The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
 16 posters qualify.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
2.6, 152 In at Michigan (non-black)
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 4th, 2006 9:35 PM Author: azure national ratface Subject: Grutter The policy also offers three examples of actual diversity admissions. One student was born in Bangladesh, graduated from Harvard with a 2.67 grade-point average, received "outstanding references" from his professors, had an "exceptional record of extracurricular activity," and had Law School Admission Test scores at the 46th percentile and 52nd percentile. Another was an Argentinian single mother with extensive business experience, who graduated summa cum laude from the University of Cincinnati, who was fluent in four languages, and scored at the 52nd percentile on the Law School Admission Test. The third applicant had a 3.99 grade-point average from the University of Florida, a Law School Admission Test score at the 90th percentile, and as the daughter of Greek immigrants was "immersed in a significantly ethnic home life," and fluent in three languages.
http://www.nacua.org/NACUAResourcePages/Docs/AffirmativeAction/Grutter_v_Bollinger_SixthCircuit.htm |
Date: February 4th, 2006 9:42 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler People on xoxo don't like to hear this kind of stuff because it flies in the face of the widely accepted myth of the "black 10 point LSAT boost." This is the reason why no one will post on this thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4996954) |
 |
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:00 PM Author: vigorous indigo market How does the above "fly in the face of the widely accepted myth of the "black 10 point LSAT boost?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997050) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:02 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler People think blacks automatically get a 10 point LSAT boost because of their race. The above demonstrates that much more goes into an admissions decision than simply adding 10 points because of someone's blackness. (This is not to say, of course, that race is totally ignored in the admissions process, or that it isn't used as a criterion, to whatever degree.) I thought this was obvious from my post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997058) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse did you even read what you posted? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997090) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:10 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Sometimes I feel like I've wandered into retardo-world, valen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997109) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:10 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler The black 10 point myth is premised on the idea that blacks get 10 points simply because they're black. The above suggests that much more goes into the admissions process than simply adding points to someone's LSAT just because of their race. I'm not really arguing for or against AA, though. I'm rather ambivalent toward it, but I can defend it. Don't you attend Tulane or something? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997112) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:14 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse actually no what this says is if you are a white greek you had better have way better numbers than if you are a non-white person form Bangladesh! Skin color is everything when it comes to AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997134) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:22 PM Author: vigorous indigo market You can defend it the way marlee Matlin can defend her singing voice.
Now pay attention...just because some lucky lottery winner makes it in because they were raised by Nicaraguan wolves does not mean that schools do not factor race, particularly African American as that race, heavily into the process.
For example, in 1993-94, only 21.5 percent of African American LSAT takers scored 150 or above compared to 44.6% of Hispanics. Do you really need to wonder why Hispanics don't get as much of an AA boost?
Going a different direction, of test takers scoring between 145 and 149 on the LSAT, there were 9767 whites, with only 3,308 gaining entrance. There were 1803 blacks (almost the total of all scorers above that range) and of these, 1116 gained admission. Better than sixty percent for blacks, almost exactly 33% for whites.
Nah...it doesn't matter much in admissions... |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:26 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse dont bother with these retards. If the guy from Bangladesh had the same life story but was an Indian he would not have gotten in. Indians are not URM's. These fucks dont understand that national origin is used as a proxy for race when it is convenient. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997202) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Didn't realize you were on an admission board to be privy to this information. For a guy so verse on admission, how'd you end up at Tulane? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997213) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:28 PM Author: vigorous indigo market He was born white.
Don't hate the player, Galt....
BTW it's "versed" |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:33 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Thanks Ben for actually attempting to support your assertion. I'm not claiming that AA is for anyone other than URM. However, I am saying that it is worth noting that the examples provided in the OP got into a top ten law school with 152s - and they are not black. According to XOXO, only a black could accomplish this. I believe that a black has a better chance than anyone else to do this, but clearly other URMs can also. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997271) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:41 PM Author: vigorous indigo market The problem with outliers is that you never know what is the bizarre circumstance that prompted a charity admission. I'm sure some fuckwad rich white kid has gotten into a T14 with a 155 and 3.3 GPA. That shit happens from time to time. The point is that we have to examine whether or not AA is a good policy--does it achieve it's stated purpose and does it do so in an equitable and fair manner.
I would question the first question more than I would the second, though the second is more incendiary. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:44 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point The problem with these questions is that they are so subjective in nature that it is hard to support or discredit the policy with empirical data. But 2.67/152? I'd go as far to say that no black has ever been admitted with those numbers - to any tier 1 much less a top 10. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997376) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Maybe, we'll see. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997577) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:32 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Irrelevant. That blacks score less on average on the LSAT than whites is not in issue. Also not in issue is that blacks get into ls with inferior gpas and LSAT scores than whites. What *is* in issue, though, is whether you can say that those blacks are getting in *only* because of their race, as opposed to other, more subjective considerations. The black-LSAT myth says that blacks are admitted *only* because of their race, while the OP suggests that other considerations go into an admissions decision. Neither the OP nor any of my posts suggests that race is *totally* ignored in the process. They do suggest, rather, that, while considerations of blackness may or may not be looked at depending on the applicant, it is not the only factor, and indeed, if it were, not only would the Bangladeshi 152 have been denied admission, but also Grutter would not have upheld UM's policy. Again, though, I'm a bit ambivalent toward AA, but misinformation is a killer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997270) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:38 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Irrelevant. That blacks score less on average on the LSAT than whites is not in issue. Also not in issue is that blacks get into ls with inferior gpas and LSAT scores than whites. What *is* in issue, though, is whether you can say that those blacks are getting in *only* because of their race, as opposed to other, more subjective considerations. The black-LSAT myth says that blacks are admitted *only* because of their race, while the OP suggests that other considerations go into an admissions decision. >>>>
Since neither of us is in the room for the admissions process, we cannot say that race is the "only" reason, but without other evidence to compare than GPA and LSAT, it is pretty fucking compelling.
