The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
CLSers: Should we stop using AA for law review spots?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:18 PM Author: frozen newt I think so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254525) |
 |
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:23 AM Author: Soggy stage Dude, you're too easy to out to be saying things like this on xoxo. Someone with a bone to pick could really out you.
If the law review selection process bothers you, bring it up to the Dean. It's not like starting a thread on xoxo will change anything. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:19 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Digit Ratio Would it really be that bad if someone found out he *GASP* disfavors AA for law review selection? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257302) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:54 PM Author: frozen newt I don't think so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260630) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:05 PM Author: Stirring bat-shit-crazy rehab I wouldn't dream out outing you, David LeCorfec.
http://aros.sourceforge.net/pictures/developers/david-le-corfec/david-le-corfec.jpeg
HTH |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:13 PM Author: Costumed brethren theater stage oh snap! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260774) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: stimulating round eye Flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260778) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2006 2:54 PM Author: Soggy stage Yeah, you haven't really said anything crazy like "I hate n*s" or something bad like that. I actually respect the fact you don't hide behind your anonymity, unlike most people on this board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7266669) |
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:25 PM Author: frozen newt Would be nice to see some transparancy in the selection process as a whole. 7 spots are currently reserved for URMs. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: floppy heaven No, I don't mind. Seven spots is pretty minimal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254629) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:32 PM Author: frozen newt 1/7 of the total spots on law review. It's not an insignificant piece of the pie (in my opinion). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254645) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:38 PM Author: floppy heaven Yeah but white guys are kind of annoying anyway. No real harm done. 1/7 slots to make things more interesting, at a minimum, isn't too bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254712) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:33 PM Author: Vibrant locus It's not minimal to the seven people who would have had those slots otherwise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254661) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:22 AM Author: maize location crotch How many minorities are on Columbia Law Review? How many would be there without "AA"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257321) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:23 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker if a tree fell in the forest and no one was around to hear it.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257326) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:35 PM Author: Marvelous zippy menage boltzmann Wow, how many schools use AA for law review? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254673) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: Vibrant locus Depends on how you define AA. If you mean explicit race based preferences, I know of HLS and CLS. Probably others too though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254686) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:37 PM Author: frozen newt Some people deny that CLS does it, but they have no proof either way. Law review reserves 7 slots for "diversity." However, I've never seen "diversity" used in the law school context as anything other than a proxy for URM. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254702) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:40 PM Author: Marvelous zippy menage boltzmann We have diversity slots at UVa, but they explicitly said it's not race-based. And from what I can tell, it's not. I could be wrong though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254722) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:40 PM Author: Vibrant locus Penn LRev has "diversity" slots too but there are certain other requirements, and it's based solely on blind-graded personal statements. I've never heard any speculation that it's used to practice race-based AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254725) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:57 PM Author: rusted milk goyim "it's based solely on blind-graded personal statements. I've never heard any speculation that it's used to practice race-based AA."
LOL. You think the fact that the personal statements are blind-graded means people aren't paying attention to race? |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:00 AM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254929) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:13 PM Author: Dead tanning salon "Growing up in East Saint Louis..."
I hate to say it but growing up in east st louis and ending up in a position to be in law review is alot more interesting than 8/10 other ps's that will probably end up putting the readers to sleep. just because that guy is chosen is it because of race? or could it be that he is more intruiging. its the fucking bearded lady. if the people choosing law review were all from east st. louis it would be the suburban kid chosen. be content the people in that position are from your background and most likely the 9 other seats for lr will be from your background, sheesh |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258263) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:48 PM Author: Dead tanning salon well they are reading the submissions, and one guys stands out - is it because hes different, or because hes better? who knows? this is subjectivity we are dealing with. if you intrigue your reader, that is all that can be asked of a writer. as for having seats set out for certain minorities, I'm not sure I agree with aa for those purposes. Especially if the system is like harvards and the grading is done by anonymous numbering instead of names. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258419) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:56 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry People on law review (1) write notes and (2) decide what content gets published. So their ability to be interesting improves the product produced. Unique perspectives also assure that original submissions get a fair shake. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258472) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:58 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258492) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:02 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry yeah... except if AA looks only for diverse skin colors and not viewpoints, then it is kind of just a lie or false cover.
that said, I still think blacks are more likely to write notes concerning matters of particular interest to african americans and are also more likely to support publishing submissions from blacks and concerning matters of particular interest to african americans. so it's probably not totally bad to make skin color a proxy for diversity. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:05 PM Author: Dead tanning salon I'm convinced. more aa please (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258559) |
|
Date: September 5th, 2007 1:54 PM Author: Claret half-breed sound barrier Diverse = Interesting and Intriguing. Everybody knows this. It's the law of the universe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#8603198) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:39 PM Author: wine fortuitous meteor parlour CLS's policy is not an "explicit race-based preference" in that they are not explicit at all as to whether race is a factor. In fact, several people in the CLS Law Review thread seem to be denying it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254713) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:40 PM Author: frozen newt Name one time you've ever seen the word "diversity" used at Columbia to mean anything other than URM. They even sent out an e-mail last year about a "diversity" scholarship that explicitly forbade white males from applying. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254762) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:48 PM Author: frozen newt ? why (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254804) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:57 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254897) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:58 PM Author: frozen newt Yes, females were allowed. White-males were the only excluded group. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254904) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:15 PM Author: Dead tanning salon poor poor white males. what are you all doing to this country>? to exclude yourselves like this? lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257726) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:42 PM Author: Vibrant locus Yeah but I don't think Harvard claims that race plays a factor in Harvard LRev selection when it's common knowledge that they do practice race-based AA. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise about CLS, though I guess I should check out that other thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254741) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:55 PM Author: frozen newt Also, if race isn't a factor, then why do they ask you what race you are? If they are telling the truth, then they should have no problem making the entire application process color-blind. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:56 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry they ask your race? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254894) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: wine fortuitous meteor parlour There is a form that says "Indicate your race and/or gender here"
EDIT: This is from the 2005 writing competition btw, I don't know if last year's was different. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:11 AM Author: frozen newt I wrote "American" on the form, hoping maybe they would not be paying too close attention and mistake it for "African-American"
apparently it didn't work =P |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:17 AM Author: Curious address cuckoldry it's funny because "American" is in no way a race OR gender. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255072) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:18 AM Author: frozen newt that's probably why i got dinged =( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255082) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: frozen newt No idea. I doubt that it's uncommon though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254687) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:38 PM Author: Marvelous zippy menage boltzmann (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254709) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:37 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry I was told most do... perhaps I was told something incorrect.
