AA) because 1)fewer of the slots are given to legacy students, and 2)because it isn't explicit race discrimination. Is that a fair interpretation of your thoughts?

Unfortunately that analysis ignores the fact that for a large portion of the nation's history, Blacks were denied admission to most of the law schools. Thus, the pool of prospective legacies far and away benefits whites. Of course you note that now Blacks can benefit from legacy admission as well, but you must concede that in practice this is highly unlikely. Surely you would think that giving a huge preference to students from HBCUs in law school admissions would be indirect racial discrimination even though whites are perfectly free to attend (and do) those institutions.

You continually rely on a rigid formulation of the definition of "racial discrimination," but seem painfully indifferent to admissions boosts that primarily benefit whites - boosts for economic status, geography and legacy. If the problem with affirmative action is a problem of merit, then why support socio-economic AA? Or is it that you don't want there to be "racial discrimination" in definition, but in effect have a system that reserves even more slots for whites?

The problem with the merit argument is that the vast majority of whites are admitted to schools based in part on subjective evaluations of their "merits" - Undergraduate institution, geography, essays, letters of recommendations, character, familial history and any number of other factors. Few white applicants are admitted on the basis of their objective and quantifiable data alone.Furthermore, race, like socio-economic status on poor whites, has a pretty big impact upon members of minority groups. Notwithstanding that fact, elimination of racial preferences presents another dilemma. Elimination of racial preferences would require practically the elimination of "checking the box." Just by the sheer number of white applicants who outnumber black applicants, elimination of self identification would require African Americans to be near the 75% in order to have a reasonable shot to gain admission. While the elimination of AA might remove an unfair advantage from your point of view, wouldn't it also make it much more difficult for QUALIFIED African Americans to gain admittance to a particular school?

If the problem is merit, then why not advocate for a simple numerical application. Why not advocate for a minimum GPA/LSAT index before one could apply to each school? That way we could be sure that each applicant would be presumptively qualified. Then schools could use race/legacy/geography/and any number of other factors to put together a reasonably diverse class.

If the problem is "racial discrimination" in a classical sense, then why not just change the standard. Instead of applying a boost for "checking the box," why not give preferences to those who have overcome "Racial adversity?"

What I do know is that eliminating AA and then replacing it with socio-economic AA is simplifying the issue and doesn't do anything to resolve the philosophical problem that most of you claim is the issue - namely, ensuring that scarce resources go to the most deserving individuals. I'm worried that elimination of AA will create a virtual racial monopoly    on the slots to our nation's best colleges and universities.


Do you have raw data to show that law schools don't admit whites primarily based on LSAT & GPA. In my case, it was quite clear those factors played an almost exclusive role. (DePaul, 160, 3.2)

Kirk Lazarus

  • ****
  • 1967
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #71 on: September 11, 2007, 10:07:29 AM »





Lindbergh:

where is your link for this "relatively few legacy preferences?"

Your position seems to be dangerously resource related in the wrong way. Legacies are OK (not as bad as AA) because 1)fewer of the slots are given to legacy students, and 2)because it isn't explicit race discrimination. Is that a fair interpretation of your thoughts?

Unfortunately that analysis ignores the fact that for a large portion of the nation's history, Blacks were denied admission to most of the law schools. Thus, the pool of prospective legacies far and away benefits whites. Of course you note that now Blacks can benefit from legacy admission as well, but you must concede that in practice this is highly unlikely. Surely you would think that giving a huge preference to students from HBCUs in law school admissions would be indirect racial discrimination even though whites are perfectly free to attend (and do) those institutions.

You continually rely on a rigid formulation of the definition of "racial discrimination," but seem painfully indifferent to admissions boosts that primarily benefit whites - boosts for economic status, geography and legacy. If the problem with affirmative action is a problem of merit, then why support socio-economic AA? Or is it that you don't want there to be "racial discrimination" in definition, but in effect have a system that reserves even more slots for whites?

