<p>^is for affirmative action</p>
<p>By 2050, whites will be a minority in the USA. There will be no majority, only a "minority-majority." I think it's fascinating, but also not that big of a deal. (Your color doesn't matter.)</p>
<p>What will happen then? <em>sing song</em></p>
<p>…why did you make this thread? >_<</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://static.divbyzero.nl/facepalm/doublefacepalm.jpg[/url]”>http://static.divbyzero.nl/facepalm/doublefacepalm.jpg</a></p>
<p>Of course nobody posted here, seems like everyone is anti AA (only when they get rejected from their favorite school. Then all of a sudden they happen to know a minority who “didn’t deserve to go” who was accepted.)</p>
<p>But your OP is true, unless nationalist groups from all races intervene.</p>
<p>“Hey buddy! Do you wanna work for google!”</p>
<p>Yeah!</p>
<p>“Do you want to get an internship with them over the summer and take an all expenses paid trip to NY?”</p>
<p>Yeah! Yeah!</p>
<p>“Great, because goolge is running it’s Google Fuse program and you have a chance to get accepted. Now, tell me this, are you a good college student in a computer field?”</p>
<p>Of course, I love computers. I even went to a top university and have succeeded there as well. I have a fabulous resume and would love to apply.</p>
<p>“Great, now, one last thing before I go.”</p>
<p>Yes?</p>
<p>“Are you part of a group that is historically under-represented in the technology industry are encouraged to apply, including female, Native American, African American and Hispanic students as well as students with disabilities?”</p>
<p>…uh, no? But I am really qualified and would love the-</p>
<p>-hangs up-</p>
<p>Hello? Hello? **** it</p>
<p>Actually, that is the gist of how it goes. Not over the telephone, but in the mind of the recruiter. You really underestimate what elite companies will do in order to enhance their diversity statistics.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/196976-where-do-hls-yls-sls-grads-go.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/196976-where-do-hls-yls-sls-grads-go.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which one of the above is not like the others? Hmm… could it be the historically black college?</p>
<p>Your failed attempt at satire serves only to underline how offensive affirmative action really is. Kudos.</p>
<p>To make a case against affirmative action, you would have to show that the recruits from Howard are less capable than their peers from other law schools. Your argument is…?</p>
<p>*<strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>. How many threads are we going to have on AA this week? *</em>**, if we cared we would of posted IN THE LAST TWO AA threads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair point. Perhaps they aren’t lowering their standards. </p>
<p>You know those biglaw firms. A free-spirited bunch. Just like to be all spontaneous about where they do campus interviews. It has nothing to do with race or boosting their diversity figures. I mean, who knows, Howard is as good a law school as any. Let’s go to the numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And your argument is…?</p>
<p>You don’t need to convince me that Howard is less selective than Columbia or Harvard or Stanford, and it’s obvious enough that some companies are recruiting there to boost the diversity of their staff. (I am a big supporter of affirmative action, by the way.)</p>
<p>The question I am asking is how you know that there are not a number of fully capable law students at Howard. Their median admission numbers say nothing about the potential of the top group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then we are somewhat in agreement. Obviously neither of us can know how capable the law students hired at Howard are. No one but the firms themselves is privy to that information.</p>
<p>However, there is a reputation out there that despite Howard’s Tier 3 status, its students have some of the best recruiting prospects outside the T14. Explain that for me please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. The class size is 150. How many outliers can there be? (And we’re talking law schools here, where there aren’t outliers – outliers, by the nature of the game, would have moved up a level.)</p>
<p>Also, just look at the difference in those numbers. Especially LSAT scores. Large would be an understatement.</p>
<p>*<strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em>,</em></strong><em>. How many threads are we going to have on AA this week? *</em>**, if we cared we would of posted IN THE LAST TWO AA threads.</p>
<hr>
<p>Mine is different. I’m asking what will happen when there is a minority-majority.</p>
<p>Of course nobody posted here, seems like everyone is anti AA (only when they get rejected from their favorite school. Then all of a sudden they happen to know a minority who “didn’t deserve to go” who was accepted.)</p>
<p>But your OP is true, unless nationalist groups from all races intervene.</p>
