Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LickandStick

Pages: [1] 2
1
Even the authors of this study have acknowledged that stereotype threat can affect any group.
"Empirical support for our contention that stereotype threat can affect the
member of nearly any stereotyped social group is now abundant."
 Are we supposed to account for sterotype threat in every single test situation when there is a likelihood that one of the groups might feel sterotype threat?   Seems a little silly to me.

http://www.drl.tcu.edu/PoB/PoB_Lectures/social_cognition/stereotypes/Stereotype_Threat.pdf

Why would it be "silly" to account for stereotype threat in high-stakes testing situations?

The stress in my statement should be on "every, single test situation" and not on "silly", so I'd like you to respond accordingly.  I don't think sterotype threat justifies AA in the way you'd like it to.  I think it replicates it in some sense. 
Some URMS underperform due to stereotype threat. Others are unaffected by it.
Some ORMS underperform due to sterotype threat.  Others are unaffected by it.
You think stereotype threat may explain the disparity in performance.  It may, and let's say for the sake of argument that it does.  Those affected by sterotype threat should be given a leg up in admissions.  Alright.  My problem is in the application of this theory.
Taken into account steroetype threat, underperforming black are given a leg up, but so are other blacks because they are a part of the larger group that is affected by stereotype threat.  Underperforming whites are not given a leg up ecause they are part of a larger group that is not thought to be much affected by sterotype threat. For me, ideally,the aim of AA should be identify and assist those who need help, not just assist everyone in a group simply because they look like those who need help.  If stereotype threat is a problem, then those blacks, latinos, native americans, older applicants, and poor whites that need it should be assisted.  Your using the concept of sterotype threat to justify a system which only helps some of those people.  The article I posted, which is a follow-up of the one you posted,  shows some support for my claim   

2
I know you're trying to sound intelligent, and on the face of it, you succeed.  There's a but though, and it's a big old but, and that is, YOU ARE TALKING PRETENTIOUS DRIVEL.  What about the po' white folks?   AA is about skin color.  I'm so sorry your ancestors were enslaved.  Oh no, you had to swim the Rio Grande, oops, then let me sacrifice common sense on the altar of political correctness.  Let me right the wrongs of history.  Do I want to get into a big diatribe on why it all sucks?  Don't think so....I despise your celebration of the mediocre.

You're worthless.

And moreover, your trollish hyperbole is hackneyed. Guess what: you didn't get into your dream school because you didn't do well in school. I'm sure with a little effort you can figure out why.

You're being just as ridiculous as the person you're responding to.  HIs hyperbole is matched by yours, and nothing gets solved.

3
Even the authors of this study have acknowledged that stereotype threat can affect any group.
"Empirical support for our contention that stereotype threat can affect the
member of nearly any stereotyped social group is now abundant."
 Are we supposed to account for sterotype threat in every single test situation when there is a likelihood that one of the groups might feel sterotype threat?   Seems a little silly to me.

http://www.drl.tcu.edu/PoB/PoB_Lectures/social_cognition/stereotypes/Stereotype_Threat.pdf


I don't mind einstein and lickandstick's questions & confusions. The truth is that many people entering law school are just plain dumb and will come out even dumber and armed with JDs. The thing is to do one's best to complicate their puerile and simplistic ways of thinking. That's what this thread is for. As long as no-one responds to an obvious troll like big bossman, I'm not inclined to lock it.

Redemption never answered my question.

4
It seems like the obvious solution.

Why don't whites work harder in UG and on the LSAT so they don't need to female dog and moan about the coloreds stealing their spots?

Here's a thought: if you're white, and you want to go to Harvard, get a 3.8/175.  FFS, all you need for Cornell or Duke is a solid GPA and a 167, maybe even less.

I'll cry a river for rich white fratboys who goof their way through college when they stop being privileged slackers.

And I'm white, male, slacked my way through college, didn't adequately prepare for the LSAT, and paid the price wrt where I was offered admission.  I don't have much sympathy for the cause.

Some of us had to pay our way through school too, I can't speak for rich white frat boys as I had no money and no time for ECs, but I did the best with what I had.  If they're handing out admission letters to people with my numbers, I want one too.  That's all.

Also, I don't think it's accepted to refer to Native Americans, African-Americans and Latinos as "coloreds"

5
Law School Admissions / Re: Heartbreaker
« on: December 08, 2006, 01:07:06 PM »
The odds with my GPA say different, only two acceptances in that range in last year.  One is URM and one is URM/flame.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/search_schools.php?action=search&school_code=0008&lsat1=&lsat2=&fee_waiver=0&status=3&gpa_lsdas1=3.0&gpa_lsdas2=3.3&attending=0&cycle=3&gpa_degree1=&gpa_degree2=&withdrawn=0&program=1&index1=&index2=&state=0&application_type=0&scholarship1=&scholarship2=&sex=0&keep_visible=1&multiple_lsat=0&urm=0&x=31&y=2&international=0

And I'm not whining that I didn't get into Harvard, I'm whining that people with my numbers did and I didn't and probably will not, but thanks for the hopeful wishes though.

6
No one addressed my point or has it already been raised elsewhere?

7
Law School Admissions / Re: Heartbreaker
« on: December 08, 2006, 12:57:03 PM »
The HArvard rep I spoke to said they're averaging scores (the 172 is an average) and would be more likely to favor the higher score later in the cycle than this early on  when I spoke to her last month.  So if they're looking at top scores only that's better for me, because just about everything over 175 is slamdunk city.;)

8
Law School Admissions / Re: Heartbreaker
« on: December 08, 2006, 12:48:32 PM »
I don't want to argue about AA, it wouldn't do me any good at this point anyway.  The title of the thread was heartbreaker with reference to LSN profiles and I posted one I found heartbreaking nd said why.  My 3.3, 172 won't get me into Harvard and that's my fault, (not some random guy's) I know in order to get in I should have worked harder and done better but I have to be honest it bugs me that someone at my performance level is already in when I haven't even received an e-mail and all my stuff has been in with time to spare.

9
Even the authors of this study have acknowledged that stereotype threat can affect any group.
"Empirical support for our contention that stereotype threat can affect the
member of nearly any stereotyped social group is now abundant."
 Are we supposed to account for sterotype threat in every single test situation when there is a likelihood that one of the groups might feel sterotype threat?   Seems a little silly to me.

http://www.drl.tcu.edu/PoB/PoB_Lectures/social_cognition/stereotypes/Stereotype_Threat.pdf

10
Law School Admissions / Re: Heartbreaker
« on: December 08, 2006, 12:19:32 PM »
Hmm, don't quite follow you on that one....

I have similar stats, but guess where I'm NOT going to school.  Hmm?

I know! I know!
Harvard.

Is this heartbreaking because he's a URM and you're not?

It isn't heartbreaking because of what he is, it's heartbreaking that he can go and I can't, when according to the two metrics of performance we're not different.  It's heartbreaking because I want to go to Harvard probably as much as this guy does, and while I can understand when the 3.5+, 175+ set gets in over me because they are smarter or worked harder or whatever, I'm having a harder time with a guy who probably didn't put in any more effort than I did breezing in over me.  I know I should be able to, but I can't stomach it.   

Pages: [1] 2