<p>Wow, that's just sickening. The median on the LSAT (the main factor in law school admissions) was ~165 for all test takers. U Mich law, routinely ranked in the top 4-5 in the country accepted 85% of all Black test takers with a 155 or higher while rejecting over 60% of the white test takers with 165-170.</p>
<p>You don't think that's a bit overboard?</p>
<p>OT: Cornell has a law school? News to me.</p>
<p>Ohh, and a quick question.</p>
<p>There's little doubt that AA will be constitutionally banned in Michigan November, 06, but I was wondering if I will still be up against it in my law school application that year. I'll be applying to enter school fall '07, and I don't know what time of year law school decisions are made or if they'll be given a grace period to implement no-AA admissions.</p>
<p>"...accepted 85% of all Black test takers with a 155 or higher while rejecting over 60% of the white test takers with 165-170."</p>
<p>Great play with statistics!!! I'm not dumb. Why don't you include the group of whites with 170-180, since the statistic for African-Americans includes this range. I think it would bring up that 60% just a little bit, even if it partially cancels out with the 155-165 that is also not included in the statistic.</p>
<p>Don't try to make a point with flawed statistics.</p>
<p>Um... median LSAT for all test takers is 151. 165 is the 95th percentile.</p>
<p>He has a point despite that flaw, because the number that have over 170 is so small.</p>
<p>But he makes it seem like whites are screwed no matter what. If he included the 170+ range it would be around 90% getting in.</p>
<p>I don't know if it would be that high, but it would certainly be higher.</p>
<p>You're right - I read the word "median" wrong in the article, but my point still stands.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Compelling Need Reports buttressed the University of Michigans
defense of its own admissions policies. In 2003, blacks constituted
6.7 percent of the students enrolled at the University of
Michigan Law School because it accepted over eighty percent of all
black applicants who scored at least 155 on the LSAT.245 Nationally,
in the fall of 2002, only 0.8 percent of black test takers scored the
median of 165 on the LSAT. In contrast, 8.3 percent of nonblack test
takers scored 165 or higher, a number large enough to fill the firstyear
class at all of the nations top law schools.246 To achieve racial
diversity in enrollment, the University of Michigan Law School rejected almost one-half of all white applicants who scored between...</p>
<p>237 BOWEN & BOK, supra note 201, at 5.
238 Id. at 7. To put this number in perspective, in the same year, the percentage of
black medical students was 6.3 percent. Id.
239 See Bok Expert Report, supra note 234, at 260.
240 Id.
241 See id. at 262.
242 See id.
243 Id. at 263 (citing DEBORAH L. RHODES, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 5354 (1994)).
244 Id.
245 What if Grutter Had Gone the Other Way?, J. BLACKS HIGHER EDUC., Autumn 2003, at
32, 33.
246 Id. at 3233. If the admissions process had not been race sensitive, it is reasonable
to assume that students would [have] need[ed] an LSAT score in the range of 165 in order
to have a good chance to be considered for admission. Id.
2005] THE EVOLVING DIVERSITY RATIONALE 493
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, 80% of 155's going to Michigan? That just seems absurd.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Great play with statistics!!! I'm not dumb. Why don't you include the group of whites with 170-180, since the statistic for African-Americans includes this range.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As per the article: Blacks by-and-large don't score in that range at all so I fail to see how it makes a difference. Read it before you attack me or call me racist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But he makes it seem like whites are screwed no matter what. If he included the 170+ range it would be around 90% getting in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, if you really want to have equal ranges we should take a look down, as well. At 155, (where Blacks are getting in 80+% of the time) you would see a 0% white acceptance rate. That's just outrageous.</p>
<p>No thats 80% is for 155 <em>through 180</em>. Not just for 155. Look, its all irrelevant anyways. It is so childish it's not even worth arguing over.</p>
<p>Sorry if I attacked you. Never called you racist though; you must've implied that one.</p>
<p>It isn't a childish issue, maybe the way you guys argue over it is, but affirmative action is a very serious issue especially for prospective students. </p>
<p>My personal opinion is that State schools should be color blind and base decision on actual hardships like economic level for instance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No thats 80% is for 155 <em>through 180</em>. Not just for 155. Look, its all irrelevant anyways. It is so childish it's not even worth arguing over.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's not. Read the article. At best, it's 155-165 because the article explicitly states that only less than 1% of Blacks score 165+ and less than 1/10th of 1% of Blacks score 170+.</p>
<p>Please before you attack Affirmative action, just take a moment to see it in the eyes of a prospective black student. </p>
<p>I for one have tutored black students as well as white and asians and I have found that (my assessment is not accurate because I have not tutored EVERY black student) the black students i tutored did not 'get things' as quickly as the whites and asians i have tutored. It was tough for me watching them work hard but struggle to comprehend. </p>
<p>I imagine this is the same when it come to the Lsats as many black students work and work but just cannot do well on it. Ok, then people will argue about whites or asians who also dont do well, but the fact is that more asians and white score over the 165 barrier than do blacks.</p>