And between you and me, you don't sound very "ambivalent" towards AA.
Michigan also liked to state that they had denied asdmission to many very numerically qualified applicants that were URM, 257 if I remember correctly. 250 were Hispanic.
So yeah, misnformation is a killer. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:44 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler "Since neither of us is in the room for the admissions process, we cannot say that race is the "only" reason, but without other evidence to compare than GPA and LSAT, it is pretty fucking compelling."
The other evidence is the OP and the rigorous examination of UM's policies that went on in Grutter. You see, in the law, when a policy is challenged as being discriminatory because of its disparate impact on a certain race, the proponents of that policy have to bring in a lot evidence that proves that the policy is anything but that. (This is a crude way to describe the process. I characterize it like this because I'm sure you're not in law school, and it's the simplest way I can lay it out.) That's what went on in Grutter, and is what was suggested by the 6th Cir COA opinion quoted in the OP. But I guess we can ignore that evidence, though; or maybe it's not really "evidence" of anything. Yup.
"And between you and me, you don't sound very "ambivalent" towards AA."
I am, but I'm a prestigious law student so I can argue anything both ways.
"So yeah, misnformation is a killer."
Agreed. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: vigorous indigo market The other evidence is the OP and the rigorous examination of UM's policies that went on in Grutter. You see, in the law, when a policy is challenged as being discriminatory because of its disparate impact on a certain race, the proponents of that policy have to bring in a lot evidence that proves that the policy is anything but that. (This is a crude way to describe the process. I characterize it like this because I'm sure you're not in law school, and it's the simplest way I can lay it out.) That's what went on in Grutter, and is what was suggested by the 6th Cir COA opinion quoted in the OP. But I guess we can ignore that evidence, though; or maybe it's not really "evidence" of anything. Yup.>>>>
Douchebag, the point went like this:
You say that blacks are the primary recipients of racial violence in America, but since I can show you three specific examples of violence against Jews, pervasive and unfairly targeted racial violence against blacks must be less than what we thought.
Really, this is like a flaw LSAT question for the educably mentally retarded.
Embarrassing
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Indeed. On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how dumb the guy is who says the following things:
1) Blacks get a 10 point LSAT boost just because of their race.
2) This is true because all we have to go on is the GPAs and LSATs of admits.
3) Ok, we don't know how the admissions system works, so we'll just have to accept that blacks get a 10 point LSAT boost, because again, we don't know how the admissions sytem works because we're not admissions people.
4) Ok, sure, the technical contours of the admissions policy were on full display in Grutter, but we still don't have any way to know what goes on in the admissions process because we're not administrators. All we have to go on is the fact that blacks get into law school with inferior numbers than whites. That's it.
5) Oh, and by the way, blacks get into law school with inferior numbers than whites. This is conclusive evidence that they get a ten point LSAT boost. Ok, sure, some random Bangladeshi may have gotten in with identical numbers as a black person, but this doesn't mean anything. Indeed, it's merely an anomaly and not indicative of anything at all. No, it's not.
6) I combine adverbs. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:04 PM Author: vigorous indigo market 1) I never said that, get your boyfriend's cock out of your mouth and read better.
2) Amazingly, the Supreme Court wasn't sold enough on any other reason in the case. Strange, eh?
3)See one, cock still in your mouth...
4) And if there were some secondarey factor they used, you don't think they would have brought it up, huh? I have some bad news for you about the Easter Bunny.
5) Dude, where the fuck are you getting this shit?
6) You can combine the two very easily, like reacharounds with your boyfriend and morning coffee. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:08 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler O....k. Now I'm a homo? LOL alright man. I gotta go now, but since it's more than obvious that you hate logic, I don't think I'll be talking to you ever again. And read Grutter over again. (Actually, you might want to read it 3 or four more times.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997547) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: vigorous indigo market I'll recommend something for you..
Cat in the Hat.
Start from there and move forward, Billy Madison. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=sophomoric
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:13 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point "And if there were some secondarey factor they used" C'mon Gibson, you were just attacking people for spelling errors, secondarey? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997593) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:42 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point I not sure what you are trying to prove. Blacks>>>Whites with the same, similar or even within a few LSAT points. However, the point of thread is to show something contrary to XOXO lore: ONLY blacks get such a significant boost, hispanics get a small boost and asians get none.
Both the asian and the hispanic there had 152 range LSAT and got into a top 10 law school. Not to mention, the asian had a 2.67 GPA. The point is none of us know which URM get a bigger boost. We all agree that they do get a boost though.
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:53 PM Author: vigorous indigo market AA is a POLICY, Galt.
I suspect the three bizarre examples above were not POLICY issues. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:55 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point But thread really isn't about just AA. It's about a claim that only blacks can get the reputed 7-10 point boost and that there AA boost is supposed vastly superior to any other URM. These example indicate that this may not necessarily be the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997453) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:05 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Galt, I don't mean to be a dick here, but I just don't believe you got a 169.