In another thread, people said CLS doesn't actually look for race, they "sincerely want diverse viewpoints" based upon a personal statement. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:39 PM Author: frozen newt The EIC of the law review flat out told me that it is race that they are looking at, and that there is no viewpoint a white male can possibly have that will get him "diversity" points. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254719) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:01 AM Author: rusted milk goyim Somehow I bet you're misrepresenting what the EIC said to you. I don't think anyone that is involved in the process denies that CLR's discretionary spots involve race. The distinction is that it's not *only* about race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254943) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:03 AM Author: frozen newt I'm not lying. The EIC told me that if those 7 slots were not reserved for URMs, then there probably would not be any URMS on the entire law review and "it would be dominated by whites and asians." There was no ambiguity to the conversation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254959) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:06 AM Author: jet-lagged smoky international law enforcement agency LOL flame....asians dont get on LR without AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254979) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:18 AM Author: Curious address cuckoldry this is a very ignorant comment (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255080) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 3:32 AM Author: talented bonkers foreskin LOL... Are you Asian? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256297) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:54 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo These are interesting comments; considering the identity of the EIC is easily known, it seems strange that he would ever say these things to you except under the strictest confidences, and I don't think the two of you are actually friends.
I call flame. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:57 AM Author: frozen newt You're assuming it's the CURRENT EIC that made these comments, and not a previous EIC while they were drunk at a law school party. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257164) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:00 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Still, that narrows it down to 2 or 3 people. But ok. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257183) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:42 PM Author: frozen newt You could also broaden the range to the people who were EIC the couple of years before we started. But yeah, it's not a large group of people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257903) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:48 PM Author: rusted milk goyim Still seems like an unlikely thing for an EIC to say, even if he/she is already "retired." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257956) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:50 PM Author: frozen newt i'm not lying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257976) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254752) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:51 PM Author: wine fortuitous meteor parlour From http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawreview/membership/criteria.html: "Exactly 12 students will be selected on the basis of their personal statements, provided that either their grades or writing competition scores place them in the top half of all remaining applicants"
and
"The Law Review evaluates personal statements in light of various factors, including (but not limited to) race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, socio-economic background, ideological viewpoint, disability, and age." |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:58 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254905) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:59 AM Author: light lay selections are made by a "diversity committee" based on anything they want. I'm sure more than half end up going to URMs, but this is definitely not a pure proxy for race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255388) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:46 AM Author: Razzmatazz Organic Girlfriend Chicago does not. Top 10% get on pure grades, 10 people are taken pure writing. No personal statements/diversity seats/etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255269) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:49 AM Author: frozen newt I like this format. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255294) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:51 AM Author: Razzmatazz Organic Girlfriend I think it is more reflective of the actual value the candidate brings to law review (i.e., doing cite checks)
Even if "diversity of viewpoint" (rather than race) were being considered, why is such a thing useful for the relatively mechanical operation of law review? |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:00 AM Author: light lay article selection, notes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255395) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:55 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo "I think it is more reflective of the actual value the candidate brings to law review (i.e., doing cite checks)"
Haha. Yes, you need to be in the Top 10% to properly cite check. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:29 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258277) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:39 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor at HLS i think 10 of the 40 or so slots are "discretionary." this seems almost certain to mean AA. if so, that's too many, by my lights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254717) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:41 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry I support CLS having some diversity spots, especially if the following things are true: (1) "diverse" means a legitimate effort to get diverse viewpoints, rather than just people of a certain skin color (2) only those people who write personal statements are consideration for a diversity spot (3) the GPA and writing sample of the diversity applicants are considered when weighing their personal statements
The other thread said these three things are true. If so, I'm cool with diversity spots. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:42 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor (1) is almost certainly false. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254745) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: frozen newt titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254749) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor i'm for AA for admissions, but i think the harms outweigh the benefits when it comes to law review. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254758) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry then in that case, i think the procedure should be changed or the spots eliminated. if you don't have a diverse background or viewpoint, you're not bringing "the benefits of diversity" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254759) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor well, dude, get on law review (btw, good luck getting one of the "white" spots) and do your best to make a difference. let us know once you fail to convince the other editors of your position. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254769) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:46 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry I don't understand how the law review staff could be so opposed to a "diverse viewpoint/background" assignment of spots rather than a "token black guy" effort. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254785) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:48 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor i think it's because, in the AA game, no one has ever actually cared about the substance of diverse viewpoints. it's given lip service, that's it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254811) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:52 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry yeah, i guess that is just a justification--not a motivation.
i expect race-based aa from administrators and such, but it just seems odd that people so close to the process would want a so-called "oreo" rather than a diverse viewpoint. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:54 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor well check-the-box AA by law reviews doesn't mean you'll get oreos over real blacks, so i dont' really know where that's coming from. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254870) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:59 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry u r right, it doesn't mean you'll get oreos. but if you only consider skin color and not perspective, it *increases your chances* you'll get people with black skin but not necessarily an african american or otherwise distinct perspective. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254919) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:03 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor ok, but i don't really know what a black perspective is. couldn't an uncle tom type be a black perspective just the same as an angela davis? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254968) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:21 AM Author: Curious address cuckoldry Well, any black person has a black perspective. What I'm trying to get at is the only legitimate justification for AA is that AA members will bring a different perspective then someone otherwise chosen. e.g. "We need AA spots or otherwise x viewpoint wouldn't be represented." If an AA admit will add the exact same thoughts, comments, input, whatever as someone admitted under pure meritocracy, then what's the point? you're not contributing diverse perspectives, but still taking the costs of aa.
