<p>cormy3, you haven’t addressed my question yet: how do you know that the top students at Howard are less qualified than the recruits from Yale or Columbia? Yes, I agree with you that the average Howard student is probably a weaker lawyer if LSAT scores and GPAs have some predictive power. But the median scores don’t tell you much about the potential of the top and bottom groups.</p>
<p>There’s two more thoughts I wanted to throw out there: First, not all of the qualifications of an employee are easily quantified. Race could certainly be a qualification all by itself, e.g. because clients might be more inclined to trust a lawyer of the same race or cultural upbringing. (I could go further and argue that a certain threshold diversity is good for many more reasons, but that might be going a bit too much off topic.)</p>
<p>Second, I am not entirely convinced by the predictive power of GPAs and LSAT scores, at least not across races and socioeconomic groups. For example, some groups may place more value on a flawless academic record than others. Not obsessing about perfect grades does not automatically make someone a worse employee.</p>
<p>To me this matter is so simple and it doesn’t require citation of any long journal articles or doctoral theses. it’s wrong of that law firm to conduct interviews at Howard or any HBCU for that matter. if they want diversity AND a capable base of employees they’ll find it at the top schools (are you going to argue that all students at top schools are rich white males?), many of which are generous with funds to begin with. If I’m the cream of the crop I’m not going to choose an HBCU in the first place, because, let’s face it, most of them are not ranked well at all and glean little respect from employers.
The fact that they are conducting interviews at Howard just shows for me the true face of AA - 21st century America is willing to compromise quality for the sake of “diversity.” I think perhaps AA is a nice gesture but the “quota” system just doesn’t work.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and people, quit throwing around the word “racist.” you don’t even know what it means and all it does is cause rational discourse to come to a screeching halt.</p>
<p>It appears the only kind of data that can appease you is an admission from the law firms themselves that Howard graduates are not as capable as Harvard graduates. Obviously this is unobtainable. You are asking for something that is unobtainable.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it need not be obtained. I think I have reasonable evidence. If you believe that Howard graduates are no less capable, then you would also be saying that law schools and the whole law school process is a complete sham. The LSAT and UG GPA are useless, and the bar exam and the law school itself are a waste of time. Is this what you’re saying? Tell the LSAC that we should pick out of hats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SOME predictive power? We’re talking about the difference between 55 percentile and 99 percentile. The LSAT would have to have near ZERO predictive power if you are to be believed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very funny. Howard has a class size of 150. The 156 LSAT score is not the median, it’s the 75th percentile. That means there are 38 students at Howard with an LSAT above 156. Somehow magically, with a 25th and 75th percentile spread of 6 points, there are these huge outliers existing right beyond view of the statistics. Is this what you’re saying?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that literally NOBODY at the other schools has an LSAT that low. (Except for maybe a few URMs at Penn, but that just helps my point.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. But if you are allowed to say things like this, then so am I. Presumably race would be a disqualification because clients might be disinclined to trust an URM lawyer because they know of the prevalence of AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is a condemnation of the whole law school system. I love how people are willing to go to such lengths as throw out the entire system in order to justify and rationalize the existence of affirmative action. It’s just great.</p>
<p>Do you also not believe in bar exam passage rates? Keep in mind that there is a NATIONAL trend of URMs having lower bar exam rates. And you still think the LSAT has no predictive power. (I’m just humoring you by the way; there are studies of its predictive power, of course, and they are not zero. Please look them up before saying things like this.)</p>
<p>Do you also not believe in the lower rate at which black associates make partner? So you think this is due to racism or something else.</p>
<p>Apparently nothing will satisfy you until we get a testimonial from Wachtell that the reason their black associates fail to make partner is because of poor job performance – as predicted by every institutional measure you’ve dismissed above: UG GPA, LSAT, law school ranking, law school GPA.</p>
The University of New Hampshire’s mid-ACT range is 23-27. With their 25th and 75th percentile only 4 points apart, they certainly don’t have any top caliber students - is that what you are saying?</p>
<p>
I never said that. What I am saying is that scores might need to be interpreted in context. An 80th percentile score might mean different things for people with different backgrounds. (IQ scores, for example, are heavily correlated with the amount of formal education a person received and how intellectual their environment is. In some developing countries half of the population tests as mentally ■■■■■■■■ by US standards.)</p>
<p>
Yes, it might be an effect of affirmative action. (Happy?) It could also be a number of other reasons. Maybe the average black lawyer cares more about a work-life balance and less about achieving that promotion than his white colleagues. Maybe black lawyers are less confident and not quite as comfortable in leadership positions and don’t pursue partnership for that reason.</p>
<p>I recently read a paper that explored reasons why females mathematicians are underrepresented in the top departments. One of the conclusions the author arrived at is that female mathematicians tend to underestimate their own work, sell themselves short (e.g. publish their papers in less prestigious journals) and promote themselves less aggressively than their male colleagues (most likely a product of childhood socialization). As a consequence, it takes affirmative action to get women into these tenure track positions at all, even though their work might objectively be just as strong as that of their male colleagues.</p>