"there AA boost"
You thought you couldn't get your girlfriend pregnant because it had "never happened before?" |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:08 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Lol, credited. But after having unprotected sex for over 4 years, yes I thought one of us had to be infertile. Unfortunately, I was wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997546) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:08 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Good find. Should shut up some of those right-winged guerillas. That is amazing though, a top 10 law school with a 2.67/152 is sheer luck. The hispanic got in with a 153 or so too. The last kid really isn't that big a deal though, she had a 3.99 from a decent school and 164-166 on the LSAT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997097) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:10 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Did you even read this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997105) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:12 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Aren't you the kid who said that the 2.8 gpa 156 kid was a lock at the 26-40? LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997124) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:16 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Did you? If you did then your reading comprehension skills are definitely in question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997145) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:24 PM Author: vigorous indigo market I said that kid should blanket those schools, because unlike your dumb ass, I actually read the admissions articles.
"If you did then you reading comprehension skills are definitely in question."
Reread that, genius... |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:35 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point You replied to the wrong post... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997290) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:43 PM Author: vigorous indigo market true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997366) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse she is white! If she had the 152 she would have never gotten in. This confirms everything we already knew about AA mainly that it gives people of color a giant boost for no other reason than they are of a certain color. A guy from bangladesh is equivalent to a black when it comes to being a URM. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997114) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:14 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point "This confirms everything we already knew about AA mainly that it gives people of color a giant boost for no other reason than they are of a certain color. A guy from bangladesh is equivalent to a black when it comes to being a URM."
Funny how all along blacks get an advantage way greater than all others and south asian aren't considered minorities. When an example is provided to the contrary, now South Asian=Black. This is the expected quality out of Tulane. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:17 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I think I agree with how you characterized valen2's post. Like I said before, I'm ambivalent toward AA, but seeing the misinformation on this site makes me want to defend it for some reason. People really have no idea what they're talking about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997150) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: vigorous indigo market If by people, you mean you, then yeah.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997215) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:37 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler You're the dude who said a black 2.8gpa 156 was getting into a 26-40, and *I* don't know what I'm talking about. Now, I can see that you hate AA (for whatever reason), but I think it would be better for your position if you'd ... I don't know ... just not say anything else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997311) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:43 PM Author: vigorous indigo market You still are misquoting me, and since the largest number of schools granted blacks a 7 point LSAT boost in the Liu and Anthony study, yeah--I think a 2.8 163 LSAT might get into one of those schools.
Prove me wrong or STFU.... |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler A 2.8gpa, 156 black is not getting into UIUC or BU simply because he's black. Again, I know you find this impossible to believe, so fine. I find no utility in trying to convince you that you're wrong. People who hold views as strongly as you do won't get rid of those views without a big pissy fuss. See all the AA threads on XOXO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997433) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: vigorous indigo market I'm reading the LSAC technical report on law school performance by ethnic group right now. The report is 96-98 and the schools do differ in difference between white and minority students average LSAT and GPA by ethnic group--which means, that they employ AA differently because (A) different schools can and (B) the AA boost is very different by minority groups.
For example, the greatest percent of schools (39%) had a difference of 7.5 LSAt point between whites and blacks,
while 7% averaged a high of 13.5 and 2% averaged only 1.5. For UGPA, the majority (38%) showed a .3 difference while 2% showed an average .6 differnce and 4% actually showed white students with a minus .1 GPA compared to black admits. Sooooo...the GPA boost is minimal, which makes sense since by tracking first year GPA in law school, UGPA slightly underpredicts performance for white students and slightly overpredicts performance for blacks.
As these data typically show, the patterns for Hispanics is somewhere betwen whites and balcks, even though more blacks attended law school in the years studied. For those who are interested in reading the report. the authors are Liu and Anhtony.
So you may want to think on that again, chief...
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:03 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler "A 2.8gpa, 156 black is not getting into UIUC or BU simply because he's black."
If you don't understand why your post IN NO WAY refutes what I said, then the only thing I can say is whoa.
Whoa. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: vigorous indigo market I asked you first to show me a grid of a 26-40 that had no such score combo.
You replied with, nu-uh, you find one that does.
Since you are merely talking out of your ass and I have provided techniucal data and you have not, you go look it up.. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I'll get on that right away, but only if you promise not to call me a homo, tough guy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997561) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:11 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Okay, I promise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997567) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:13 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Cool. Stay tuned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997586) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:50 AM Author: vigorous indigo market I've been tuned for a while now, 2L.
Do you have any evidence or are you still talking out of your anus? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:20 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Read the Grutter briefs. You can start there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001891) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:24 PM Author: vigorous indigo market No..that wasn't the deal.
I supplied you with data, you have no data to speak of. I've read Grutter, your argument is specious. Someone being hit by lottery magic does not prove shit and you know it.
Where was that 26-40 ranked school data that showed "no one" got in with thos numbers?
Remember, you said you could argue either side because you're a prestigious law student. Is this really the best you can do? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:33 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Wait, so let me get this straight.
1) You say that a 2.8 156 black could get into a 26th ranked school -- simply because of his race.
2) But you were unable to produce one. Not one. Again, not one.
3) You then cite to several studies that say that blacks on average get into ls with lower numbers than whites. No one here debated the facts underlying those studies. Again, listen very, very closely: no one here (maybe others did, but I certainly never did) is disputing the facts underlying those studies. The debate revolves around whether blacks get in *just* because they're black, as opposed to other individualized, subjective admissions criteria. The OP says that other criteria are used. But then you write off the OP as being a "lottery." Sorry bud, but this won't cut it, especially since you have the Grutter briefs at your disposal. Read the briefs to get an idea of what's *really* going on, don't just speculate based on these numbers -- numbers that are undisputed.
