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

[bluepeter]

In his response, Obama didn't take the question to a higher level of abstraction and talk generally about the importance of racial diversity; he stuck with the concrete facts. "I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged..." Then, he went further, "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

I agree with Obama, we need AA based on circumstance, not race.
Look at all of you ganging up on Lindbergh.  You've nothing substantative to add, you just want to take shots at someone who makes a better case. Keep leaving your pathetic, sarcastic little comments, it's all you have to offer.   Come on, sting me with a witty retort.   

Where would most of you be without AA?   

[OperaAttorney]

In his response, Obama didn't take the question to a higher level of abstraction and talk generally about the importance of racial diversity; he stuck with the concrete facts. "I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged..." Then, he went further, "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

I agree with Obama, we need AA based on circumstance, not race.
Look at all of you ganging up on Lindbergh.  You've nothing substantative to add, you just want to take shots at someone who makes a better case. Keep leaving your pathetic, sarcastic little comments, it's all you have to offer.   Come on, sting me with a witty retort.   

Where would most of you be without AA?   

Most of us have actively engaged Lindbergh in this AA dialogue. We've discussed opposing viewpoints, cited relevant articles, etc.  Lindbergh hasn't introduced anything new; we've heard it all before.  While I agree with some of his peripheral points, I find his core arguments unacceptable due to his refusal to recognize and acknowledge the TRUE nature of race relations in American society and its negative effects on underrepresented minorities within higher education, particularly within law school and the legal profession. 

At this point, we can agree to disagree although you should note that the Supreme Court still supports race-based AA in the law school admissions process. (O'Connor is not a daft windbag!)  Your ending question does not merit a response from me. And, for the record, Obama did not state (explicitly or otherwise) that race-based AA should be replaced by class-based AA.

[OperaAttorney]

I don't really think your arguments matter.  We all can see that a poor white person who attends terrible schools deserves some form of AA and that Barack Obama's kids don't, but minority groups are a very powerful force in this country and they will fight to defeat class based AA.  I remember Clinton talked about changing the system and of in stepped Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson complaining.  It's stupid to think minorities don't have power.  There really isn't any group specifically lobbying to get poor whites preferential treatment.  I agree with previous posters that AA will be abolished, and not a minute too soon.
P.S.  The most racist people I ever met were black.  Just my own personal experience growing up in a poor area of NO.

I had to peruse the thread to see if you were a newcomer.

P.S. The most racist people I ever met were white, but there are prejudiced people in every ethnic group.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Did you know that the way you reply to people is supremely annoying?

Lighten up, Francis.

I actually thought B. Sands response was pretty thoughtful.  Is there a reason you considered it annoying?

Actually, Dashrashi was referring to the way that you respond to people's posts when you reply in separate pieces to each point but I think you two addressed that already.


As far as legacy AA is concerned, far more students are admitted into schools where they are less qualified than the median applicants in schools that use Legacy Based AA than there are minorities admitted in schools that use Race Based AA - even if we only consider the undergrad institutions which, in turn, directly feed the law school institutions. 

This is part of the reason why the AA debate, in and of itself, is a controversial yet puzzling debate to begin with from the minority perspective because when you consider how very few black admits there are in law school admissions (approx 5-6% of all admits) compared to the overall number of law school admits (over 43,000 each year) you begin to ask yourself, why is such strict scrutiny placed on that 5-6%??  Does 5-6% really warrant such passionate cries of injustice and heated debates?  Surely not.   

If not, then we're left with the only reasonable explanation - which is that the small % of AA admits is not the issue (because clearly it is a de minimis amount), but rather, the issue is that a policy exists that might potentially allow a student to gain admissions at a school where that student could be less qualified than his/her peers.  Pursuant to this rationale, even a single student who is admitted to a school where they are less qualified than their peers would be unacceptable and in direct violation of this notion of merit only. 