While skin color is obviously correlated with view points, background, experiences, etc, I don't think it is fair to use race as a proxy for diversity. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:25 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor the dirty little secret, of course, is AA isn't really about diversity. it's about redressing past wrongs and preventing blacks from sinking into a permanent underclass. i believe in these goals generally. i think AA is good for society, despite the harm it cause others (especially asians) and the undeniable stigma it creates. that's why i support AA in school admissions. in the case of law review competitions, though, i think the harms outweigh the benefits.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:36 AM Author: Curious address cuckoldry all credited. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255191) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:41 AM Author: stimulating round eye Funny enough, I agree with everything you said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255234) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:42 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor ;) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255238) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:28 PM Author: glittery crimson potus you believe in redressing past wrongs? even though they are too long past to have affected any current applicants? does the moral victimhood of the past wrongs propagate through semen or through eggs? should we exclude blacks whose ancestry did not go through jim crow? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7261322) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: Marvelous zippy menage boltzmann pretty reasonable (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254748) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: floppy heaven agreed, as long as there continues to be a specific number of diversity slots, rather than a general consideration of diversity as a factor for all slots. that would be unacceptable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254773) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:47 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry credited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254796) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: stimulating round eye There are 2 2L minorities that I know of. Both have good grades. GOI. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254761) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:47 PM Author: frozen newt You'd be shocked at the number of people at CLS that you think are white but actually check URM boxes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254790) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:48 PM Author: stimulating round eye I know of at least one girl. She is not on law review and has shitty grades.
|
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:50 PM Author: stimulating round eye Also, as far as I know, the black folks on LR are hard working and have good grades. Not lazy median fucks like me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254819) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:52 PM Author: frozen newt I don't doubt that. I don't mean to marginalize anyone on law review or demean them in any way. I'm just saying that they should make the entire application process color-blind. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254846) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:55 PM Author: stimulating round eye Ok. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254885) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:53 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor some of them surely are. the trouble is, given what we know of black students' law school grades (see the latest sander study), it seems unlikely that many or most of them actually have good grades. and that creates stigma and breeds resentment. it's quite a bit different from the school-admissions context, because there are no substitutes for law review. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:55 PM Author: stimulating round eye The study says all black people are in the bottom 10% of the class. I for one, am most definitely not in that group. So I don't give a flying f*&k what your study says.
|
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:56 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor it certainly does not. it says that blacks are disproportionately in the bottom segments of the class, and underrepresented in the top half. a single person at the median does nothing to disprove that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254892) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:58 PM Author: stimulating round eye Well, having spoken to a number of the minority law students at CLS, you would be surprised to know how many are doing well. If you think you can take a class and feel secure because there are minorities, I would be careful... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254907) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:02 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor the innuendo isn't necessary. what would be nice is if you grappled with the hard facts for once: blacks often get on law review for the simple reason that they are black; the sander study and common sense say a significant percentage wouldn't have made it otherwise. since law review admissions is a zero-sum game, that tends to rub some non-URM students the wrong way. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:07 AM Author: stimulating round eye My only point is that there are common misconceptions about a great many things in law school. I don't know who deserves to be on law review and who does not, but I can say that taking it for granted that minorities are not doing well in law school is an erroneous assumption, to say the least. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254989) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:10 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor do you honestly not see the difference between anecdotes about your buddies and the statistics we're talking about? you can criticize sander's methodology if you want, but mentioning 3-5 friends who are doing "well, i'm not sure how well, but let's just say very well for themselves" is NOT a criticism of those statistics. meanwhile, if we take those statistics at face value (and you've said nothing to suggest we shouldn't), we can use inductive reasoning to tease out what common sense should've told you a long time ago: the columbia law review uses AA to help minority students make it. (if they didn't need the help, why would the practice exist?) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:11 AM Author: stimulating round eye *Sigh*, whatever.
PS - BTW it is quite a bit more than 3-5.
HTH |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:14 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor brilliant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255055) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:17 AM Author: stimulating round eye Worthy of a 180? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255071) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:11 AM Author: Anal whorehouse But taking it for granted that minorities ON AVERAGE are not doing well in law school is a correct assumption. Anyone who denies this just refuses to look at the empirical data out there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255035) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:58 PM Author: Anal whorehouse But statistically, let's be realistic. The blacks on law review (especially the many black females) wouldn't be on it if it wasn't for AA. That study quantifies it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254911) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:00 AM Author: stimulating round eye Really? Many minorities I know are doing well. How well, I don't know, but certainly not bottom 10% like the study that you guys quote as gospel seems to suggest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254931) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:07 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor quit it with the "bottom 10%" shit. we've already dealt with that. constantly quoting strawmen makes you look weak. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254987) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: stimulating round eye Well this is the common board misperception. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254994) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:04 AM Author: Rebellious Alpha No, it appears to be solely YOUR misperception (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255426) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:01 AM Author: stimulating round eye I don't know of there being a large number of black females.
EDIT: There are 4-5 blacks total. 1(or 2) males and 3 females.
Double Edit: This was for last year. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:00 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Actually, that's not true for CLS and other schools where there are LR spots based solely on the writing competition. It's not just grades.
So did you ever get someone to read over and evaluate your writing competition piece? Haha. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:57 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo I've been told this too, but the person who told me refused to name names. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257162) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:56 PM Author: Anal whorehouse What grades do they have? Are you saying they would still make law review if it wasn't for AA? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254887) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:57 PM Author: stimulating round eye I know that 2 or 3 have Stone Scholar level grades. What more would you want? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254895) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:00 AM Author: Anal whorehouse There are 120 Stone Scholars in our class. 40 people on law review. Doesn't mean anything HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254936) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:03 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Actually, it continues to mean that you still can't get over the fact that you're above the median but didn't make law review, and somehow you feel you deserved it anyway, even though the criteria did not change after you applied or accepted admission to CLS. I wonder how much of the time you saved by not being on LR you wasted by moving between being angry and sorry for yourself.