4) Then you ask me to prove that there *weren't* any blacks that got in with those numbers.
I hope you're smart enough to figure out where you slipped and fell on your face. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:35 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Let me refresh your memory, Roofie-boy.
Ben Gibson: I asked you first to show me a grid of a 26-40 that had no such score combo.
You replied with, nu-uh, you find one that does.
Since you are merely talking out of your ass and I have provided techniucal data and you have not, you go look it up..
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997531)
Reply
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: 2L
I'll get on that right away, but only if you promise not to call me a homo, tough guy.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:37 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I'm still waiting on a 2.8 156 black at BU that got in just because he was black. Still waiting. (Hint: I was making you look like a monkey with the other post. Guess how?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002017) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:39 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Can you read? You agreed to provide one grid of a school in that blanketed range that had no admits with those stats.
Now you're pussing out, likely because you couldn't find it.
Now go back to your boyfriend,Brokeback... |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:45 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Still waiting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002058) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:46 PM Author: vigorous indigo market For what? Your boyfriend's cock?
EDIT:
Plug those numbers into this calc:
http://officialguide.lsac.org/UGPASearch/Search3.aspx?SidString=
Note that several schools in the thirties have probabilities above 0.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:50 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler No, for a 2.8 156 who got into BU simply because he was black. And like I said before, your 3rd grade sharp-as-a-thimble jokes belong on the 4lawschool website, not here.
Still waiting. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:54 PM Author: vigorous indigo market I told the OP to blanket 26-40. To then state that I would need to provide evidence of a specific school's admit is moronic.
Are you really this stupid, or is it schtick?
I mean really...your school must have a curve that looks like an on-ramp to heaven. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:57 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Still waiting.
Stupidest joke ever, by the way. I guess a pattern is emerging ... are you a writer for SNL? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 5:39 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Already supplied it, cock-gobbler. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5003087) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:18 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse an Indian guy would not get the same boost as a person from Bangladesh it is all about being UNDERREPRESENTED and the people who are underrepresented are people of color. HTH. No greek is going to get the kind of AA boost that a person of color will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997152) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:15 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler How does an admit with a 3.99 gpa and a 90th percentile LSAT "confirm[] everything we already knew about AA mainly that it gives people of color a giant boost for no other reason than they are of a certain color"? Wouldn't it help your argument to point to a white chick who was DENIED admission even though she had IDENTICAL numbers as the black or bangladeshi admit who was admitted? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997138) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:16 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse how many white people with 152's do you think they admitted? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997142) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:18 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Jeez did you even read my post? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997153) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:18 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point The point of the OP is that the 152 is not black!!! XOXO claims that ONLY blacks get such a significant boost, hispanics get a small boost and asians get none. Both the asian and the hispanic there had 152 range LSAT and got into a top 10 law school. Not to mention, the asian had a 2.67 GPA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997155) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:19 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse No, XOXO claims that URM's get AA and URM's are almost exclusively people of color. The OP's source does not really dispute this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997165) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:20 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point So are you saying that XOXO does not claim what I have posted above; that blacks get the most AA boost by far? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997171) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:22 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse I agree with BenGibson, this is like talking to retards. Goodnight, go get hit by a truck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997177) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:24 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I gotta go, too; but good luck in school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997192) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:25 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point How is it that you have become reputed for not addressing a claim and simply say "that's wrong," or "that's dumb?" It's not shocking that you had to scheme your way into Tulane. Have fun at Mississipi BIGLAW. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997199) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse this is a message board, its 9:30 on a saturday, Im not going to write you a fucking paper. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997209) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point You have never addressed a claim in your life. You simply couldn't even if you tried. But you know what, continue to blame AA for your failures in life and your enrollment at Tulane. I'm sure it had nothing to do with your 3.0, 159 numbers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997245) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:33 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse you dont know shit about me, but keep talking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997275) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:36 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point It's been well established in just about every thread you appear in that you do not address claims. Also, the school and weak ass numbers are public information.
By the way, if you were black and had those weak numbers 3.0/159, you'd be at Michigan also. HTFH. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:37 PM Author: Cream shivering meetinghouse I had a 3.85 GPA and a 161 on the lsat you douche. Plus, if languages get you into U.Michigan I speak 3! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997318) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:42 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point I'm not sure what's happening, are you proud of those numbers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997357) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Hey Galt, address the above post where I used actual admissions numbers... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997238) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point I did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997421) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:22 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler No, XOXO claims that *blacks* get a 10 point LSAT boost simply cause they're black. XOXO also claims that asians aren't helped by AA. This is not a hard point to concede, so I don't know why don't just concede it and move on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997183) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:26 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Since XOXO is not an entity, but rather multiple posters with various amounts of information and disinformation, the fact that you refer to it as such is like a neon sign that says you were a fucking sociology major.
Repeat after me..
"It's society, with all it's ambiguous pressures..."