So according to this rule of merit, students can only get into schools in which they are qualified to enter based upon their merit alone.  OK.  Sounds reasonable.  But when we apply that rule to the facts of our society, we can easily see that there are many students in violation of this merit rule, not just blacks or other minority groups.  Namely, some of the largest violators of this rule are legacies and the children of donors:

    * At Notre Dame, more than twenty percent of the entering class are "legacies" - children of alumni.
    * Legacy admits often have SAT scores 100 points below the school's median.  When the number of legacy admits is large, the average applicant may need an SAT score 50 points higher than the published-but-inaccurate median.   
    * Harvard University accepts 1/3 of alumni children that apply, nearly four times its overall admission rate.  Legacies constitute 13% of the undergraduate student body.   

- The Price of Admission:  How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges -- and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates, by Daniel Golden, Crown Publishers, (Random House), New York 2006.

Thus, begging the question, why are we placing so much focus on race based AA, which only effects a very minute number of applicants at any given school, while simultaneously placing no focus on legacy or donor based AA, which effects significantly more applicants?  It's just confusing to me why we're up in arms about the 7 or 8 black law students who may have been admitted under race based AA at any given law school, but we couldn't care less about the 30 legacies/donors who were admitted with the same or lesser stats.

 

If we're going to apply this rule, we have to apply it equally to all students, lest we admit that our only concern with regards to who violates this rule turns on the race of the violator.

[UNAS]

You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.
06

I was actually going to address what you(burning sands) brought up in another thread, but no big deal.

I find it puzzling the energy devoted to race based AA. Take this into consideration. Of the top 14 law schools, better yet make it top 20, URM make up on average 10-15%. Blacks specifically make up on avg 5-9% and Hispanics typically make up half that. All these schools publish their median LSAT and GPA ranges 25-75%. Lets assume each and every URM is in under the 25% threshold statistically in terms of LSAT and GPA. This still leaves at least 10% of the student body admitted with numbers below the median. The question I raise to those who hold a position opposing AA is who makes up this magical 10%.

Hint: It sure as hell isn't Asians.

The situation above relies on the ridiculous assumption that no URM is qualified, yet 10% of the student body has numbers below the median. Consider that. I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume this 10% might come from very priveledged and well connect backgrounds, but what do I know.

Please resume contemplating your navel

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

I agree with Obama, we need AA based on circumstance, not race.

I think you meant to say "not solely based on race," since AA based on circumstance would, of course, have to be inclusive of race because race can be a part of one's overall circumstances.

You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.
06

Thank you my Black and Gold brother from another mother. Not to shabby yourself....for an Alpha. 

[The F-cktard Express]

You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.
06

I was actually going to address what you(burning sands) brought up in another thread, but no big deal.

I find it puzzling the energy devoted to race based AA. Take this into consideration. Of the top 14 law schools, better yet make it top 20, URM make up on average 10-15%. Blacks specifically make up on avg 5-9% and Hispanics typically make up half that. All these schools publish their median LSAT and GPA ranges 25-75%. Lets assume each and every URM is in under the 25% threshold statistically in terms of LSAT and GPA. This still leaves at least 10% of the student body admitted with numbers below the median. The question I raise to those who hold a position opposing AA is who makes up this magical 10%.

Hint: It sure as hell isn't Asians.

The situation above relies on the ridiculous assumption that no URM is qualified, yet 10% of the student body has numbers below the median. Consider that. I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume this 10% might come from very priveledged and well connect backgrounds, but what do I know.

Please resume contemplating your navel

No *&^%.

Look, the point is that most schools would like to have as many minority students as they can get. Too often that number settles around 10-20%; less so for black students.

If the top schools admitted strictly by numbers, minority (and especially black) representation would probably be down to 5-10%, again with even fewer blacks.

So to meet the desired goal of minority students top law schools have to pull from the best of the minority applicant pool - this means reaching down further into the pool (by the numbers).

It's not a hard concept, and frankly I don't see what's so controversial.