Please get over it. HTH. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:07 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker So if there are at least 2-3 black Stone scholars. And here are 120 Stone Scholars. A maximum of 42 people on law review. That means that if a black Stone scholar makes law review, it must be because of AA. . Huh? |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:10 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo You forgot the fact that all Stone Scholars have the same grades and the same quality writing competition.
That would almost get you to the conclusion she did. But you'd still have the problem of the fact that 40/120 is 1 out of 3, so one would still make it simply through random selection. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: jet-lagged smoky international law enforcement agency LOL @ all the whiteys who wouldnt get on LR even without AA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254766) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:48 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry what does that have to do with anything? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254806) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2006 11:59 PM Author: frozen newt Anyone here strongly support using race as a factor for making law review? If so, why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254922) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:03 AM Author: Anal whorehouse I strongly oppose the quota system they currently have. Not even AA in law school admissions do this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254967) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:04 AM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254969) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:20 AM Author: stimulating round eye All journal work sucks. People hate it, but it does look good on your resume. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255093) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:08 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo "It's hard to see how diversity can contribute in that regard."
On the flipside, it's also hard to see how diversity harms in that regard. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:32 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency You're right of course, but getting law review is a kind of reward/award, and in my opinion should go to those who most deserve it. I guess we disagree over who deserves it.
Edit: Speaking of rewards, one of my friends likened it to a pie-eating contest where the winner gets more pie. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:07 AM Author: Anal whorehouse AA for law review is harmful for everyone. It hurts the qualified non-URMs who just miss law review. And it hurts all the URMs on law review because everyone looks at them and knows they wouldn't make it otherwise (whether or not it's true). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254986) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: frozen newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7254999) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:10 AM Author: stimulating round eye "t hurts the qualified non-URMs like Cravath3L who are just miss law review"
I guess that explains why he created the thread. If he were such a "qualified" candidate then he wouldn't have just miss*ed* LR. That said, I don't want to get into a flame war over it. Minorities are often the scapegoats for people who missed the boat for whatever reason, and it is not always fair.
HTFH |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:12 AM Author: frozen newt I've never suggested this or claimed that I was a "qualified" candidate for LR that barely missed it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255043) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:13 AM Author: Anal whorehouse That's a bullshit argument. If a football team gets cheated out of 7 points and it costs them the game, you don't say "If they deserved to win, they would have been ahead by two touchdowns." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255047) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:16 AM Author: stimulating round eye Around admissions time. When people fail to get into the law schools of their choice, they start bitching about how minority students are to blame. I really don't care either which way, and don't normally post on these kind of threads, but truth is that they were marginal to begin with and could not take anything for granted. No you and I could get into a big pissing contest, but how's about I concede that your cock is bigger and we just move on? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255065) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:20 AM Author: frozen newt I think your misinterpreting the purpose of this thread. It's not to whine about not getting on law review. I'm a 3L now, I'm doing just fine, and I really don't care. Nor do I think that w/o AA I would have "just made it" - I probably would have been dinged anyway. I simply think that law review admissions from here on out should be colorblind. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:23 AM Author: stimulating round eye Seems like a fair enough opinion. Truth is that most people are trying to flamebait (racebait), whatever you want to call it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255113) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:32 AM Author: Curious address cuckoldry Yeah, I think it's really important to distinguish between someone advocating a colorblind process and someone saying "blacks are stupid, they should leave." It's not fair to assume that the only reason someone would advocate a colorblind process is either bitterness over not making lr (and probably incorrectly blaming aa) or wanting to screw over minorities. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255171) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:13 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo "I think your misinterpreting the purpose of this thread. It's not to whine about not getting on law review."
I may not hear it in your voice, but I certainly hear Fertile whining. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:07 AM Author: light lay I've heard coaches make statements along these lines often after games lost because of bullshit calls (cf. esp cranky ones like Bill Parcels). Competition is often unfair/arbitrary/etc at the margins. Avoid the margins. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255447) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:10 AM Author: jet-lagged smoky international law enforcement agency "just miss"...ROFL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255020) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:33 AM Author: Curious address cuckoldry what are you laughing at? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255175) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:24 AM Author: Cracking Ticket Booth Vandy is the only school I'm aware of that is color-blind for LR (not that I know much on the topic). They had that article last year because a black girl made it. I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255120) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:25 AM Author: frozen newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255130) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:35 AM Author: rusted milk goyim They are. The result? White and male. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255186) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:27 AM Author: Hairless henna hunting ground False. We have plenty of white women on our law review also. It's almost comical how a school that is 60% white has a 94% white law review. (There are a couple of asians, a dot-indian, and a hispanic) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256625) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:30 AM Author: Dashing National Philosopher-king I think it is fine for admissions or jobs but not for things like law review or honors societies. These things should be purely merit based. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255152) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:38 AM Author: Alcoholic Green Double Fault Brunch the bottom line is this: having AA for law review ultimately costs non-URMs a negligble amount. for those people really at the margins who can could really claim "but for AA" having/not having LR on the resume would have helped a little bit but not made a substantial difference in your career/life prospects. its not like having LR was the only thing standing in between you and SCOTUS or Wachtell or whatever; those marginally good grades are a much bigger obstacle chief. bottom line, whatever you could have achieved having LR on your resume is still probably within your reach w/ a little more work, better 2L grades, etc. or else it wasn't ever at all, even with LR. now for some generalizations about people who like to bitch and moan about AA on internet message boards: 1. remind me of people who whine and stew about bad calls and use them as an excuse when their team loses a game 2. usually don't get half as upset about other types of non-meritocratic boosts like legacy, connections, etc. 3. more than a few of the real bitter ones on this board would never even be able to sack up and disagree as vehemently to minorities' faces about AA as they do on an anonymous message boards, which seems strange given how convinced they are of the correctness of their own arguments. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:42 AM Author: frozen newt Law review is virtually a pre-req for Wachtell and feeder court clerkships. So your assertion that law review could not be the only thing standing between you and Wachtell or SCOTUS is incorrect. It could be.
