Law School Discussion

Poll

Should race be a factor in Admissions?

Yes! One of my relatives in the last 150 years was descriminated against racially! Gimme gimme gimme!
11 (11.3%)
No, eveyone should be judged by merits and not race.
58 (59.8%)
Wtf, this poll is racist. If you're against URM that means you are a racist pig. Grow up child. 163 3.3 admit into Yale was well deserved...
28 (28.9%)

Total Members Voted: 86

Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?

President_Baccaga

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2006, 09:55:16 AM »
Quote from: goaliechica
I guess this depends on what school you go to, and is subjective. You are clearly talking about a very specific subset only at certain schools, and sure, in the most extreme cases, the privileges and preferences given to athletes is out of hand.

It basically applies to any school that competes in NCAA Division I athletics.  Of course it has nothing to do with DII and DIII schools who give very little or no money in terms of athletic scholarships and therefore it is a case of students who compete in athletics and not athletes who pretend to be students.  In DI schools however, this is the case.  We're not just talking about the most extreme cases either. 

'tiki

  • ****
  • 822
  • Big Red goes to Philly
    • View Profile
Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2006, 11:27:08 AM »
Quote
It basically applies to any school that competes in NCAA Division I athletics.  Of course it has nothing to do with DII and DIII schools who give very little or no money in terms of athletic scholarships and therefore it is a case of students who compete in athletics and not athletes who pretend to be students.  In DI schools however, this is the case.  We're not just talking about the most extreme cases either. 

Not even. The Ivy League (which most sports are Div. I) awards no athletic scholarships and athletes in the Ivy league although not necessarily geniuses at least meet the necessary standards for admission.

But returning to the main point of the thread, you argue a minority should not be admitted if he/she doesn't meet the numerical standards set but a legacy is ok, just because daddy has money? That is just contradictory.

President_Baccaga

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2006, 11:51:32 AM »
Quote
Not even. The Ivy League (which most sports are Div. I) awards no athletic scholarships and athletes in the Ivy league although not necessarily geniuses at least meet the necessary standards for admission.

The Ivy League does not give athletic scholarships but this does not mean that they do not provide money for athletes.  Granted, the abuses there are much less severe than you would find at many other D1 schools.  Furthermore, your claim that these athletes "at least meet the necessary standards for admission" is hogwash.  Many of these individuals - if they had not been athletes - would have never been offered admission.  Ivy League coaches all have direct access to admissions in order to clarify who they are recruiting, who needs to get in, etc.  I have a friend that was accepted to Harvard and was offered money purely for his athletic ability (despite it being labeled as academic); his academics alone would never have given him the opportunity to attend.  I have three other friends - two who went to Princeton and one to Yale - who were not given money, but would not have been candidates for admission if they had not been athletes.

Quote
But returning to the main point of the thread, you argue a minority should not be admitted if he/she doesn't meet the numerical standards set but a legacy is ok, just because daddy has money? That is just contradictory.

Sorry, but are you trying to put words in my mouth?  I never said that a minority should not be admitted if he/she does not meet certain numerical standards (and even if I had said that, it wouldn't have been contradictory because there is an economic motive behind the admission of a legacy).  I simply stated that I did not agree with using race as a factor in admissions but rather I promoted a colorblind system of AA based on socioeconomic factors and giving a boost to those whom were disadvantaged in their upbringing, regardless of skin color.  I NEVER made any claim that schools should strictly use numbers to make their decisions regardless of the candidate; on the contrary...

'tiki

  • ****
  • 822
  • Big Red goes to Philly
    • View Profile
Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2006, 01:18:34 PM »
Quote
Ivy League coaches all have direct access to admissions in order to clarify who they are recruiting, who needs to get in, etc.  I have a friend that was accepted to Harvard and was offered money purely for his athletic ability (despite it being labeled as academic); his academics alone would never have given him the opportunity to attend.

Here you also make the error of stating (whether by assumption or anecdote) that the Ivy League school gave out academic scholarships which is simply not true because Ivies only give out need-based financial aid. I'll accept that in some athletes' cases that aid might be stretched to the limits, though. Also, you state your friends who went to either Harvard or Princeton but would not have gotten in due to their own academic merits. I simply would counter that with two points: 1. not everyone that gets into an ivy league school is a 1600 SAT and 4.0 GPA, athlete or not; and 2. I have several Div 1 sports friends in my school (an Ivy) that got recruited but they had to meet academic standards to get in (that is one of the most difficult aspects for recruiting for the Ivies; their athletes must meet the academic standards).

