Re: Blacks and Law School: By The Numbers
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:01 am
The mass consensus is that nothing is really happening.
But if it does, it does. Relax.
But if it does, it does. Relax.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=195443
+1 Go drink some tea with honey Xixak. Or something. I agree that you are worrying too much.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:The mass consensus is that nothing is really happening.
But if it does, it does. Relax.
Sorry, I'm coming across as a nervous freak in most of my threads.bosmer88 wrote:+1 Go drink some tea with honey Xixak. Or something. I agree that you are worrying too much.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:The mass consensus is that nothing is really happening.
But if it does, it does. Relax.
Xixak wrote:Just my luck of course this has to happen the year before my cycle.A-Modest-Proposal wrote:This is a very helpful tool, extremely comprehensive and organized.
It's unfortunate that in a matter of days, these numbers may be rendered moot - given that the supreme court is on the edge of ruling against Affirmative-action. None of us know exactly what the decision will be, but by expert opinions, it doesn't seem to look so good for Affirmative action. If it does go down, it's unclear to what extent it will be deconstructed.
At that point, the next application cycle will be very intriguing for URM applicants. It's unclear if less URM's will be admitted to top schools because of a general trend of scores that are less stellar than the non-URM applicants. But if it is the case that less are admitted, that is deeply troubling.
What I got from this thread, compiled my feelings on the looming SCOTUS decision, URM's are underperforming, and we may all need to step our game up in future cycles to ensure that we can secure our spots T14 schools. If not, the numbers of URM's will fall, and everyone loses in that scenario.
Wrong.90convoy wrote:It's only for public universitiesXixak wrote:Just my luck of course this has to happen the year before my cycle.A-Modest-Proposal wrote:This is a very helpful tool, extremely comprehensive and organized.
It's unfortunate that in a matter of days, these numbers may be rendered moot - given that the supreme court is on the edge of ruling against Affirmative-action. None of us know exactly what the decision will be, but by expert opinions, it doesn't seem to look so good for Affirmative action. If it does go down, it's unclear to what extent it will be deconstructed.
At that point, the next application cycle will be very intriguing for URM applicants. It's unclear if less URM's will be admitted to top schools because of a general trend of scores that are less stellar than the non-URM applicants. But if it is the case that less are admitted, that is deeply troubling.
What I got from this thread, compiled my feelings on the looming SCOTUS decision, URM's are underperforming, and we may all need to step our game up in future cycles to ensure that we can secure our spots T14 schools. If not, the numbers of URM's will fall, and everyone loses in that scenario.
Would drastically reduce the # of URMs in T-14 classes next year.jrd93 wrote:Indeed, I was just searching for the information to correct this.
How do you guys feel about the future of AA?
I'd hate to see it go especially applying this upcoming cycle....
What does the consensus say will happen? I am sorry if you already posted it.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:The mass consensus is that nothing is really happening.
But if it does, it does. Relax.
My apologizes. But anyways, that sucksJohn_rizzy_rawls wrote:Wrong.90convoy wrote:It's only for public universitiesXixak wrote:Just my luck of course this has to happen the year before my cycle.A-Modest-Proposal wrote:This is a very helpful tool, extremely comprehensive and organized.
It's unfortunate that in a matter of days, these numbers may be rendered moot - given that the supreme court is on the edge of ruling against Affirmative-action. None of us know exactly what the decision will be, but by expert opinions, it doesn't seem to look so good for Affirmative action. If it does go down, it's unclear to what extent it will be deconstructed.
At that point, the next application cycle will be very intriguing for URM applicants. It's unclear if less URM's will be admitted to top schools because of a general trend of scores that are less stellar than the non-URM applicants. But if it is the case that less are admitted, that is deeply troubling.
What I got from this thread, compiled my feelings on the looming SCOTUS decision, URM's are underperforming, and we may all need to step our game up in future cycles to ensure that we can secure our spots T14 schools. If not, the numbers of URM's will fall, and everyone loses in that scenario.
If affirmative action is decided to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) of the Constitution then every university that receives any federal funding (read: every university that counts) will be prohibited from using race as a factor at all in admissions.
Probably won't happen but what you said is a misconception.
I don't know the major consensus but, fwiw, IMO the court willMojosodope wrote:What does the consensus say will happen? I am sorry if you already posted it.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:The mass consensus is that nothing is really happening.
But if it does, it does. Relax.
A-Modest-Proposal wrote:This is a very helpful tool, extremely comprehensive and organized.
It's unfortunate that in a matter of days, these numbers may be rendered moot - given that the supreme court is on the edge of ruling against Affirmative-action. None of us know exactly what the decision will be, but by expert opinions, it doesn't seem to look so good for Affirmative action. If it does go down, it's unclear to what extent it will be deconstructed.
At that point, the next application cycle will be very intriguing for URM applicants. It's unclear if less URM's will be admitted to top schools because of a general trend of scores that are less stellar than the non-URM applicants. But if it is the case that less are admitted, that is deeply troubling.