The problem with the merit argument is that the vast majority of whites are admitted to schools based in part on subjective evaluations of their "merits" - Undergraduate institution, geography, essays, letters of recommendations, character, familial history and any number of other factors. Few white applicants are admitted on the basis of their objective and quantifiable data alone.Furthermore, race, like socio-economic status on poor whites, has a pretty big impact upon members of minority groups. Notwithstanding that fact, elimination of racial preferences presents another dilemma. Elimination of racial preferences would require practically the elimination of "checking the box." Just by the sheer number of white applicants who outnumber black applicants, elimination of self identification would require African Americans to be near the 75% in order to have a reasonable shot to gain admission. While the elimination of AA might remove an unfair advantage from your point of view, wouldn't it also make it much more difficult for QUALIFIED African Americans to gain admittance to a particular school?

If the problem is merit, then why not advocate for a simple numerical application. Why not advocate for a minimum GPA/LSAT index before one could apply to each school? That way we could be sure that each applicant would be presumptively qualified. Then schools could use race/legacy/geography/and any number of other factors to put together a reasonably diverse class.

If the problem is "racial discrimination" in a classical sense, then why not just change the standard. Instead of applying a boost for "checking the box," why not give preferences to those who have overcome "Racial adversity?"

What I do know is that eliminating AA and then replacing it with socio-economic AA is simplifying the issue and doesn't do anything to resolve the philosophical problem that most of you claim is the issue - namely, ensuring that scarce resources go to the most deserving individuals. I'm worried that elimination of AA will create a virtual racial monopoly    on the slots to our nation's best colleges and universities.


Do you have raw data to show that law schools don't admit whites primarily based on LSAT & GPA. In my case, it was quite clear those factors played an almost exclusive role. (DePaul, 160, 3.2)

I'm not sure I said law schools don't admit whites primarily based on LSAT and GPA.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #72 on: September 11, 2007, 12:28:27 PM »
You implied it - "in part..." and then you state "few...based on numbers alone." If you didn't intend to imply "primarily" then you wasted those sentences entirely.

Kirk Lazarus

  • ****
  • 1967
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #73 on: September 11, 2007, 12:50:16 PM »
You implied it - "in part..." and then you state "few...based on numbers alone." If you didn't intend to imply "primarily" then you wasted those sentences entirely.

No. Re-read it again. You're either not reading it correctly or you're misinterpreting

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #74 on: September 11, 2007, 01:59:33 PM »
You implied it - "in part..." and then you state "few...based on numbers alone." If you didn't intend to imply "primarily" then you wasted those sentences entirely.

No. Re-read it again. You're either not reading it correctly or you're misinterpreting


Unless you mean the subjective part of white admissions is insignificant, you do mean that whites are not admitted primarily based on numbers. I assert that whites are primarily, and often solely, admitted based on numbers. I for one, was admitted solely on the my numbers.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #75 on: September 11, 2007, 02:19:33 PM »
This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.



Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #76 on: September 11, 2007, 03:33:09 PM »
This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

Kirk Lazarus

  • ****
  • 1967
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #77 on: September 11, 2007, 05:02:58 PM »
This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

Yeah but I know a white girl with your numbers at Harvard, two white guys with numbers that approximate yours at Columbia. How exactly did race admits affect you personally?

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #78 on: September 11, 2007, 05:35:55 PM »
This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.


I hate to say it man, but it appears you have been led astray.  When you applied to Harvard, along with the 1000's of other Harvard hopefuls, they took your numbers (which I trust were good) and saw a good couple hundred other people with the exact same score.  Now....I wasn't in the ad com room when they made the decision but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there was at least ONE white person admitted in your stead with the exact same figures as yourself.  At least one legacy.  At least one kid of a wealthy Harvard donor.  At least one ______ [fill in the blank].  But out of all those who were admitted with your scores or less for 100's of different reasons, race is the dispositive culprit that kept you out of Harvard?? 

C'mon man, you seem like an intelligent and knowledgeable individual.  Surely, you don't really believe that do you?





Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #79 on: September 11, 2007, 07:12:43 PM »
This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

Yeah but I know a white girl with your numbers at Harvard, two white guys with numbers that approximate yours at Columbia. How exactly did race admits affect you personally?

Well I guess it could be legacy, (though I'm male), approximate? We're talking a 160, 3.2 at Harvard...

Anyway, I know DePaul used URM status (why else did they have the exact same number of each URM every year), but the only two legacies I know off, in my class, had way better numbers than me and ended with higher class ranks too. i.e. they are smarter than me. Of course DePaul's URM policy didn't effect me, they accepted me. But it sure effected others.