Do people who get into reaches struggle more than others? Forum

[FunkyJD]

I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non- [strike]URM[/strike] legacy applicant, or applicant without the "right" connections, who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by [strike]less-qualified[/strike] candidates with the right connections. So its a valid question to ask whether or not [strike]URMs[/strike] legacies or well-connected candidates succeed once at law schools for which they have below-average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of [strike]AA[/strike] people admitted on the basis of having the right connections. Its absurd to claim that all non-[strike]URMs[/strike] legacies ought to ignore the issue.

FWIW, there's not a more loaded word in America than "merit."

This is obviously an affirmative action debate; changing the title is window-dressing. Why pretend otherwise? OP, why not just state your position up front, and then we can discuss it?

[singingvontrapp]

I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non-URM who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by less-qualified candidates. So its a valid question to ask whether or not URMs succeed once at law schools for which they have below average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of AA. Its absurd to claim that all non-URMs ought to ignore the issue.

Maybe I am contributing to some massive trolling thread, but why do you think URMs are less qualified? It's been shown in studies that many standardized tests are stacked against certain minority groups, and GPA is a horrible indicator of future or past success (I say this as someone who has taught classes and given out grades like candy in a major university).

[Always Credited]

I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non-URM who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by less-qualified candidates. So its a valid question to ask whether or not URMs succeed once at law schools for which they have below average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of AA. Its absurd to claim that all non-URMs ought to ignore the issue.

[hiromoto45]

I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non-URM who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by less-qualified candidates. So its a valid question to ask whether or not URMs succeed once at law schools for which they have below average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of AA. Its absurd to claim that all non-URMs ought to ignore the issue.

[D. H2Oman]

^ what's wrong the minority's nose!?!

[FunkyJD]

^ 180 (to hiromoto).

[Kohinoor]

^ what's wrong the minority's nose!?!

he's wearing hipster glasses.

[MissCongeniality]

^ 180 (to hiromoto).

Ditto.

[evilgenius]

I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non-URM who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by less-qualified candidates. So its a valid question to ask whether or not URMs succeed once at law schools for which they have below average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of AA. Its absurd to claim that all non-URMs ought to ignore the issue.

No one is saying non-URM's shouldn't care about AA at all. But these threads always seem to want to address AA or target URM's "qualifications" for attending a given law school. As a poster above said, why doesn't anyone question legacy-admits, or those with significant work experience. Obviously those students didn't get in on #'s alone. And besides, who are we to say who's "less qualified" for a given school. Despite popular belief on this site, it really isn't all about #'s. Ad comms actually place value on other experiences. Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious.

[D. H2Oman]

[strike]Despite popular belief on this site, it really isn't all about #'s. Ad comms actually place value on other experiences. Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious[/strike].

no

[Always Credited]

[strike]Despite popular belief on this site, it really isn't all about #'s. Ad comms actually place value on other experiences. Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious[/strike].

no

^

[rando]

Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious.

You can't be serious

[cardnal124]

Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious.

[vanwinkle]

Despite popular belief on this site, it really isn't all about #'s. Ad comms actually place value on other experiences. Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious.

Dude, I defend adcomms against a lot of bullshit thrown at them on this forum, but come on, man. It is about numbers, in the aggregate. Not only that, they care about the LSAT because it's the strongest predictor of 0L's future bar passage ability available.

[hopefulhorn]

junelsat--

LOVE the response! I honestly don't understand AA and it's place in our society today. Mind you, if you saw me, you would not think I was white, but based on URM classifications, I might as well be.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

According to this link, about 37 % of Texans are of Hispanic or Latino origin, and only 47% are White (non-hispanic), the rest, a mixed batch.

I would argue that a Hispanic in Texas who grew up around several others just like him/her is much less of a URN than a white person that grew up around all Hispanic children. I am sure there are plenty of cases of this all around the Lone Star State.

In a couple of years, Hispanic/Latinos will not be the "minority" here by any means.

Are AA standards ever going to change? I have plenty of Hispanic friends who grew up the children of lawyers and doctors, with better education and opportunities than their white peers, and yet they still get an absurd boost when applying to law school. I think it's pretty ridiculous. Just my thoughts.

P.S. I am very VERY liberal.

[rando]

junelsat--

LOVE the response! I honestly don't understand AA and it's place in our society today. Mind you, if you saw me, you would not think I was white, but based on URM classifications, I might as well be.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

According to this link, about 37 % of Texans are of Hispanic or Latino origin, and only 47% are White (non-hispanic), the rest, a mixed batch.

I would argue that a Hispanic in Texas who grew up around several others just like him/her is much less of a URN than a white person that grew up around all Hispanic children. I am sure there are plenty of cases of this all around the Lone Star State.