What I got from this thread, compiled my feelings on the looming SCOTUS decision, URM's are underperforming, and we may all need to step our game up in future cycles to ensure that we can secure our spots T14 schools. If not, the numbers of URM's will fall, and everyone loses in that scenario.
In other countries such as Canada, if you don't deserve to get into a school based on your academic achievements (grades, test scores), then you won't get in no matter what your race is.Xixak wrote:Would drastically reduce the # of URMs in T-14 classes next year.jrd93 wrote:Indeed, I was just searching for the information to correct this.
How do you guys feel about the future of AA?
I'd hate to see it go especially applying this upcoming cycle....
I hope not. I was anxiously waiting to hear something on Thursday morning while they were releasing opinions at 10 ET. More opinions will be released, most likely, on Monday at either 9 ET or 10 ET so be on the look out. If you guys are anxious as I am, you can check it out on scotusblog.com and receive live updates while they're releasing opinions.Typhoon24 wrote:i have a strong hunch that this won't even affect us at all at the graduate level.
Long time lurker. This is a solid analysis but I'm not convinced that is reasonable to assume that the test scores are normally distributed. Could someone give me the reasoning behind making that assumption?nick1 wrote:
The number of black test takers drastically reduced as well, the data is for LSAT administration that ran through 2011 (JUN) -2012 (FEB). I broke down the total number of test takers as a whole and data for males and females as well. Keep in mind the SDs are unique to each data set so the numbers add up weird. But the data still pretty much tells the same story as the OP.
MALE
4217 test takers
2 above SD (161): 71
2.5 above SD (165): 21
3 above SD (170): 4
FEMALE
7236 test takers
2 above SD(158): 123
2.5 above SD (162): 36
3 above SD (167): 7
TOTAL
11453 test takers
2 above SD (159): 194
2.5 above SD(164): 57
3 above SD(167): 11
Keep in mind that these are very rough numbers and GPA and other factors must be taken into account when we walk about admissions. Also look out for the updated admissions data that will start trickling out in August and September for the class that will be entering this fall. Make sure you are registering for resources like lawschoolnumbers.com as well to add to the information we already have. Good luck in the upcoming cycle!
Its the best estament we can make based on the data availableChill_Out wrote: Long time lurker. This is a solid analysis but I'm not convinced that is reasonable to assume that the test scores are normally distributed. Could someone give me the reasoning behind making that assumption?
We do know for a fact that LSAT scores are normally distributed. This principle is well understood.Chill_Out wrote:
Long time lurker. This is a solid analysis but I'm not convinced that is reasonable to assume that the test scores are normally distributed. Could someone give me the reasoning behind making that assumption?
This number above (275) considers only those who are attending T-14s. It is likely that the number of AA test takers who were admitted to T-14s is probably somewhat higher. I'm not sure precisely what estimate would be most valid (perhaps someone else could chime in), but I'm willing to be that there were 25 or more AA's who chose good T-20's (Texas, UCLA, etc) over some lower T-14s for a variety of reasons. Combine that with the numbers below from the rest of Nick's post:nick1 wrote:I decided to run an update for those that are applying for this upcoming cycle. The number of blacks attending T14s has reduced drastically, the numbers below represent the class that entered in Fall 2012.
Yale 16
Harvard 45
Stanford 12
Columbia 23
Chicago 11
NYU 24
Penn 19
UVA 19
Michigan 10
Berkeley 10
Duke 16
Northwestern 11
Cornell 15
Georgetown 44
275
If T-14 schools were actually offering 300+ admissions and there were less than 200 AA's with 159s or better (fewer still who can manage that score and pair it with a strong GPA)...well, you do the math. There are probably more AA sub-160s with a shot at the T-14 than most may think.TOTAL
11453 test takers
2 above SD (159): 194
2.5 above SD(164): 57
3 above SD(167): 11
Why would we expect or want this to happen?californiauser wrote:Can we expect high scoring AAs to decline this upcoming cycle?
From a practical point of view, the AAs with good numbers will have less competition to worry about.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Why would we expect or want this to happen?californiauser wrote:Can we expect high scoring AAs to decline this upcoming cycle?
That's dumb. More competition and higher aggregate AA scores means we're all doing a little better and bridging the black- white standardized test score gap.Typhoon24 wrote:From a practical point of view, the AAs with good numbers will have less competition to worry about.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Why would we expect or want this to happen?californiauser wrote:Can we expect high scoring AAs to decline this upcoming cycle?
Why are you quoting me and asking questions completely unrelated to my post?John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Why would we expect or want this to happen?californiauser wrote:Can we expect high scoring AAs to decline this upcoming cycle?
That would be good for the group as a whole but bad for many individuals who would obviously be able to get more with less in a less competitive scenario. A per-capita decline in the number of AAs on the higher end of the scale doesn't do much for the standing of the group, but it does do a lot for the few AAs per-capita with decent numbers who are left standing.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
That's dumb. More competition and higher aggregate AA scores means we're all doing a little better and bridging the black- white standardized test score gap.