<p>I have a suspicion that we disagree on far more fundamental questions than just affirmative action. I firmly believe that people are a product of their environment, not hardwired for failure or success. Many minorities grow up in one environment only to be judged by the norms of another. If you ever step out of your middle class bubble, you might notice that the world looks radically different from another’s point of view.</p>
<p>If UNH had a class size of 150, and you asked me how many are of Harvard caliber, I would say the number is negligible. Also, UNH is not a good example. Its scores are too high. For the ACT, a score of 55th percentile is 21. Find a school with an interquartile of 18-22, and then take a stab how many are Harvard - UPenn quality.</p>
<p>You’re willing to throw out the whole system in order to defend affirmative action. That’s sad.</p>
<p>Plus, biglaw is insanely exclusive. Law in general is incredibly hierarchical. For Watchell, ranked the most prestigious law firm in the world, you better be in the T6 – and if you’re not in the T14, your chances are nil. For them to dip into Tier 3 to secure diversity stats, that’s offensive regardless if the ultimate job performance is affected or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand the arrogance of some people. Your objections are hackneyed and facile. What’s in your brilliant head that researchers haven’t thought of? You think yourself fit to criticize their methods without reading a single word of their’s. I don’t get it.</p>
<p>Does the test mean different things for different groups? No: “Moreover, the research shows that intelligence tests measure the capability equally well for all native-born English-speaking groups in the U.S.”</p>
<p>Is what is tested trivial to what we do in real life? No: " Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow the obligatory “middle class perspective” ad hominem has finally come out.</p>
<p>But you’re wrong. Why do you entertain such fairy tale thinking when the answer is a few clicks away? Seriously, why? Do you want to believe in it so badly?</p>
<p>“The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential–and they are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess and other traits. Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent mental aptitudes into intellectual equals.”</p>
<p>Finally, I can’t believe you don’t think bar passage rates mean anything. Whatever.</p>
<p>^that’s a very good point. I don’t mean to play the victim here, but I feel like when people from my high school hear that I’m at a good university and in an honors program, they automatically assume that I’m only able to attend because I’m a URM.</p>
<p>Just adding in my two cents. I find that AA is actually racist towards the minorities it supposedly helps. It assumes that these races are incapable of succeeding on their own and that they need unfair advantages to be as successful. Of course, people push this aside and are happy to be discriminated in this way as long as they’re getting perks from it. Hm. Interesting.</p>
<p>No, no, no. Affirmative action is not meant to level the playing field. That would imply enforcing equal opportunities, and would be completely in sync with the values of a non-racial meritocracy. Affirmative action, rather, is about ensuring equal OUTCOMES.</p>
<p>That’s why the focus is on diversity and representation, rather than opportunity and fairness. That’s why people only care about ways to justify races as being equally capable, rather than honestly investigating whether they actually are that way. For people who buy into the spirit of affirmative action, it’s a foregone conclusion that URMs deserve equal outcomes, and the only issue is how to achieve that equality. Finally, this is why affirmative action is race-based rather than income-based. </p>
<p>Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t programs or policies that aim for equal opportunity, because there are plenty, but affirmative action is not one of them.</p>
<p>So, technically, affirmative action can apply to whites without there being a discriminatory law against whites. All that needs to happen is for them to be underrepresented – an inequality in outcome, no matter the reason.</p>
<p>As it stands, whites are not underrepresented (I don’t think). However, non-Jewish whites ARE underrepresented – quite severely. Yet I don’t see AA proponents clamoring for affirmative action to apply to non-Jewish whites. Presumably this is because they don’t care to distinguish Jewish whites from non-. But this just goes to show how arbitrary (and dumb) these racial distinctions are, especially when one is trying to force equal societal outcomes – in every respect – according to them.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to argue, but I don’t understand “non-Jewish whites are underrepresented.” in my town there are only a few Jewish people. There’s a temple, but people come from far away places to get there. </p>
<p>Aren’t there more Non- Jewish whites than Jewish whites?</p>
<p>I am not arguing for affirmative action for non-Jewish whites. I’m just say their underrepresentation goes unacknowledged by those who support affirmative action. Ultimately, for those concerned about equal outcomes, it becomes difficult and arbitrary to determine how those outcomes should be apportioned, as in which groups qualify for AA patronage and which don’t.</p>
<p>You’re right that I don’t know the history of affirmative action. I’ll check up on the link because it looks interesting. However, I think that’s irrelevant here. I’m not a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court. Nor am I a historian. Of course I’m talking about affirmative action in the here and now. You can take your court cases back to class with you.</p>
<p>I’ll just insert a little asterisk in my future posts: *I’m only talking about the current version of AA. If you want the historical and legal scoop, go talk to Paulandart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there are way more non-Jewish whites than Jewish whites. That’s the point. The latter make up such a large portion of the White group in America’s elite colleges, obscuring the fact that the former are underrepresented.</p>
<p>I don’t have numbers at hand, but I believe it’s something like Jews are 5% of the general population and 25% of the students at Harvard/Yale/Princeton.</p>
<p>Okay, I just re-read your post #32 and that was my mistake. I read it wrong. I really don’t know why, because now it’s quite clear. My whole subsequent post was about what affirmative action is now, and explaining what it would take for whites to be protected by it now. So I wasn’t talking about history but you are in the right to assume that I was. Hence why in retrospect my post hardly seem like a coherent response.</p>
<p>Absolutely agree with your post, then, and I see the reason for posting it.</p>