Although I am certainly not one of those people. I wouldn't be on law review with or without AA. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:43 AM Author: Alcoholic Green Double Fault Brunch but you aren't gonna get wlrk or feeder court clerkships with the marginally good grades "but for" AA people have, even w/ LR. sucka. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255248) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:45 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor marginally good grades + law review is a much, much better state of affairs than marginally good grades and no law review. law review is always a huge boost. if you haven't seen this in action during interviews or the clerkship cycle, you're terribly misinformed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255262) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:46 AM Author: frozen newt exactly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255271) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:22 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad yeah, it's the marginal candidates who get the biggest boost from law review. so the extent that he says it doesn't really hurt the people who get cut, he's pretty mistaken.
that said, he does have some valid points (about some whiners). |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:45 AM Author: frozen newt I guess there is no way to prove this one way or the other, but I disagree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255267) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:08 AM Author: light lay Incorrect re: Wachtell (at least from N) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255469) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:10 AM Author: frozen newt non-URMs at NYU are summer associates at Wachtell w/o law review? wow. i wonder what their creds are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255486) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:12 AM Author: light lay I'm aware of a non-URM female. I'm sure her GPA was just short of the 10 (I think) spots that go to pure grades. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255512) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:14 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping there's a non LR female headed to WLRK from CLS this coming summer as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255530) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:15 AM Author: frozen newt apparently "pre-req" was too strong a word (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255539) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:43 AM Author: stimulating round eye now for some generalizations about people who like to bitch and moan about AA on internet message boards:
1. remind me of people who whine and stew about bad calls and use them as an excuse when their team loses a game
2. usually don't get half as upset about other types of non-meritocratic boosts like legacy, connections, etc.
3. more than a few of the real bitter ones on this board would never even be able to sack up and disagree as vehemently to minorities' faces about AA as they do on an anonymous message boards, which seems strange given how convinced they are of the correctness of their own arguments.
These are all credited posts. |
|
Date: December 20th, 2006 2:24 AM Author: naked rigor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7263745) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:46 AM Author: Cobalt orchestra pit goal in life So, people basically need to shut their fucking faces and quit complaining about getting fucked over.
Fuck you, seriously. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:52 AM Author: Cracking Ticket Booth superb flame. I almost thought for a second that someone could believe such nonsense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255316) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:00 AM Author: Dashing National Philosopher-king I support most AA and totally understand why it is needed. I just don't see a justification for it w/r/t Law Review or Academic Honors. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255398) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:09 AM Author: light lay titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255481) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:16 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Please explain why you make such a distinction besides that's the way "things should be." Why does it matter where the preference occurs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257276) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:38 AM Author: 180 Iridescent Puppy Dilemma Although I strongly support AA in admissions and hiring, I agree that AA for law review spots is undesirable. For law students, law review is something like Latin honors or Phi Beta Kappa in undergrad. Extending AA to every measure of academic achievement destroys the integrity of the individualized evaluative process. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255208) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:01 AM Author: Dashing National Philosopher-king this is correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255404) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:44 AM Author: Arousing roast beef theatre Ignoring the merits of AA for a second, can you imagine the furor that this would cause in certain segments of the CLS community? The faculty, for example, would not be happy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255254) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:46 AM Author: stimulating round eye In what respects? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255268) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:52 AM Author: Arousing roast beef theatre I just imagine that if the CLR got rid of AA, the faculty would be seriously upset. The faculty is overwhelmingly populated with die-hard liberals. Someone told me, for example, that in a faculty meeting people started discussing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and that Dorf, who is rumored to have written the opinion as a clerk, was given a standing ovation.
Large segments of the CLR alumni population are also probably liberals who would not be happy with such a decision. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:54 AM Author: frozen newt It surprised me to learn that Dean Schizer is a member of the Federalist Society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255335) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:56 AM Author: stimulating round eye Wow. Is he really? He struck me as a liberal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255356) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:58 AM Author: Arousing roast beef theatre Nah, a lot of those Davis Polk types are actually conservatives. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255379) |
|
Date: December 20th, 2006 5:49 PM Author: supple parlor roommate Dean Schizer worked at Cravath not Davis Polk. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7267847) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:58 AM Author: frozen newt I have no idea what his political viewpoints are. I've always just assumed he was liberal. But it turns out he is a Federalist. So is Catherine Sharkey, the clerkship chair. Clarissa Long, a new IP prof, was President of the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School.
Perhaps the faculty wouldn't be so opposed to this after all... |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:18 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Sharkey, if she's coming back, isn't going to be back until 2009. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257298) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:17 AM Author: 180 Iridescent Puppy Dilemma Woah. That's sort of shocking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255567) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:55 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping This is exactly the problem with a system of charity handouts: you create entitlements, and entrenche interests that defend them. AA should be abolished, and AA should certainly never be used on LR. A CLS alum posted on the NY Times feedback to the minorities in BigLaw article that, in his year, none of the the minorities on law review were Stone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255343) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:27 AM Author: Startling disgusting kitchen The faculty isn't happy anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257391) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:47 AM Author: Outnumbered hot crackhouse Minorities have a unique perspective on cite checking and editing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255278) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:55 AM Author: stimulating round eye This was actually a good point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255341) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:28 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad article selection and notes.... that's where the viewpoint is important. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256627) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:58 AM Author: Rebellious Alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255381) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:10 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping Anyone else feel like this school is extremely segregated? While we are on race topics. My circle of friends is extremely homogenous, and it wasn't like this in undergrad or high school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255490) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:14 AM Author: laughsome dog poop faggotry stfu nigger ape. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255526) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:16 AM Author: frozen newt hi :D *waves* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255548) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:17 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping this is a serious question, feel free to make "new" monickers and give a real response (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7255555) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:27 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad you are extremely correct, CLS is segregated. My undergrad also had segregation, but I think CLS is even more so.
There's two main groups I don't get a lot of interaction with: international students and black students. I think other groups are mixed together.