Give me a fucking break. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:20 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I'm not sure valen knows how to read. Some of his comments so far scare me!! I mean, I know he does go to 2lane, but still. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997169) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:21 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point I think it's spelt Cooley-lane. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997174) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:29 PM Author: vigorous indigo market What was your LSAT again, Galt? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997229) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:36 PM Author: haunting coral son of senegal hairy legs I'm more curious why he advertises his STD status. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997305) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:38 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997325) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Or Baby-Daddy status (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997380) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Hey!!! That was in confidence!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997430) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:38 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point 169 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997321) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:46 PM Author: vigorous indigo market I need board corroboration, Galt.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997390) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: emerald laser beams degenerate That's what the original "John Galt" received. I wonder if this dude's an imposter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997400) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point I've never claimed to the "JohnGaltLSD." I'm really not. Plus I'm white. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997416) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:51 PM Author: emerald laser beams degenerate And really stupid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997428) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:56 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Less so than you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997459) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point Well that I can't help you with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997410) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:23 PM Author: jet-lagged address On and on it goes.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997187) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:31 PM Author: hairraiser narrow-minded coffee pot stage indeed... this thread makes my head hurt, just as do all others like it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997258) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: emerald laser beams degenerate This demonstrates exactly jack shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997420) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: poppy psychic casino good job trying to support an argument using outlying exceptions that prove the rule.
http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/Larntz.pdf
Percentile Ranks by Grade & Score UGPA-LSAT Grid Cell Favored Minority Admit Rate Other Applicant Admit Rate 10th UGPA 2.75 - 2.99 LSAT 148 - 150 6% (1/16) 0% (0/15) 20th UGPA 3.00 - 3.25 LSAT 154 - 155 25% (2/8) 0% (0/21) 30th UGPA 3.25 - 3.49 LSAT 156-158 83% (15/18) 1% (1/75) 40th UGPA 3.25 - 3.49 LSAT 159 - 160 60% (3/5) 3% (3/104) 50th UGPA 3.25 - 3.49 LSAT 161-163 100% (7/7) 5% (10/191) 60th UGPA 3.50 - 3.74 LSAT 161-163 93% (13/14) 8% (19/231) 70th UGPA 3.50 - 3.74 LSAT 164-166 67% (2/3) 40% (97/245) 80th UGPA 3.50 - 3.74 LSAT 167 - 169 --- (0/0) 76% (138/172) 90th UGPA 3.75 + LSAT 170 + 100% (1/1) 95% (143/151) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:58 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point No one tried to prove a rule. Only that it is not necessarily true that only blacks get the 7-10 point boost. These were "examples" not proof or evidence. Obviously the sample size is to small to constitute proof. Sad that you couldn't infer this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997466) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:03 PM Author: poppy psychic casino no one ever said that no non-urm ever got in with sub-par numbers. however, those non-urm always have exceptional background/experience. urms get in with sub-par numbers by merely being urm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997499) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point What? Are you replying to this thread. The whole point of OP is too say, "look at how this person got in with ridiculously low numbers. And, they are not black!!!" Other URMs may be getting the same boost. But no one cares because a fair bit of the animosity toward AA is not just its shortcomings, but animosity toward blacks. I'd go as far as to say if AA was for all other URMs other than blacks, there would not be such an uproar.
I doubt even blacks could get into Michigan with those numbers with or without AA. These cases are divine intervention |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:17 PM Author: poppy psychic casino did you even look at the link? 10% of urms with those numbers got in during the 1995 cycle, while 0% of non-urms did.
no one cares about those "aa" cases because they're exceptionally rare, they're not unconstitutional, the diversity of perspective added is actual, rather than superficial. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:25 PM Author: multi-colored bat-shit-crazy masturbator point So if they were black it would be unconstitutional and the diversity perspective added would be superficial, even if it's blacks with 3.75+/155 etc.? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997679) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:28 PM Author: poppy psychic casino no, if a black kid immigrated from tanzania and spoke 3 languanges, he should get a boost, too. but he shouldn't just because of the level of melonin. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997713) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:26 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler The assumption here is that, while non-aa admits with execrable numbers will otherwise be exceptionally qualified (and in fact, they are "rare"), aa admits with similar numbers will not be otherwise qualified, and therefore, where the one gets admitted because, on balance, he is *actually* qualified, the other gets admitted entirely because of his race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997688) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: poppy psychic casino you don't think the vast majority of aa admits are only admitted because of their skin tone?
if so, why are aa advocates so afraid of a race blind admissions process? |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:40 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler You said something interesting above, about superficial vs. actual diversity. Could you go into that a little more? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997825) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: azure national ratface I think he meant diversity for the sake of appearances as opposed to diversity for the purpose of different perspectives. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997996) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:21 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I know. But I'd like an explanation to see whether he's just repeating something he heard somewhere or if he knows what he's talking about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001896) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:08 AM Author: orange theater Look, find the data and show it. The Michigan side showed 3 cases above.
Universities have access to this type of data (that aa admits are otherwise qualified). They're on the pro-AA side. So if they have stats that support it-you would figure they'd release them. Anecdotes are what you use when you can't use stats.
Some of this stuff like the cases above can't be quantified. Some, like socio-economic backgrounds, can. If it would make them look better to release those stats-they'd do it.
Considering the number of applications I filled out that didn't even ask questions like how much money my parents were pulling in, I find it hard to believe that plays the kind of role that race does in admissions. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:19 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler So they're supposed to compile a huge book of why they made each and every admissions decision to appease people like you? Because the ones they supply here are not enough? And everything else in this post had nothing to do with what I said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001889) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:39 PM Author: orange theater What books do they supply?
seriously, link to something.
I am not asking for something comprehensive - I'm asking for anything.
They don't owe it to me, but if they could do it, they would. The fact they aren't doing it after debating this for a couple decades is a good sign they can't. It has everything to do with the fact that AA admits aren't otherwise qualified. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:48 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler That's horrible logic. You're basically saying that since you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. Look, I don't care about AA one way or another, but I really haven't seen one person coherently argue against it. The OP suggests that race isn't the only factor looked at. Take your argument up with admissions people who supplied the OP if you think they're lying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002078) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:53 PM Author: orange theater "That's horrible logic. You're basically saying that since you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist."