In a couple of years, Hispanic/Latinos will not be the "minority" here by any means.

Are AA standards ever going to change? I have plenty of Hispanic friends who grew up the children of lawyers and doctors, with better education and opportunities than their white peers, and yet they still get an absurd boost when applying to law school. I think it's pretty ridiculous. Just my thoughts.

P.S. I am very VERY liberal.

There are certainly contentious issues surrounding URM applications and AA. But the way you frame the issue isn't entirely accurate. URM's are under-represented in the education pool, not necessarily the population. There are many white males who grew up in tough circumstances, and many hispanics that had it made, but AA is not purporting to solve subjective issues of SES.

[vanwinkle]

junelsat--

LOVE the response! I honestly don't understand AA and it's place in our society today. Mind you, if you saw me, you would not think I was white, but based on URM classifications, I might as well be.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

According to this link, about 37 % of Texans are of Hispanic or Latino origin, and only 47% are White (non-hispanic), the rest, a mixed batch.

I would argue that a Hispanic in Texas who grew up around several others just like him/her is much less of a URN than a white person that grew up around all Hispanic children. I am sure there are plenty of cases of this all around the Lone Star State.

In a couple of years, Hispanic/Latinos will not be the "minority" here by any means.

Are AA standards ever going to change? I have plenty of Hispanic friends who grew up the children of lawyers and doctors, with better education and opportunities than their white peers, and yet they still get an absurd boost when applying to law school. I think it's pretty ridiculous. Just my thoughts.

P.S. I am very VERY liberal.

There are certainly contentious issues surrounding URM applications and AA. But the way you frame the issue isn't entirely accurate. URM's are under-represented in the education pool, not necessarily the population. There are many white males who grew up in tough circumstances, and many hispanics that had it made, but AA is not purporting to solve subjective issues of SES.

+1. URM enrollment seeks to resolve discrepancies between the actual population and enrollment at universities. The fact that Hispanics are no longer the minority in population doesn't change this analysis, but in fact widens it; if anything it appears the gap between Hispanic population numbers and Hispanic enrollment in education is increasing.

P.S. "hopefulhorn", tacking on disclaimers like "I am very VERY liberal" doesn't make your ridiculous POV sound any less ridiculous.

[hopefulhorn]

rando-
I get that it has deeper implications and the point is to have certain populations represented equally in the legal world, but I just don't understand why URMs shouldn't be held to the same standards of entry.

[reverendt]

Grading is pretty much based on how well each student, relative to the others, makes an educated guess as to how to write an exam.

Therefore, admit stats barely matter.

TITCR

[hiromoto45]

rando-
I get that it has deeper implications and the point is to have certain populations represented equally in the legal world, but I just don't understand why URMs shouldn't be held to the same standards of entry.

Judging for your stats maybe you should be worried how you will do at UT.

[FunkyJD]

Any non-URM law students want to discuss their academic experiences after getting into their reaches? Your perspectives would add a great deal to this conversation, given the supposed expanded purpose of this discussion.

[hopefulhorn]

I am. It is something I am definitely considering in making my final choice. I think this is a great post topic and does not have to be limited to the URM vs. Non-URM discussion.

[hopefulhorn]

Any non-URM law students want to discuss their academic experiences after getting into their reaches? Your perspectives would add a great deal to this conversation, given the supposed expanded purpose of this discussion.

Agreed!

[rando]

rando-
I get that it has deeper implications and the point is to have certain populations represented equally in the legal world, but I just don't understand why URMs shouldn't be held to the same standards of entry.

This is a tough question to answer. For one, it really depends on your point of view; liberal/conservative slant, meritocratic principles, background, SES etc.

Some very good arguments are made that testmakers just don't know how to make an unbiased test. One that accounts for backgrounds equally and doesn't create disparities between populations. Considering the statistical analyses on this issue control for SES etc. the only other argument is that URM's are just not as intelligent (biologically). Many, including myself, do not believe this to be the case. So the answer is to account for the disparity in the test by handicapping the numbers instead of changing the test. That is AA.

Others simply argue that the racial prejudices that existed for so long entitle URM's to get their legup until the point where that legup is no longer needed. I think the Grutter v. Bollinger opinion set a sunset date for 25yrs in the future, to "re-evaluate." (it has been a long time since i've read that opinion, forgive inaccuracies).

My view is more in line with the statistical, test production theory. While the sordid racial history of our country is nothing to shove under the rug, reverse discrimination is not the answer IMO.

[hiromoto45]

Any non-URM law students want to discuss their academic experiences after getting into their reaches? Your perspectives would add a great deal to this conversation, given the supposed expanded purpose of this discussion.

Agreed!

I think the underlying assumption is no matter where an URM goes to law school that law school is their reach and therefore under qualified to attend.