The fact that most international students are LLM and in a different course pretty well explains for the international students.
from what I gather, the black students were all involved in BLSA and other race-related events before school started, so developed a clique before others arrived. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:15 AM Author: Soggy stage I don't think it's bad. I feel like I see most races interacting. The international students tend to stick together, but I think most groups interact. I think most people formed groups during Orientation. I know all my friends are from Orientation and beyond that, I didn't meet too many new people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256676) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:07 AM Author: stimulating round eye I have not had a problem interacting with any particular group. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256764) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:11 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad Yeah, I haven't had a problem interacting with any particular group... but I've noticed that there is racial self-segregation. It seems most white people hang with mainly white people, and most black people hang with mainly black people. This is true at CLS events, classroom seating, study groups, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256775) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:31 AM Author: wine fortuitous meteor parlour It seems like it's mainly blacks hanging out in Harlem too, wtf is up with that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256824) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:31 AM Author: stimulating round eye Ture, but this happens at all levels. All it requires is a bit of open-mindedness and very little effort. People at CLS really do miss out, because many people at school have something to offer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256827) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:54 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad Yeah, I definitely think people miss out. The thing is that people get set into their groups during orientation, and often aren't willing to expand outward later. maybe if there weren't events for specific racial groups before/during orientation, it would help people expand out more. But i'm not sure if that's a good solution either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256913) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:33 AM Author: Arousing roast beef theatre Yeah, it's kinda sad that CLS is self-segregated. It's actually not as bad as my undergrad, though---Duke. At Duke it was so bad that you could always tell when a group of people on campus wasn't from Duke by whether they were mixed or not. Man, Duke was just weird that way. I think it's because of the frats. They really need to fix that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257049) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:39 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping I actually feel like I can distinguish study groups from social gatherings based on whether or not the group is mixed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257083) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:04 AM Author: Arousing roast beef theatre At least CLS' study groups are mixed. By contrast, at Duke everything was segregated. There were black sections in classes (and, in larger classes, asian sections). There were black benches. There were black and white areas in the on-campus apartments. Man, Duke is a weird, weird place. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257211) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:26 PM Author: charismatic step-uncle's house i think i know who you are... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258716) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:43 AM Author: rusted milk goyim Some people have said here that AA is appropriate for law school admissions but not for law review, because law review is an "honor society." This is absurd. Law review is first and foremost a non-profit business. CLR puts out eight issues a year, which requires a shitload of work. It is much closer to a job than to, say, Phi Beta Kappa, where you get the honor and never hear about it again. Sure, law review is prestigious and therefore is a form of "honor." But it is really no more an honor society than is Wachtell; both are prestigious, but they don't exist to confer prestige. The fact is that people on law review work together a lot, and they have a legitimate interest in shaping the group of people they work with in ways that they deem desirable. If rejects don't like that, fuck 'em. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256863) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:51 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad "they don't exist to confer prestige"
actually, I think they do. If law review were no longer looked upon as a huge resume boost, 98% of people who do it would not do it.
u r right that it is different because there actually is a substantial amount of work. But i think that is more of a subsidiary purpose. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:54 AM Author: rusted milk goyim the idea that law reviews exist to confer prestige is the warped perspective of a first-semester 1L who's already asking people how to get onto law review. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256914) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:00 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad man, i simply ask whether i need to do anything and people get all crazy. how many people are on law review because they enjoy it or think bluebooking is a great experience for them?
I have never heard anyone talk about law review as anything other than an honor. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:03 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker "I have never heard anyone talk about law review as anything other than an honor."
Not relevant to its purpose as an institution. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:29 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad this is like saying that the purpose of Acme Company isn't to make a profit, it's to produce widgets. An organization's purpose is defined by the goals and purposes of its members. Yes, law review publishes scholarship. That was probably its original purpose. But that isn't its purpose today. Publication is merely a vehicle to further its true purpose, which is to enhance the prestige of those involved with it (whether student staff or faculty writers). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257037) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:35 AM Author: Unhinged space mental disorder oh, so when Acme Company produces widgets, that's a "subsidiary purpose" because nobody would produce widgets if you couldn't make money by doing so. nice argument. try that with any social or economic institution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257058) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:41 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad the purpose of acme company is to make a profit for its shareholders. production of widgets is a means to further that goal.
social or economic institutions have their own purposes. e.g. the purpose of a school is NOT to confer degrees, but rather to educate students, increase overall wellbeing, prepare people for the workforce, etc. Just because it confers degrees doesn't mean its purpose is to confer degrees. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:43 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker No, what you're saying is suggesting that the purpose of Acme is to pay its employees. All for profit companies exist to make a profit, by definition. The product is the vehicle for that profit. Non-profit orgs, on the other hand, exist to produce their product only. Which, in the case of law reviews, is the scholarship. The student prestige is the payment the laborers receive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257101) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:45 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad i would argue that the student workers are less like employees, and more like partners/shareholders. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257108) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:51 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257130) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:17 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad because of the extent to which they control and reap the benefits from the operation of the organization. they're not mere employees working at the command of and to further the interests of someone else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257285) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:06 AM Author: rusted milk goyim "how many people are on law review because they enjoy it or think bluebooking is a great experience for them?"
Ok, people do law review because it is prestigious; ergo, the purpose of law reviews is to confer prestige.
Your logical skills are so dismal that your query about "what you can be doing now" to get onto law review seems even more laughable. Cheers. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:33 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad One dictionary defines "The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal"
Law review exists to confer prestige. If it did not confer prestige, it would cease to exist as we know it. While it may have stated purposes that are otherwise, and it certainly DOES work and produce a product, its true aim/goal is to confer prestige.
If everyone went to college to get a job, it's not appropriate to say "the purpose of college is to inculcate a love of reason and appreciation for the literature." Sure, in some technical sense that might be true. And it sounds nicer. But it's not accurate.
Likewise, National Honor Society in high school is a "service organization." It's "purpose" isn't to confer prestige, but rather to help organize community service. In reality, despite its stated purpose and actual activity, its real purpose is to confer prestige--just like law review. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:50 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker you're missing the point that the purpose of the members in joining and the purpose of the organization in existing are two different things.
The purpose of law review FOR YOU is that it confers prestige upon you - but this just means that it defines YOUR purpose for law review.