<p>If AA was taken away there would be such a small number of blacks in the legal field that it would create a lack of black lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, etc. Since blacks represent such a significant part of the american population, the lack of black leaders would be very detrimental to their society, self esteem and economic situations.</p>
<p>While I hate contributing to these arguments, I agree with Tired Student.</p>
<p>Also, I don't think that blacks are really "taking away" seats from white students. If 10 seats are given to black students, they aren't taking seats away from all 1,000 white students with higher scores - because, if you stopped the preferential admissions, only 10 of those more qualified white students would get in.</p>
<p>There is also something very inflammatory in publishing (and arguing about) only black/white statistics. How about New England/West Virginia? If you've lived in the Appalachian area all your life, a 165 would be amazing - and would get you admittance to law schools that students from other areas of the country would not get. Anyone up for fighting about that? </p>
<p>Finally - what I've never seen for AA but have seen for men/women is the PREDICTIVE value of standardized tests. The SAT underpredicts women's performance in college. IMO, given that, it makes perfect sense to admit a woman with slightly lower board scores, as they will be more successful than men with the same board scores - and the aim of standardized tests is to determine who will be successful in college. I don't know if it's the same for minorities (if a black woman with a 155 were about as successful in law school as, say, a white woman with a 165), but that might shed some light on this practice.</p>
<p>There are more black athletes in basketball and football than whites, should we now bring in inferior white athletes for the sake of having equal results? A prospective sutdent that has a lower GPA and LSAT is an inferior student no matter how you spin it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT underpredicts women's performance in college. IMO, given that, it makes perfect sense to admit a woman with slightly lower board scores
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually AA admits fail out of ls at 4x the normal rate and fail their first sitting of the bar 12x as often. I can dig up the study for you later, but I'm on my way to mother's day brunch.</p>
<p>yeah i've seen that statistic. And to the point of sports and education they are two very different fields. One incorporates physical attributes that are God given and the other can incorporate effort. Someone who is short and slow wont make the Nba no matter how hard he tries, however people with mental disabilities can still learn. </p>
<p>Plus this goes into slavery and discrimination. Remember, blacks were brought into America as slaves and when the 13th amendment was passed what were we to do with them? There was no way we could ship them all back to Africa so they had to be incorporated into our society. There comes the problem. Now America has a whole 6-7 generation of blacks who were once slaves, had very little formal education and only knew how to perform manual labor.
Think about taking two years from school and trying to do complex calculus. Blacks were deprived of education for many generations and thus they may not 'be able' to comprehend or think as quickly (or not as yet) as others in our society. </p>
<p>The only thing I dislike about AA is that the government tries to say that it is not a reconciliation of past mistreatments and a form of diversity. What a bunch of bull. I for one dont like AA but I support it in education. The case to argue is similar to how a class slows down when there is one student who doesnt understand. The teacher would not just ignore the student and go on, just as our education system shouldnt ignore blacks and just go on.</p>
<p>So why put them in Michigan where they fail out? Why not put them down the street at Cooley?</p>
<p>"So why put them in Michigan where they fail out? Why not put them down the street at Cooley?"</p>
<p>...Or, why not bring back slavery? Let's make things simpler, right? <em>Shakes head</em></p>
<p>The fact is that society needs to be leveled, and currently it is not. Society is becoming more diverse each day, and if it fails to maintain educational equality we'll fall into an undesirable caste system. I don't know about you but, I don't want that. Will it ever be fully leveled? I don't know, but any effort to do so is, in my opinion, worhtwhile. AA remains constitutional, so complain all you want until it changes. Also, a graduate from Michigan will have more opportunities than one from Cooley; it is just a reality. </p>
<p>Then again, I mean, why Law School? Aren't there a bunch of sports to be played? Or, a bunch of vocational professions to be filled? <em>shakes head again</em></p>
<p>And...as ariesathena said -more or less-, affirmative action doesn't prevent the caucasian middle class, 165 Lsat students from getting in. At a top school those students would, almost certainly, not stand a chance with those "higher scores." </p>
<p>Sorhab,</p>
<p>Please, tell me why the government would be interested in leveling the playfield on the sports arena by bringing "less qualified" athletes? </p>
<p>Frankly, what's the basis for such a ridiculous comparrison? </p>
<p>WF</p>
<p>How is it doing anyone any favors by putting them where they fail out (and accumulate debt they can't pay) and/or fail the bar?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And...as ariesathena said -more or less-, affirmative action doesn't prevent the caucasian middle class, 165 Lsat students from getting in. At a top school those students would, almost certainly, not stand a chance with those "higher scores."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. I just don't think people should be shoo-ins for Michigan with a 155 or shoo-ins at Harvard w/ a 159 simply because of their skin pigment - especially when you're turning down kids with 170's.</p>