<hr>
<p>A lot of people accepted because of affirmative action didn’t have the same opportunities as some people from CC. </p>
<p>You have a 2400 SAT, they have a 2100. Great. Who had money to pay for prep?</p>
<p>Okay b@rium, I see what you mean. I hear this argument a lot. The thinking is that jobs available today are simple enough that qualifications don’t matter. Instead of relying on GPA and interviews, you could number the law students and pick numbers out of a hat, because once you’re qualified, performance can’t be predicted, and most anyone is qualified. Let’s make GPA and everything else not matter – but only do it on the basis of race, and for those races that are underrepresented. This is the thinking, anyway. The result is still an “unfair” system, as far as those whose jobs are taken by the URMs are concerned, but not a system in which performance is systematically decreased, hence not a system in which society as a whole loses out. Just a few ORMs get shafted.</p>
<p>I believe in this, sometimes. I think it’s been shown, for example, that while the SAT is a good predictor of college performance, its predictive power is mostly lost for the top band of scorers at the most elite schools. Sure, whatever. Still doesn’t make it fair for those who are more qualified. Fair would be picking out of a hat. Really fair would be coming up with better qualifications – that do predict job performance at the highest levels. But sure, whatever, pick your favorite race; at least the educational mission is not detracted from.</p>
<p>In the case of Wachtell and Howard Law School, however, I’m sorry to say that my imagination won’t stretch that far. Maybe if Howard were a T20, then I wouldn’t find it ludicrous that it’s recruited in the same category as T1-8. But the difference in question is between 99 percentile LSAT and 55 percentile. Is the LSAT’s predictive power close to zero? I doubt it. If it is, we have bigger problems than racial underrepresentation. The whole system would then be a farce and should be dismantled.</p>
<p>Again, I can’t provide direct evidence from the law firms. Only the law firms themselves can. Yet there are some simple and common metrics that can be used to gauge lawyerly capabilities. These suggest that black lawyers as a whole: 1. benefit from AA policies; 2. are not as capable as their peers.</p>
<p>The first is the bar passage rate. Harvard’s bar passage rate is 97%. Howard’s is 61%. Howard has incredibly lower LSAT scores, and seems to have a correspondingly lower passage rate. This does not lead me to believe you when you suggest that a Howard student will be just as capable as a lawyer. Note that I make this particular comparison because we’re talking about whether Howard deserves to hold campus interviews with Watchell. I know that the overall black passage rate is out there somwhere, and I know that it’s lower than average. [ILRG.com</a> - 2009 Law School Profile - Howard University (DC)](<a href=“Georgetown University - 2020 Law School Profile”>Georgetown University - 2020 Law School Profile)</p>
<p>The second is the fact that black lawyers hired as associates have much lower chances of making partner. The following article takes for granted that black lawyers receive significant leeway with their GPAs during the biglaw hiring process, and some believe this is why they are less likely to make partner: poor job performance as predicted by low GPA. Others are skeptical of this claim, but the only other explanation they can manage is to blame it on racism on the part of the firm. <a href=“http://timmulvaney.typepad.com/LawyersDebateWhyBlacks.pdf[/url]”>Courageous Conversations;
<p>Huh? Let’s step back for a moment here.</p>
<p>We know URMs receive an enormous boost for undergrad.
We know URMs receive an enormous boost for law school.
We know URMs receive an enormous boost for hiring.</p>
<p>Then, when ability hits the real world, when achievement can’t be granted for the color of one’s skin, when the URMs can’t perform in the law firm, the excuse given is racism. Give me a break.</p>
<p>In my post, that part about Women, Native Americans, etc. was copied word for word from the Google Fuse page. So yeah…</p>
<p>White men are still highly represented at Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>Non-jewish white men are underrepresented.
Poor white men are underrepresented.</p>
<p>Non-jewish white men are underrepresented.
Poor white men are underrepresented.</p>
<hr>
<p>[The</a> Changing Face of Poverty in America](<a href=“http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_changing_face_of_poverty_in_america]The”>http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_changing_face_of_poverty_in_america)</p>
<p>Yeah okay?</p>
<p>What does this have to do with anything? Honestly? The OP just seems a little…racist.</p>
![http://static.divbyzero.nl/facepalm/doublefacepalm.jpg[/url]](http://static.divbyzero.nl/facepalm/doublefacepalm.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