No, it would be one thing if I just hadn't seen it.
It's another thing if no one's seen it.
No one's seen it.
If I've never seen an elf, that isn't enough for me to say they don't exist.
If no one's seen an elf, it's a pretty good sign, though.
"Look, I don't care about AA one way or another"
wanna place money on that?
"I really haven't seen one person coherently argue against it. The OP suggests that race isn't the only factor looked at."
Here's my response:
http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/GRUTTER-Rates.htm#table2
toss some statistics my way. Not a book, not a census, not a dissertation - come on, man, just some data . . . something.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:56 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler "No, it would be one thing if I hadn't seen it.
It's another thing if no one's seen it.
No one's seen it."
See: the OP and the Grutter briefs. If you don't want to look at those and speculate, fine. I really, really don't care. But please stop acting like "no evidence exists" or "they've never come forth with any evidence." The evidence is there; you just don't want to see it. Again, I really don't care about AA, but just educate yourself about these things before you start speculating. Again, the evidence is in the OP and the grutter briefs. Disregard them; try to explain them away; do whatever. I really don't care. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:00 PM Author: orange theater "See: the OP and the Grutter briefs. If you don't want to look at those and speculate, fine."
. . . or see the link I just posted which quotes the damn thing.
"The evidence is there; you just don't want to see it."
No it doesn't, and if you aren't going to look at data 2 lines above your post, that contradicts you - I find it hard to believe you're an objective observer.
Quote Grutter, I've read it. $50 says you haven't. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:07 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler That doesn't refute anything. Read the trial transcript, *all* the briefs (not just a single study that you think supports your position), and ask yourself *why* the Court ruled the way it did. This will be my last post to you, sorry. I feel like I'm repeating myself.
mis-post-- |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:10 PM Author: orange theater See below (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002241) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:05 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler That doesn't refute anything. Read the trial transcript, *all* the briefs (not just a single study that you think supports your position), and ask yourself *why* the Court ruled the way it did. This will be my last post to you, sorry. I feel like I'm repeating myself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002202) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:09 PM Author: orange theater dear god man, quote something. Do you have to ask me to make your argument for you?
There's nothing, there's not a stat, there's not a book, there's not a percentage or an acceptance rate of data you're capable of quoting - and you're asking me to bone up on my research? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:15 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler What, do you want me to quote the entire UM brief from grutter right here and now? It's on westlaw. Also, have you asked yourself why the court ruled the way it did? According to the way you characterize it, UM's policy is a quota. Quotas are unconstitutional, just in case you didn't know. So I guess the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a quota -- right? Right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002284) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:20 PM Author: orange theater quote anything.
Cite a piece of data
not a study, not a paragraph, but one percentile or something anywhere before you argue here that I'm the one who needs to do some more research.
The bet still stands. $50 says you haven't read the decision Grutter, much less the case briefs.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:27 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Before we continue, I'd really like to know your answer to this question: Why did SCOTUS uphold a quota? Aren't quotas unconstitutional or what? Please answer it. Why did the Court uphold UM's policy in Grutter but not in Gratz? Again, please answer.
"The policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for "substantial weight," but it does reaffirm the Law School's commitment to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students, who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers. By enrolling a "critical mass" of underrepresented minority students, the policy seeks to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School's character and to the legal profession."
This is from the opinion, and I totally agree with it. It's what I've been arguing this whole time. And I'm looking at the Grutter briefs on Westlaw as we speak. Which one would you like me to quote? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 5:09 PM Author: orange theater >Why did SCOTUS uphold a quota?<
Why they actually did it or their legal reasoning in doing it?
- Why they actually did it:
A majority of the justices have concluded that AA is beneficial to African Americans. They believe this benefit overrides any other problems people have with the program.
- Their legal reasoning in doing it, also their distinguishing from Gratz:
Gratz had a point system. You get points because of your race. Pretty damn hard to argue your way out of that.
Grutter was more vague. Unless you had the dean on tape saying we admit people because of their race, I don’t think Grutter would have won. In this case you had stats where 80% of urms with a set of numbers got in and 0% of non-urms did. Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but c’est la vie.
[If you want, I’ll quote Scalia going into detail on his looking at these briefs and saying it’s bull, but I assume that’s unnecessary]
For a second, I’ll take O’Connor at her word. The program offers other means to diversity. It still gives you a boost according to your race, though. Now it’s handing out another route (I say that’s bullshit, but toss that aside for a second), but
more importantly
This doesn’t have anything to do with qualifications, at least not academic.
and . . . More importantly
It also doesn’t say a thing about an applicant being otherwise qualified. A guy gets a diversity boost because of their race. Cool, but there’s no second factor to that. There’s no “you need to know 4 languages, come from a broken family, come from another country” aspect to it.
If you’re the right race you get the boost.
I.e. these applicants don’t have to be otherwise qualified.
“Which one would you like me to quote?”
Anything. I’m not picky, have fun dude. Quote an argument by the other side and I’ll leave a happy man knowing that I got a quote and the Super Bowl’s about to start. But, I obviously don’t take them at their word. Quote a stat sometime-something that says this percentage of AA admits come from single parent families, know a bunch of languages, come from a poor economic background, and this will get more interesting.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 10:53 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Funny ... so SCOTUS upheld an unconstitutional quota because they felt is was a good idea. It all makes sense now ... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005631) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:01 PM Author: vigorous indigo market Dude, you have been bitch slapped from all directions.
