<p>If you're gonna do sports analogies, lets take a look at golf. There's something called a handicap. It levels the playing field so that players of various skills and talents can still play together and have fun.</p>
<p>Maize&Blue,</p>
<p>That's such a gross generalization. Are you trying to say that "they", as a whole, will fail and be unable to pay "their" accumulated debt and/or fail the bar? </p>
<p>The bias in your thinking is so strong that it is not even worth arguing. </p>
<p>I'll give you one more point for you to use in the future: Let's not let Hispanics go to high school because they all drop out anyway. <em>Shakes Head, again -by now it hurts</em></p>
<p>WF</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're gonna do sports analogies, lets take a look at golf. There's something called a handicap. It levels the playing field so that players of various skills and talents can still play together and have fun.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you're saying URM's need an "intelligence handicap?" I'm not willing to buy that. I just think there needs to be a change in the culture of URM's before any of the grand societal changes people dream about can be realized.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's such a gross generalization. Are you trying to say that "they", as a whole, will fail and be unable to pay "their" accumulated debt and/or fail the bar?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The numbers don't lie. AA admits fail out much more often and fail the bar over 10x as often. Like I said, I'll dig it up when I have time.</p>
<p>I wish the problem wasn't that pronounced, but it is.</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>
<p>Maize,</p>
<p>If that skin pigment was one of the causes of their burden/ oppression in the first place, I do believe it is a factor that must be considered. Notice I didn't say 'THE' factor but, instead, 'A' factor. Nobody is a shoe-in at Michigan and/or Harvard because of skin color. Furthermore, I'd like you to provide me with solid statistics that prove your point. I, personally, know people of color that have applied to top schools with much more than a 159 LSAT and still have been rejected. So, honestly, I don't know where you get your information from. More so, you are forgetting to account for GPA and many other variables -minorities are know, generally, for having good to excellent GPAs, but lower test scores.</p>
<p>Wildflower, read Antonin Scalia's "the disease as the cure" piece and come back. The recent addendum has the Harvard stats I cite and it's full of other (and much worse) examples of sickening levels of AA practiced in med schools.</p>
<p>The michigan stats are from the cornell law review article I posted to begin the thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
generally, for having good to excellent GPAs, but lower test scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...but, on the other hand, can you substantiate that? I know at Michigan at least they have much lower grades.</p>
<p>I agree with you in theory that the playing field needs to be leveled, but this can't be the way. The old addage about leading a horse to water comes to mind. I think some URM culture needs to be self-changed before anything happens big-picture wise. We can't "make them drink" despite the fact that, for the most part, the playing field is leveled.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Notice I didn't say 'THE' factor but, instead, 'A' factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but it's being used as THE factor. Stanford law review just published an impressive report showing how to get the results they are getting top schools are either </p>
<p>A: Directly giving points to minorities.</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>B: Sorting the applications pre-review and putting them on different tracks.</p>
<p>(both of which have already been found to be unconstitutional)</p>
<p>It's really an impressive piece - I highly suggest it if you want your stomach to turn.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody is a shoe-in at Michigan and/or Harvard because of skin color.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So Scalia (I'm sure he cited his source, but I'm too lazy to go look it up right now) and Cornell's law review both lied to me? 85% acceptance where non-urm's are at 0% looks as "shoo-in because of race" as it could possibly be to me.</p>
<p>I don't see how it could be any more clear-cut.</p>
<p>No reason to argue on a board, why dont you write a letter to your congressman? AA is in place for a reason, and they will not ostracise a whole society of blacks just so 10 more non urms can get a seat into a top law school.</p>
<p>btw: I did not mean that first comment to be taken offensively or sarcastically.</p>
<p>"No reason to argue on a board"...No reason not to, either. </p>
<p>Maize,</p>
<p>What can I say? We do disagree, and that's OK. Your thinking is definitely bias, just like that book. Then again, guess what, so is mine. I don't think AA is perfect, but it is at least a step in the right direction. Statistics, want it or not, are not always accurate and/or a clear representation of things. Do I disagree with some aspects of AA and the way some schools handle it? Sure. Do I think we need to go away with it? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>Well, take care and good luck...don't let an urm take your seat <em>rolls eyes</em> :D</p>