If everyone went to college "to get a job", it could still be reasonable to say that colleges exist to "inculcate love of reason" if that is the reason why those who control the institution choose to continue its existence.
If the legal scholarship part of law review somehow disintegrated, my assumption is that law review as we know it would cease to exist. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:55 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad Well, I guess we make a distinction. You believe that a mindless organization can have some sort of metaphysical purpose different from the aggregate motives of the people that run, control, and manage it.
Your argument certainly has some merit, but I personally think of purpose in a more pragmatic, realistic way rather than an abstract and pedantic way. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:58 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker Well, I would argue that the student staff, even AdBoard, do not completely control Law Review. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257170) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:07 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad that's reasonable. I don't know exactly how the organizational structure and practical politics work out. but i still think an organization can't be defined by some words in a charter or even the product it turns out--its purpose is defined by the motives of whomever controls it. to the extent that the student editors control it, i think their purposes define the organization's purpose. to the extent that others control it, i think their purposes define the organization's purpose. i think, though, that all of the people who control it do run it as a vehicle for prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257230) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:57 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker the fact that people wouldn't do law review if it weren't prestigious doesn't mean that it exists to confer prestige.
People wouldn't work at Wachtell if it weren't prestigious and if it didn't pay well, but that doesn't mean that it exists to confer prestige or to pay people.
Law review exists primarily as a forum for professor prestige in publishing. The student prestige is entirely secondary, and is the carrot needed to get the labor. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:35 AM Author: frozen newt "People wouldn't work at Wachtell if it weren't prestigious and if it didn't pay well, but that doesn't mean that it exists ... to pay people."
I think that's exactly why Wachtell exists: to pay people. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:55 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker sorry, let me clarify. To pay non-partners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257147) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:37 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad But law review wouldn't exist without the student labor, and the student labor wouldn't be there with prestige. If Law Review could be prestigious without publishing, it would stop publishing. The purpose of the organization and its members is to confer prestige. It engages in other activities only to the extent necessary to confer such prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257067) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:59 AM Author: Unhinged space mental disorder You sound like a moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256935) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:11 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad do you know anyone on law review who would still do all that shitty gruntwork if it weren't for the prestige? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256988) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:16 AM Author: Unhinged space mental disorder See above regarding your logical skills as demonstrated by your posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256996) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:38 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad I don't see how my logic is any worse than the comment "well they publish things, so they must be their purpose!!"
I also post on xoxo, but that isn't my "purpose." |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:16 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker Please respond to the multiple posts on the fact that this is irrelevant to law review's purpose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256998) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:39 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad done. it IS relevant. an organization is merely a group of individuals, its purpose is merely their collective purpose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257081) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:44 AM Author: Racy institution You have demonstrated in this thread that you're not going to have the grades or writing competition to get onto law review, so you can stop worrying about AA now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257104) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:48 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad I've never been worried about aa. and if i don't make lr, so be it
I invite you to user your superior logic skills and justify the position that the purpose of law review is NOT to confer prestige. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:53 AM Author: frozen newt I think I agree that whatever the purpose of law review once may have been, it is now first and foremost an honors society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257139) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:52 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker people on law review don't have the authority to decide that law review will now dedicate itself full time to the prevention of animal cruelty. The institution is not defined by the student staffers of a particular year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257136) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:57 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad as long as those people are on law review, i think they can dictate that it only publish articles that further the prevention of animal cruelty. they may not be able to control the methods (e.g. unilaterally deciding not to publish anything), but they can control the purpose for which those methods are used. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257165) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:02 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker Perhaps I underestimate the powers of the staff, but I'm guessing this plan would be swiftly kicked to the curb by cls. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257195) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:08 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad does the administration really have editorial discretion over what the lr publishes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257233) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:23 AM Author: rusted milk goyim no, it doesn't. i don't think CLS would have any authority, but the CLR board of directors (which includes CLS faculty) certainly would. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257325) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:40 AM Author: frozen newt disclaimer: I've never made the "honor society" disctinction that some others on here have made.
"The fact is that people on law review work together a lot, and they have a legitimate interest in shaping the group of people they work with in ways that they deem desirable."
Agreed. I just don't think choosing people because of the color of their skin is one of these legitimate interests. For all you know, the next EIC of law review could be a racist and s/he could use race to surreptitiously prevent qualified URMs from getting on law review. It's just a bad precedent to ask people to self-identify their race and the entire process should be colorblind. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:43 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping This is an important issue, especially since the current LR E-Board used the process to keep off an entire minority group that is well represented at the law school & has 0 representation on LR this year, despite claiming one of the very top students. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257100) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:44 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad what minority group? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257103) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:54 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker what group? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257143) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:56 AM Author: rusted milk goyim and you purport to know the inner workings of the board, even though you proclaim your ignorance by calling it the "e-board"? you sound very well informed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257159) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:15 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad I'm pretty sure happycamper=publius=bitter lr reject
the unwillingness to back up any of the claims makes me think they are all without merit. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:18 AM Author: greedy spectacular clown why would anyone be bitter about not being on law review? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257294) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:19 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker I also like the assumption that because this mystery group has 0 representation, it must be because the decision makers used that classification specifically to prevent LR membership. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257301) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:44 AM Author: Fear-inspiring chad yeah, that's a leap.