Quote
Sorry, but are you trying to put words in my mouth?  I never said that a minority should not be admitted if he/she does not meet certain numerical standards (and even if I had said that, it wouldn't have been contradictory because there is an economic motive behind the admission of a legacy).

I'll apologize if I put words in your mouth. However, what I was trying to say is that the fact race should not play a factor for admissions for a hypothetical subpar URM applicant is somewhat ironic, when you support that being a legacy should be a factor in admissions for a subpar applicant just because mommy or daddy went there too. Also, your economic argument has no proof: 1.do you have statistics proving that alumni whose children are admitted give more than those whose children are not?; and 2. even if donations from alumni play a role in a school's finances, it is not as substantial as it is made out to be except on few occassions when a particular alumni makes a huge donation.

Finally, I think we are in agreement that a better AA should be based in socio-economic status, which I said tends to correlate positively with race anyway. I just think it is somewhat hypocritical to support legacies but not race-based AA, in my opinion both are somewhat wrong and could easily be improved with socio-economic AA.

President_Baccaga

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2006, 02:36:42 PM »
Quote
Here you also make the error of stating (whether by assumption or anecdote) that the Ivy League school gave out academic scholarships which is simply not true because Ivies only give out need-based financial aid. I'll accept that in some athletes' cases that aid might be stretched to the limits, though. Also, you state your friends who went to either Harvard or Princeton but would not have gotten in due to their own academic merits. I simply would counter that with two points: 1. not everyone that gets into an ivy league school is a 1600 SAT and 4.0 GPA, athlete or not; and 2. I have several Div 1 sports friends in my school (an Ivy) that got recruited but they had to meet academic standards to get in (that is one of the most difficult aspects for recruiting for the Ivies; their athletes must meet the academic standards).

Error conceded in the sense that I labeled the scholarship "academic" when in fact it should have been classified as "need-based".  Regardless of the particular terminology however, this particular individual was being offered money for athletics; his family's financial situation certainly did not require it.  I did not mention this in my previous post as I wanted to keep my own experience out of it initially, but I was recruited by one Ivy for athletics as well.  While I think that I would have been competitive regardless based on my "hard" statistics, I was all but assured some "need-based" funds would be passed my way.  It was never one of my top choices, and I ended up going to a different school (academically not as prestigious but with a better soccer program and a full athletic scholarship)...  Anyway, maybe these are just two extraordinary cases.

I understand that it is quite possible to get into an Ivy (or many other very competitive schools) without having a 4.0 and a 1600, but I'm assuming that SAT scores in the 1100s for Harvard would not be sufficient (which is what this friend scored who I mentioned in the first part of this post).  The other three friends that I have (all of these people have now graduated, BTW) were all in the 1200s.  Nothing wrong with that kind of score, but you have to admit that it wouldn't seem highly competitive where they attended (1 Yale, 2 Princeton).  Undoubtedly their athletic abilities helped them cross that threshold.

You're right; Ivy League schools do have a more difficult time recruiting for aforementioned reasons, but there is still a great amount of tolerance given to athletes with respect to academic performance that wouldn't be extended to an "ordinary" applicant.

Quote
I'll apologize if I put words in your mouth. However, what I was trying to say is that the fact race should not play a factor for admissions for a hypothetical subpar URM applicant is somewhat ironic, when you support that being a legacy should be a factor in admissions for a subpar applicant just because mommy or daddy went there too. Also, your economic argument has no proof: 1.do you have statistics proving that alumni whose children are admitted give more than those whose children are not?; and 2. even if donations from alumni play a role in a school's finances, it is not as substantial as it is made out to be except on few occassions when a particular alumni makes a huge donation.

Finally, I think we are in agreement that a better AA should be based in socio-economic status, which I said tends to correlate positively with race anyway. I just think it is somewhat hypocritical to support legacies but not race-based AA, in my opinion both are somewhat wrong and could easily be improved with socio-economic AA.

