Quote from: dashrashi on September 07, 2007, 03:13:48 PMDid 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?
Did you know that the way you reply to people is supremely annoying?Lighten up, Francis.
I agree with Obama, we need AA based on circumstance, not race.
You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.06
You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.06I 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
As it has been stated many times before, AA is simply a band-aid until the larger problem is fixed.
Quote from: Lindbergh on September 09, 2007, 08:14:40 PMQuote from: dashrashi on September 07, 2007, 03:13:48 PMDid 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.
Quote from: Galt on September 09, 2007, 08:40:02 PManyone 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.
anyone reading your posts automatically becomes dumber for having read them, Lindbergh. Just terrible.
Quote from: Freak on September 09, 2007, 07:25:28 PMPoint, but it's also a culture. The dealers then spend their money on drugs, clothes and cars instead of appreciating assets. Shoot, if one of those high school dealers cleaned his money and invested it. He could get out in one year.It's not just dealers who spend their money that way. How many cars do you see with $5k rims in the ghetto. That's enough to get out. Why don't they leave the environment?Edit: So how does one fix it? After all, gangs are a culture.Well, I did a lot of work with gangs in DC and I tend to see gang culture as a unfortunate transformation of militant civil rights groups. This is not only true of the Black gangs in DC, but in the south side of Chicago, LA, Louisiana and elsewhere. The problem started with welfare and the incentive given for Black men to leave their families.I define culture as learned behavior. And in a sense the gang problem in its most simplistic sense is a cultural problem. It is a problem of young men without fathers learning how to be "men" from other young men without fathers. Unfortunately, what results is a perversion of what it means to "be a man." Outward expressions of ultra machismo and aggression are seen as masculine.
Point, but it's also a culture. The dealers then spend their money on drugs, clothes and cars instead of appreciating assets. Shoot, if one of those high school dealers cleaned his money and invested it. He could get out in one year.It's not just dealers who spend their money that way. How many cars do you see with $5k rims in the ghetto. That's enough to get out. Why don't they leave the environment?Edit: So how does one fix it? After all, gangs are a culture.
In an economic sense, gangs are not the worst problem. For all our talk about education and higher education, the reality is that many inner city Blacks (or poor whites, Asians or Hispanics for that matter) aren't going to ever have the doors of higher education open to them. The reason I single out Blacks in particular is that a white former felon is more desirable as an employee than a never incarcerated Black male all other things being equal. When we pitch to young African Americans that drugs aren't the answer, we don't take into account the fact that there is a significant amount of lender discrimination making it difficult for entrepreneurship, affordable home interest rates, etc.
So the situation is pretty bleak. You have a good portion of Black Males aged 18-32 incarcerated. The poor Black men that have never been incarcerated are the 2nd least desirable employees behind illegal immigrants and practice and custom make it difficult for economic development that benefit poor residents.
In one sense, we could ask gang members to invest illegal money in the market and then laugh at them in April when they get indicted. Or we can recognize that the problem is actually symptomatic of pretty deep rooted environmental, economic and social factors beyond the control of the individual. Thus, the solution has to be systematic imo. Sure, there are problems with the "culture," but then again those that are playing by the rules aren't exactly getting ahead either as your example illustrates.
Quote from: Burning Sands on September 10, 2007, 11:43:54 AMQuote from: The F-cktard Express on September 10, 2007, 11:35:52 AMAs it has been stated many times before, AA is simply a band-aid until the larger problem is fixed. TITCRActually, to be more accurate: AA is a way for rich whites to pretend they're doing something about a problem, instead of actually doing something about the problem (fixing crappy schools, etc.). Never mind the fact that it is counterproductive, unfairly penalizes poor whites and asians, and ultimately harms the very people it's supposed to help.
Quote from: The F-cktard Express on September 10, 2007, 11:35:52 AMAs it has been stated many times before, AA is simply a band-aid until the larger problem is fixed. TITCR