2.6, 152 In at Michigan (non-black)
| thriller dingle berry wagecucks | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Slippery site electric furnace | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Silver nursing home fortuitous meteor | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/04/06 | | Overrated talking abode ceo | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | Overrated talking abode ceo | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | hyperactive crystalline whorehouse | 02/04/06 | | talented smoky faggotry juggernaut | 02/04/06 | | Overrated talking abode ceo | 02/04/06 | | insanely creepy charcoal corner | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | insanely creepy charcoal corner | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | insanely creepy charcoal corner | 02/04/06 | | lavender son of senegal set | 02/04/06 | | insanely creepy charcoal corner | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | insanely creepy charcoal corner | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | thriller dingle berry wagecucks | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | amber erotic state depressive | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | insanely creepy charcoal corner | 02/04/06 | | painfully honest razzle casino | 02/04/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/04/06 | | nubile sneaky criminal affirmative action | 02/04/06 | | mildly autistic indirect expression | 02/05/06 | | Filthy space | 02/05/06 | | Overrated talking abode ceo | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Transparent dilemma codepig | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Transparent dilemma codepig | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Transparent dilemma codepig | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | Transparent dilemma codepig | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | Transparent dilemma codepig | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Transparent dilemma codepig | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 | | Racy ruddy principal's office | 02/05/06 | | Multi-colored home | 02/05/06 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 4th, 2006 9:35 PM Author: thriller dingle berry wagecucks 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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4996926) |
Date: February 4th, 2006 9:42 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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 10:22 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997182) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:28 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
He was born white.
Don't hate the player, Galt....
BTW it's "versed"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997218) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:41 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997348) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:32 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997322) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:44 PM Author: Multi-colored home
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997372) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997413)
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997471) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:04 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997512) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
I'll recommend something for you..
Cat in the Hat.
Start from there and move forward, Billy Madison.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997564) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:42 PM Author: lavender son of senegal set
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997352)
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:53 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
AA is a POLICY, Galt.
I suspect the three bizarre examples above were not POLICY issues.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997441) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:05 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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?"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997523) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:24 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997193) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:14 PM Author: lavender son of senegal set
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997137) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:43 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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....
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997359) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997476)
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:03 PM Author: Multi-colored home
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997507) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:50 AM Author: amber erotic state depressive
I've been tuned for a while now, 2L.
Do you have any evidence or are you still talking out of your anus?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5000522) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:24 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001915) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:33 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5001985) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:35 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002005)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:39 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002029) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:46 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002065)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:50 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002088) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:54 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002114) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:57 PM Author: Multi-colored home
Still waiting.
Stupidest joke ever, by the way. I guess a pattern is emerging ... are you a writer for SNL?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002139) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:36 PM Author: lavender son of senegal set
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997301) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:26 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997206) |
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:23 PM Author: hyperactive crystalline whorehouse
On and on it goes....
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997187) |
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: Overrated talking abode ceo
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: insanely creepy charcoal corner
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)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997435) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: lavender son of senegal set
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997582) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:17 PM Author: insanely creepy charcoal corner
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997618) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: insanely creepy charcoal corner
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997732) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:08 AM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4998779) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:39 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002028) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:53 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002110)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:56 PM Author: Multi-colored home
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002135) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:00 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002161) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:07 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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--
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002211) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:09 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002230) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:20 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002345)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:27 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002428) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 5:09 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
>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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002826)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:01 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
Dude, you have been bitch slapped from all directions.
Give up, kill youself...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005727) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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. ;)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005783) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005804) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: amber erotic state depressive
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005827) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:06 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005770) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:16 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005875) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:22 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005928)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:29 PM Author: Multi-colored home
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005982) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:32 PM Author: mildly autistic indirect expression
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5005999) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: Multi-colored home
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5006034)
|
|
Date: February 4th, 2006 10:58 PM Author: insanely creepy charcoal corner
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997470) |
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:28 PM Author: painfully honest razzle casino
congrats!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997709) |
Date: February 4th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: nubile sneaky criminal affirmative action
So the take idiots for other countries too?
That's reassuring how?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#4997737) |
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:43 PM Author: Filthy space
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 3:38 PM Author: Transparent dilemma codepig
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 3:58 PM Author: Racy ruddy principal's office
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002151) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:00 PM Author: Multi-colored home
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002166) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:06 PM Author: Transparent dilemma codepig
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002208)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:11 PM Author: Multi-colored home
"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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002247) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 4:23 PM Author: Transparent dilemma codepig
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353292&forum_id=2#5002374) |
|
|