<p>To me it seems really unfair that individuals are allowed to have opportunities not offered to others simply on the basis that they are underrepresented. I am a black male and i am contemplating law school, (I am only a high school junior, so this may seem a little naive) and I would like to go to a top school. It seems unfair not only to those who are not represented but to minorities as well, I mean saw if I got into Harvard law (which is my goal) I think people would say that I only got their because of my race. It just seems really unfair.</p>
<p>Yeah, AA is kind of a double-edged sword. It boosts URM enrollment but at the same time people would assume that URMs only get in because of URM status. I can't really see schools eliminating the use of AA any time soon though.</p>
<p>Yeah, AA is unfair-so is "holistic admissions"... (that kid from north dakota stole my spot!) :/</p>
<p>don't worry, everything will balance out come exam time.</p>
<p>Mohammed, I don't think so. The minorities who have good enough scores to do well, will. And I really think that the ppl who benefit most are privileged minorities.</p>
<p>^but that's exactly the thing URMs DON'T have the same LSAT scors, on average, as the rest of the class. Sometimes they do, but on average their scores are lower. </p>
<p>Also, by definition, "privledged minorities" aren't URMs.</p>
<p>Don't worry about what others think about you. Just always do your best and work your hardest. A smart man once told me to never argue with the advantages you are given in life. This is one of those things. Yes, it is a bit of a double edged sword, but it is in your power to prove such baseless assumptions wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, by definition, "privledged minorities" aren't URMs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He is referring to the very common occurrence that someone who has an upper middle class upbringing gets the "ethnicity bump" due to AA. There are many blacks/hispanics in this country who had an upbringing far above average. This group is the group that generally benefits the most from AA.</p>
<p>Wong-- I think it's fair to say that you've lost your credibility as a poster regarding AA, so I would say to just stop your bitterness because you can't seem to get the same numbers as minorities who will get to places you could only wish to get to. Just drop it will you?</p>
<p>A law professor once explained this to a group of us that were visiting his school, in response to AA: every group of people need lawyers. this, in essence, is why AA persists and is necessary. </p>
<p>this really made a lot of sense to me. we are all comfortable going to doctors, lawyers, grocery stores, parks, etc. with people that are like ourselves, someone we can relate to.</p>
<p>Most people at Harvard law will be able look past whatever bump you might have received if you come off as intelligent/competent enough. The reason people get angry about AA or legacy are the kids who come off as (or are) completely unqualified for admission into the school.</p>
<p>I wasn't saying that such outcomes are necessarily fair. I was only saying that if a candidate is obviously not qualified then people tend to get angry about that. For candidates who are relatively similar in numbers and one receives a boost for URM status causes relatively less anger (as both were presumably qualified). A large gap in two applicants numbers is more likely to indicate a real difference in their abilities. If the two applicants are relatively similar then one having a slightly higher GPA or a slightly higher LSAT is less likely to indicate that one is more qualified than the other.</p>
<p>"Wong-- I think it's fair to say that you've lost your credibility as a poster regarding AA, so I would say to just stop your bitterness because you can't seem to get the same numbers as minorities who will get to places you could only wish to get to. Just drop it will you?"</p>
<p>May I refer you to...</p>
<p>lawschoolnumbers.com</p>
<p>Take, for example:</p>
<p>-The 166/3.7 who got in to Yale Law (URM)
-The 178/4.0 who got rejected from Yale (non-URM)
-The 162/3.3 who got in to Michigan (URM)
-The 175/3.8 who got rejected (non-URM)</p>
<p>This type of stuff happens all the time in college admission. The people getting into top law schools with well below median numbers are almost ALWAYS urms. The numbers don't lie.</p>
<p>175, 3.8 rejected at Michigan? ***?</p>
<p>Is the 178, 4.0 going to Harvard?</p>
<p>mohammad wong- chinese and muslim name...very interesting</p>
<p>Also lawschoolnumbers cannot be used as a source because a lot of sick people create fake profiles posing as URM with extremely low scores getting into top colleges. However, it is impossible to deny that some minorities do get into top schools with lower than average scores...so what?</p>
<p>so what? So that exactly prves my point earlier in the thread, which all of you so vociferously decried.</p>
<p>the point is that you put ridiculously extreme examples which are probably not true people.Don't be stupid- I didn't prove your point earlier, just indicated that they were not valid.</p>
<p>^ Are you from the UK? (My dad is)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, by definition, "privledged minorities" aren't URMs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the poster is referring to the fact that URMs from better socio-economic backgrounds (i.e. - having parents w/ college and professional degrees) tend to get admitted, since they generally have better scores than those w/in their group who grew up lower on the socio-economic rung.</p>