Give up, kill youself... |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler First, explain why UMs policy is a quota. Please explain why SCOTUS felt that Gratz involved an unconstitutional quota but also felt Grutter didn't. Why the sudden change of heart? I mean, they're both quotas, right?
(Hint: you're not going to be able to answer this. You don't have the basic skills necessary to do so. Good luck, though. ;) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: orange theater I'd be happy to take up that debate.
But I thought we were having an argument on whether AA admits were otherwise qualified.
The fact that all you need is the right race in order to get a boost is something that's openly admitted. Concede that and I'll move on to the other fight. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: vigorous indigo market
I reckon it had somethin' to do with tha diffrence twixt race as a factah and givin' em a bunch a points an' shit...
Fuck you |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:06 PM Author: orange theater "Funny ... so SCOTUS upheld an unconstitutional quota because they felt is was a good idea. It all makes sense now ..."
I deny papal infallibility. I definitely am not going to grant it to the Supreme Court. And if you have even the slightest sense of history, this shouldn't take much of an explanation.
My guess is it will. So I'll just toss this out again: find me one stat supporting your side. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:16 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Do you understand what you're asking me? You're asking me to go to michigan, dig into a black person's (with a low LSAT and gpa) admissions file, and retrieve for you everything that made him a good candidate. If this is what you're asking, I'll get right on it. But it's extremely easy for me just to point to the OP and use it to support my proposition that: although you don't think blacks are qualified, many people do. And it just so happens that the people who actually do think they're qualified are the people in the best position to change things: admissions officers. If you don't think that blacks are qualified based on inferences from LSAT and gpa data, and despite the OP and the Grutter briefs, then fine. But don't try to act like anything that I could quote here would change your mind. Indeed, anything I could possibly quote here would be met with: "Well, I'm going to take that with a grain of salt, because I know the truth."
It's enough for me to know that SCOTUS, UM, and every prestigious (and unprestigious) school agree with what I'm saying. Good luck knowing the truth. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:22 PM Author: orange theater "although you don't think blacks are qualified"
cite please
. . .
oh fuck it, why am I even asking?
"It's enough for me to know that SCOTUS, UM, and every prestigious (and unprestigious) school agree with what I'm saying."
Was Plessy vs. Ferguson sufficient for you also?
"Do you understand what you're asking me? You're asking me to go to michigan, dig into a black person's (with a low LSAT and gpa) admissions file, and retrieve for you everything that made him a good candidate."
Dude, I am not asking you for conclusive proof. I am asking you for anything. Anything. I am asking you for a number with a percentage sign at the end of it.
At this point, I don't even care what it's connected to.
This is like a test of will. I just want to see it happen.
I am halfway rooting for you. I want to be provided with something.
Come on man, do it.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:29 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler "The policy also offers three examples of actual diversity admissions. One student was born in Bangladesh, graduated from Harvard with a 2.67 grade-point average, received "outstanding references" from his professors, had an "exceptional record of extracurricular activity," and had Law School Admission Test scores at the 46th percentile and 52nd percentile. Another was an Argentinian single mother with extensive business experience, who graduated summa cum laude from the University of Cincinnati, who was fluent in four languages, and scored at the 52nd percentile on the Law School Admission Test. The third applicant had a 3.99 grade-point average from the University of Florida, a Law School Admission Test score at the 90th percentile, and as the daughter of Greek immigrants was "immersed in a significantly ethnic home life," and fluent in three languages."
Like I said before, all the evidence you could possibly want is right before your eyes. Now whether you choose to see it is an entirely different matter.
And excellent invocation of Plessy. I laughed. Anyway, I'll say it again: SCOTUS agrees with me, and so do virtually all the schools in the US. You, however, disagree. I'm gonna sleep good tonight. The Steelers are S-Bowl champs, and ... well ... you know the rest. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:32 PM Author: orange theater Yes, the Steelers are the Super Bowl champs.
And this is a good thing.
However, that was not a stat.
Please provide me with one.
EDIT: After further review, I have concluded you have provided me with the number "three." I was hoping for a percentage or a rate, but I shall officially accept this as a stat.
Adieu |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I just emailed David H. Baum, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs at UM, for a magical statistic that somehow reveals how qualified the all black admits were aside from simply being black. Should I CC you on that? That way, when he responds, he can send the info to both of us.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:42 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Shall I collect on that bet now? LOL. I have to go to a SuperBowl party right now, but I'll check the board in an hour or so. See you later. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002565) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:52 PM Author: orange theater My ass just got back from getting coffee, wait a second. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002661) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:58 PM Author: poppy psychic casino An applicant having the median scores would place in the cell with UGPAs of 3.25 - 3.49 and LSATs of 161 - 163. The 1995 admission rate in this cell for Favored Minority Applicants was again 100%: seven out of seven; the rate for Other Applicants was 5%: 10 out of 191. The Favored Minority Applicants included African, Mexican, Puerto Rican and Native Americans. The Other Applicants were Caucasian, Asian and Pacific Island, and Other Hispanic Americans, as well as Foreigners and Students of Unknown Identity. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:28 PM Author: ebony den congrats! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997709) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:41 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler I agree man. Congrats to everyone admitted into law shcool with or without AA. Law school is fun!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997829) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: vibrant hateful university So the take idiots for other countries too?