It certainly was not my intention to support in any manner whatsoever the admission of legacies, and I do not think that it should be influential in the application process.  To tell the truth, if someone's mom and/or dad went to Harvard and that person needs a boost just to get in, that's pretty pathetic IMHO.  He/she definitely would have had the opportunities to succeed and gain entrance legitimately.  However, if you will refer to my initial post regarding legacies, I believe that I simply stated that a school could make a valid argument for admitting a legacy based on economic reasons.  Obviously I do not have statistics present to demonstrate how much legacies donate, etc.  Furthermore, I do not intend to imply this to be an all-inclusive statement; if a legacy's parents are donating $1000/year to the school, that's really nothing when considering the value of some endowments.  However, a school could make an economic argument to admit a legacy with subpar credentials if his/her parents were donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school.  Again, I personally think that legacies should be held to the same standard (or even possibly a higher standard) than everyone else, but that is not exclusive of stating that from the school's perspective, it might have an economic incentive of admitting a legacy that generally would be denied if he was Regular Joe Blow.

Hope that clears up any confusion...

'tiki

  • ****
  • 822
  • Big Red goes to Philly
    • View Profile
Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2006, 02:55:07 PM »
Confusion cleared! I think we are much on the same page now.  :D

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2006, 04:25:01 PM »
Oh.  I thought this thread was going to be about how you have a small penis.

LMAO!!!OMG!  I'm going to get fired if I don't control my laughter after reading this post.

Ok...serious business.  I'm African!  Born and raised in Nigeria.  I'm really on the fence about URM/AA but all I can say is that I don't think people born and raised in other countries that have different learning/reading/speaking styles from that designed for the LSAT should be placed in the same plain field.  For example, why will you want to compare an applicant who was born and raised in a country where English wasn't a first language to a U.S. citizen that grew up speaking the language fluently? 

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2006, 04:38:34 PM »
Oh.  I thought this thread was going to be about how you have a small penis.

LMAO!!!OMG!  I'm going to get fired if I don't control my laughter after reading this post.

Ok...serious business.  I'm African!  Born and raised in Nigeria.  I'm really on the fence about URM/AA but all I can say is that I don't think people born and raised in other countries that have different learning/reading/speaking styles from that designed for the LSAT should be placed in the same plain field.  For example, why will you want to compare an applicant who was born and raised in a country where English wasn't a first language to a U.S. citizen that grew up speaking the language fluently? 

I assume that the practice of law in the United States is still conducted predominantly in English.  It is also an assumption that the ability to communicate effectively and comprehend long, complicated documents written in the English language is a skill that all good lawyers must possess.  Further, most US law schools are teaching the study and practice of law in the United States in the vast majority of their classes.  Therefore, a thorough and demonstrated command of the English language, no matter one's background, should be a prerequisite for an applicant's candidacy.

Regardless, my point is that what takes you one minute to read and understand might take someone who wasn't raised in an English-speaking country, 2 mins to understand.  That should be a factor that should be considered.  ie that a non-speaker may have worked a little more harder.  As a result, a score of 165 for a non-English speaker should be equivalent to a 170 for an English speaker. I'm not saying a non-English speaker will fail in law school but I'm saying they will have to work much more harder and that should be put into consideration.

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2006, 04:47:59 PM »
Do does a URM status help you out at only private schools or public schools as well? I've recieved contradictory information.

President_Baccaga

Re: Jesus Christ, why didn't you make me a black man?
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2006, 04:59:08 PM »
Quote
Regardless, my point is that what takes you one minute to read and understand might take someone who wasn't raised in an English-speaking country, 2 mins to understand.  That should be a factor that should be considered.  ie that a non-speaker may have worked a little more harder.  As a result, a score of 165 for a non-English speaker should be equivalent to a 170 for an English speaker. I'm not saying a non-English speaker will fail in law school but I'm saying they will have to work much more harder and that should be put into consideration.

I don't really even know where to start with the flaws in this argument... Therefore I'll just quickly address a few practical matters before I go eat dinner.

First of all, you have to realize that law school is already a lot of work for basically all of the native English speakers.  If it takes a non-native speaker double the amount of time to read, comprehend material, perform various tasks, etc., that person would either fall behind almost immediately or not be able to sleep while school was in session.

I respect that you have learned English quite well given that it is not your first language, but in a competitive environment such as law school admissions and eventually into law school, exceptions like what you are suggesting have no place.  Who would even fathom of implenting a rule in baseball that the fence be moved in 100 feet when a pitcher comes up to bat?  I live in Italy for half the year; Italian is not my native language although I speak it fluently now... I never would think of asking for certain advantages just because I'm not a native Italian speaker.

Finally, indirectly you already get a boost for your status as a URM and schools will note that English is not your native tongue.  If you are able to score a 165 that will not automatically become a 170 on paper, but in the minds of the admissions committee, it might be even a point or two higher.

Dinnertime...