Law School Discussion

The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2007, 01:36:53 AM »
A quick note on stereotype threat:

You have mentioned several times that you are non-white, presumably to underscore your belief in racial equality.  Since you mentioned here that you weren't affected by stereotype threat, I thought it might be helpful for you to tell us more about your background -- at least whether you are a member of a minority group that is thought to face stereotype threat.  Of course there are some people in every group who will not suffer in testtaking situations.  I just want to understand if your experience is exceptional somehow.

I also wanted to point out that Sander himself acknowledges that stereotype threat exists.  He simply argues that it is difficult for critics to assess its effects on performance. (Sander 2004, 424)

Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2007, 09:01:28 AM »
Lord, you're delightful.

/gak

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2007, 12:31:23 AM »
I don't think many people who read our respective posts would imagine that I'm the one who hasn't read the scholarly work on the subject, but suit yourself.

I would say the same.   :)


Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2007, 03:38:18 PM »
Tick tock, tick tock.

You want me to give it a shot?

Nah.  I'm just frustrated that I wasted time replying to someone who doesn't take the conversation seriously and who insulted me without basis.  Having actually read most of the relevant scholarship, I can probably construct the response as well as anyone else.  Neither of us can answer my question about Lindbergh's background, however.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2007, 09:28:43 PM »
You've just ignored my answers to your questions which were already in my post (at at least the analytic depth you've offered).  I am underwhelmed by the response yet overwhelmed by the format.  I don't feel like playing the chop-chop game, sorry. 

Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2007, 11:00:34 PM »
You've just ignored my answers to your questions which were already in my post (at at least the analytic depth you've offered).  I am underwhelmed by the response yet overwhelmed by the format.  I don't feel like playing the chop-chop game, sorry. 
[/b]

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. You think you can out-bluster people. Just respond in a response, as though you've thought about what the other person has said for more than a millisecond. Oh, wait.

Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2007, 11:10:43 PM »
Bravo. A virtuoso performance of The a-hole Concerto, by the esteemed Lindbergh.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2007, 12:33:22 AM »
I'll play along this one time:

In the name of friendly discussion, I'll skip the quote war and answer your questions in earnest.

1.  Do you dispute that minorities are frequently admitted to schools with lower objective criteria?  (Isn't this the whole point of AA / preferential admissions?)

No.

Okay, so we agree that minorities are frequently admitted to schools with lower objective criteria. 

One can debate how much AA affects whites.  I will note that it actually appears to affect asians far more, at least at the undergrad level.  However, one could also argue that segregation itself affected a fairly small percentage of the country. 

Even if it only affected a few people, however, (which appears unlikely), the mere existence of official, state-sponsored racial discrimination is itself provocative and poisonous to race relations.

Again, as is your custom, this is completely speculative. Judging from the way you frame your statement and articulate your views, it seems that the "state-sponsored racial discrimination" is merely a rationalization for your own (not so) latent racism.

I don't understand why your objections here about the importance of these credentials would not also apply to students who receive extra consideration based on socioeconomic factors, but I agree with you that socioeconomic factors should be taken into account in law school admissions.) 

Well, those people who have slightly lower numbers from tougher backgrounds are presumably (or at least potentially) as capable as their more affluent counterparts, as their true ability is somewhat obscured by their educational handicaps.  The same analysis would not apply to a more privileged minority.

To the extent schools are already looking at SES, that's certainly a step in the right direction.  However, it does not, in itself, explain why non-disadvantaged minorities need or deserve special consideration.  The burden therefore remains on proponents to justify such action.

I think one compelling answer would be that schools seek to construct a class with a measure of diversity, and because of the fewer numbers of minority applicants they have to look deeper into the applicant pool.

Of course this is but one answer among many. And methinks you have a strange definition of "capability."


but it appears from more supple research on the subject that there are actually different groups of students at the bottom of the class: (1) white and ORM students with lower entry credentials and (2) URM students with lower entry credentials.  I split these groups up because the LSAT tends to vastly overpredict URM performance in law school and it therefore doesn't make a lot of sense to correlate URM overrepresentation at the bottom of the class with entry credentials.  Indeed, URMs at schools where their entry credentials match the white medians (where you might expect them to attend without affirmative action) also tend to cluster at the bottom of the class.  See, e.g., Ayres & Brooks 2005, which limits the analysis, as Sander does, to black students.


I believe the cited study acknowledges that urms (and others) with lower credentials tend to cluster at the bottom of their class.  It also claims that they tend to struggle somewhat even when they don't have lower credentials.  However, I don't believe even they claim the effect is quite the same.  Whatever struggles minority students face in school, credential mismatch is clearly part of the problem, and ignoring this won't make it go away.

Part but not all of the problem. In fact I think we've done a decent job of explaining this already. Miss P. has repeatedly pointed out that programs like Hastings' LEOP prove to be extremely beneficial in helping disadvantaged students with law school. I've also provided you with a study of minority relations at a law student that pretends to have one of the most minority-friendly environments of all law schools - did you even bother to read that?