That's reassuring how? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:37 AM Author: orange theater http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/GRUTTER-Rates.htm#table2
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:43 PM Author: curious house Why is it a surprise to you that a 3.99 with a high LSAT was accepted? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001665) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:28 PM Author: emerald laser beams degenerate She was an entire point below the 25th percentile! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001937) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:30 PM Author: Orchid Shrine I believe the OP was calling attention to the 152s and not so much the girl with the 3.99/165 or whatever she had. The point is the 152 weren't black as most would expect them to be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001961) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: odious doctorate nowag i just wonder who is benefitting from all of this. aa seems to be based on the racist notion that blacks (and other preferred minorities - but mainly blacks) are inferior and there is a sort of 'white man's burden' to take these people and mold them in our waspy image, because that will make them better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002023) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:43 PM Author: Orchid Shrine How were the other black lawyers dressed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002041) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:45 PM Author: odious doctorate nowag there weren't many. a couple of women, iirc. they looked fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002056) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:48 PM Author: Orchid Shrine Well what's the problem, that was only one guy. Sure he was dressed inappropriately but how does that indicate that AA is not benefiting anyone? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002076) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:52 PM Author: odious doctorate nowag well, it's not just about how people dress. it's more about how people are being perceived and treated. sure, the other minorities may have been wearing the 'right' clothing, but i still don't think they fit in...at least not to the extent that the others did. at it was probably awkward for them as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002105) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:58 PM Author: Orchid Shrine So at your one function, you saw one guy who didn't fit in. He then socialized with 2 or 3 other lawyers who also didn't seem to fit. Therefore, AA doesn't work because blacks don't fit in. Terrific argument.
Also, people should take note that these attacks on AA often offer anecdotal evidence based on blacks. Not hispanics, NA or any other URM who receives AA. OP finds an example of extreme AA and somehow the discussion remains one about what blacks do and what blacks receive when the example was intended to show look at what some other people in your class might be getting - and they aren't the black kids. Seems AA opposition is largely motivated not due to the unfairness claims but animosity toward blacks more than any other URM in particular. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:00 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler "Also, people should take note that these attacks on AA often offer anecdotal evidence based on blacks. Not hispanics, NA or any other URM who receives AA. OP finds an example of extreme AA and somehow the discussion remains one about what blacks do and what blacks receive when the example was intended to show look at what some other people in your class might be getting - and they aren't the black kids. Seems AA opposition is largely motivated not due to the unfairness claims but animosity toward blacks more than any other URM in particular."
This is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. The OP has nothing to do with blacks who get AA, but everyone on this thread is talking about blacks who get AA. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:06 PM Author: odious doctorate nowag
the reason i don't post about aa generally is because i don't care. i'm not an anti-aa activist or anything; i just question the efficacy and appropriateness of what is a clearly patronizing practice based on an underlying notion that blacks (and other minorities) are inferior.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:11 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler "the reason i don't post about aa generally is because i don't care. i'm not an anti-aa activist or anything; i just question the efficacy and appropriateness of what is a clearly patronizing practice based on an underlying notion that blacks (and other minorities) are inferior."
I don't really care about AA either. But I just think that however flawed and evil it is, it's the best possible solution we have today to bring minorities to an even playing field with everyone else. And I don't think AA is really based on the notion that blacks are inferior (you see that? the OP didn't discuss blacks who get AA, but every post here including yours talks almost exclusively about blacks). If it were really based on an underlying notion that blacks are inferior, then why even have AA -- wouldn't AA be a moot point because blacks would never succeed anyway because they are inherently inferior? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:23 PM Author: odious doctorate nowag aa is mainly about blacks; to say it's not is dishonest. do others get an aa boost? sure. but blacks get the biggest boost in the biggest numbers.
and no, aa would not be moot just because blacks are perceived as inferior; there are differing degress of success. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:27 PM Author: Orchid Shrine AA is may be mainly about blacks but this post wasn't. You and a few other chose to make it about blacks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002427) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:28 PM Author: odious doctorate nowag and you is may be an idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002436) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:43 PM Author: Orchid Shrine Nice how you admitted your racist views. It's amazing that you can't see this is the attitude that keeps AA in place. When we can finally not be outraged by anything that blacks get, treat them equally, not deem them inferior and things of this nature, then AA will no longer be necessary. Until then, keep up your views and keep being upset about AA. Funny thing is though, it's only the whites who couldn't get it done performance wise. Take Valen2 for example, he claims to have had a 3.8/161 and he hates AA. Certainly he would have gotten into Harvard if there was no AA, but URMs took all of the spots in the top 40 schools forcing him to have to settle for Tulane. Sad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002573) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:34 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler If blacks were really being perceived as inherently inferior, the AA would be moot point because blacks would fail even with AA. To me, if blacks were inherently inferior, then we are being totally irresponsible by letting them go to law school, run businesses and become judges who will end up messing everything up because of their inferiority. George Bush notwithstanding, putting inept idiots in positions of power is a horrible way to run a country. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002494) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:26 PM Author: Orchid Shrine Ahhhh, see how your genuine feelings have been revealed? Many people can agree on this, AA is unfair, race shouldn't be a factor etc. I also agree with such claims. What i don't agree with is saying blacks in school don't "fit in," unjusitified and unsupported claims that that AA helps no one, and cracking on non-white names. Anyone who has taken a 1000 level Sociology or Psychology class can tell you that people are inherently attracted to people who look like themselves. This is why cliques tend to be of people who are very similar. This doesn't translate into not fitting in. Your understanding of life seems very limited and you obviously have interacted with no one who is not your race/class. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002411) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:53 PM Author: Beta Kitchen Deer Antler Is he saying that all blacks who get AA show up at law firm functions in FuBu sweaters and reciting lines from Snoop Dogg's Gin and Juice? That's the best argument against AA here!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002111) |