What should be controversial is not that schools reach further down into a minority applicant pool, but WHY are minorities scoring worse on these standardized tests.

It seems to me there are three scenarios:

1) Minorities are just less intelligent: this seems to be the position that many of those in this (and other) threads are hinting at, but are too female private part to come out and say.

2) There is something inherently racist in these exams which cause minorities to score less

3) There is a deeper cultural/environmental problem that is by and large affecting minority races far more so than white and asian students - this is something that more than likely begins at birth and continues throughout a person's educational experiences.



Now, I think most sane people would lean towards #3. Which means we have deep systematic problems that are generations away from noticing any progress. We need to work on this, for sure, but WE NEED RESULTS NOW. We can't let entire generations of otherwise qualified students keep slipping through the cracks.

As it has been stated many times before, AA is simply a band-aid until the larger problem is fixed.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

As it has been stated many times before, AA is simply a band-aid until the larger problem is fixed.

TITCR

[Kirk Lazarus]

Did you know that the way you reply to people is supremely annoying?

Lighten up, Francis.

I actually thought B. Sands response was pretty thoughtful.  Is there a reason you considered it annoying?

Actually, Dashrashi was referring to the way that you respond to people's posts when you reply in separate pieces to each point but I think you two addressed that already.


As far as legacy AA is concerned, far more students are admitted into schools where they are less qualified than the median applicants in schools that use Legacy Based AA than there are minorities admitted in schools that use Race Based AA - even if we only consider the undergrad institutions which, in turn, directly feed the law school institutions. 

This is part of the reason why the AA debate, in and of itself, is a controversial yet puzzling debate to begin with from the minority perspective because when you consider how very few black admits there are in law school admissions (approx 5-6% of all admits) compared to the overall number of law school admits (over 43,000 each year) you begin to ask yourself, why is such strict scrutiny placed on that 5-6%??  Does 5-6% really warrant such passionate cries of injustice and heated debates?  Surely not.   

If not, then we're left with the only reasonable explanation - which is that the small % of AA admits is not the issue (because clearly it is a de minimis amount), but rather, the issue is that a policy exists that might potentially allow a student to gain admissions at a school where that student could be less qualified than his/her peers.  Pursuant to this rationale, even a single student who is admitted to a school where they are less qualified than their peers would be unacceptable and in direct violation of this notion of merit only. 

So according to this rule of merit, students can only get into schools in which they are qualified to enter based upon their merit alone.  OK.  Sounds reasonable.  But when we apply that rule to the facts of our society, we can easily see that there are many students in violation of this merit rule, not just blacks or other minority groups.  Namely, some of the largest violators of this rule are legacies and the children of donors:

    * At Notre Dame, more than twenty percent of the entering class are "legacies" - children of alumni.
    * Legacy admits often have SAT scores 100 points below the school's median.  When the number of legacy admits is large, the average applicant may need an SAT score 50 points higher than the published-but-inaccurate median.   
    * Harvard University accepts 1/3 of alumni children that apply, nearly four times its overall admission rate.  Legacies constitute 13% of the undergraduate student body.   

- The Price of Admission:  How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges -- and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates, by Daniel Golden, Crown Publishers, (Random House), New York 2006.

Thus, begging the question, why are we placing so much focus on race based AA, which only effects a very minute number of applicants at any given school, while simultaneously placing no focus on legacy or donor based AA, which effects significantly more applicants?  It's just confusing to me why we're up in arms about the 7 or 8 black law students who may have been admitted under race based AA at any given law school, but we couldn't care less about the 30 legacies/donors who were admitted with the same or lesser stats.

 

If we're going to apply this rule, we have to apply it equally to all students, lest we admit that our only concern with regards to who violates this rule turns on the race of the violator.

I'm mad you had to explain this.

[Lindbergh]

anyone reading your posts automatically becomes dumber for having read them, Lindbergh. Just terrible.

In that case, I can certainly understand why you'd prefer to avoid them.  You clearly have no IQ points to spare.