if the guy legitimately thought he was shorted, he'd come out and explain his facts, publish is writing sample, personal statement and his grades, say what "minority" group he is in, and spill on where he's getting evidence to support his allegations. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:49 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping I'm actually not that dude, I just support his claim and know that there is some truth to it, although how much I really can't say since all my information is hearsay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257552) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:54 AM Author: rusted milk goyim So you "know that there is some truth to it" even though "all [your] information is hearsay"? Perhaps you should take evidence to figure out why hearsay is disfavored. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257586) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:02 PM Author: soul-stirring area gaping I would have already if our course registration system wasn't so TTT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257638) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:07 PM Author: rusted milk goyim In that case I'll give you the basic reason: hearsay is often bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257673) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:01 PM Author: Fear-inspiring chad titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258073) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:49 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping I've heard the same rumors that everyone else has. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257553) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:54 AM Author: Lascivious Tantric Spot Party Of The First Part What rumors are those? I think I've managed to miss them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257588) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:59 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=451653&mc=92&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257620) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:04 PM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker So wait, was it the supposed fight with a staffer that got him rejected unfairly? Or his classification that got him rejected unfairly? What's the claim?? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257651) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:08 PM Author: soul-stirring area gaping The classification is a new point that PubliusCLS made in a more recent thread, but I don't remember where that one was. One of the Law Review threads. It's the fight with the staffer that's the true issue (as far as I know). I brought it up because it displays the danger of a process that is hidden from day light, as one day the same discretion that keeps someone off due to politics can be used to discriminate based on other factors as well. Clearly, we need to reform the process. Uchicago provides an excellent model for what a LR admission process should look like. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257680) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:05 PM Author: Lascivious Tantric Spot Party Of The First Part I'm dumber for having read that thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257659) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:29 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo The only "minority group" that I think could fit this criteria is asian males.
Do I win the prize? |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:54 AM Author: soul-stirring area gaping Think about other types of "minority groups" that go beyond a checkable box on the LR form, and one that is well represented at CLS (and constantly bashed on this board).
In this case, there is no chance that animus towards the group had any influence over the decision to conspire against this individual -- that was based on the individual him/herself -- but the fact remains that as long as the process is done in an environment where there is no accountability or transparency, future generations of LR editors could easily exclude people based on other criteria. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:57 AM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker dood, everything is bashed on this board, you're going to have to be a little more specific.
Also, many of us don't remember what the checkboxes were. How about you at least post the list of checkboxes, and we'll eliminate down to it. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:53 PM Author: frozen newt Jews? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257995) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:28 PM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker Defintely not a zero representation group. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258727) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:02 PM Author: Fear-inspiring chad I think he's talking about homosexuals. Is anyone on LR gay? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258083) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:21 PM Author: excitant grizzly boistinker if we're talking about 2Ls, no idea. However, the above poster said 0 representation -- there are most definitely a number of gay 3Ls. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258684) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:20 PM Author: Anal whorehouse Cleary you're talking about gays. So no one on law review is openly gay? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258203) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:51 PM Author: frozen newt I find this very hard to believe. The previous EIC was openly gay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258434) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:22 PM Author: Anal whorehouse Are Asian males underrepresented on law review? Does being Asian count against them? (Like that Asian kid who was suing Princeton for anti-AA?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258212) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 9:50 AM Author: Racy institution The blacks are taking our women and law review spots! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7256891) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:27 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor the argument over the appropriate analogy to draw here - law firms? associates? widgets? agent/master? - is one of the most wrongheaded cases of reasoning by analogy i've ever seen. the point is NOT the "fundamental purpose" of law review. so we don't really need whatever 5-part test you dream up to draw parallels between law review editors and law firm associates. the point is that being on law review confers a great, singular and non-substitutable prestige to its editors. that doesn't have to be its *only or main metapysical purpose* for that point to serve its purpose in this discussion. so what does the special law review prestige mean? it means the harms visited upon people who *don't* make it due to AA can't really be mitigated in the same sense that the marginal student can take a hit from columbia and still go to penn. it also explains why it bothers people that membership in one of the most prestigious groups at law school, which is based on merit competition for everyone else, can be as easy as box-checking for a minority of people (most of whom would not have had a chance otherwise). |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:32 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo But why are people so bothered by something that they knew about or at least expected going into it and that they are very unlikely to change?
Did anyone here really think that there would be no "diversity" boost given in determining LR membership at your school? That's simply being naive. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:35 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor two responses. when's the appropriate time for notice? for instance, i don't know if people knew or expected this when they went into law school, and matriculation is at least a plausible point-of-no-return here for purposes of notice. i know that i hadn't given it a single thought. but also, why should knowing this matter? just because you knew of something that you disagree with a year or two ago, that means you can't disagree with it now? odd. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:40 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo First, almost everything now gets a diversity bump, so I think everyone should have known or should have been able to guess. I'm sure the criteria is also posted on the LR website or the school website. CLR's description on the CLS website is here, and explains the criteria: http://www.law.columbia.edu/current_student/Law_Journals/law_review
Second, of course you can disagree with something that you can't change and that you should have known about, but it just seems like a giant waste of time and effort. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:42 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor obviously this depends on your baseline. but in light of the second point in dispute it's probabaly irrelevant anyway, so i don't care enough to pursue this. it's not a giant waste of time and effort. policies can and do change. debate, public and private, is what makes change happen. see michigan, california, etc. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:45 AM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Yes, the diversity boost given to a handful of students each year at law schools is the next frontier of the initiative to end AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257529) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:48 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor what are the fights over the morning after pill or assault weapons if not fights to change things at the margins? yes, this could very well be a battlefield. every law review that practices AA has a debate over the practice every year behind closed doors. there's no reason it can't change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257546) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:50 PM Author: frozen newt Actually Mr.Dizzle, I think many people are really surprised when they find out that there are racial preferences for law review membership. At least from personal experience, when I found out about the preferences early 1L year and told several others 1Ls (all of whom are generally AA supporters), they were shocked and didn't seem very happy about it. On the other hand, they were white males who were gunning for LR, so they had a personal stake in the matter. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:54 PM Author: Swashbuckling lemon theater fanboi http://www.law.columbia.edu/current_student/Law_Journals/law_review (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258007) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:57 PM Author: frozen newt Ask around. A ton of 1Ls who are hoping for law review have no idea, and are surprised to hear, that race is a factor, even if it does say so on the columbia website. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258041) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:27 PM Author: Fear-inspiring chad i think he is right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260483) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:50 AM Author: rusted milk goyim Evan-2001: The point of the analogy was not that it's particularly on point, but that the law review is closer to a work organization than an honor society. And as a work organization, it has a more legitimate interest in the composition of its members than an honor society that does nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257560) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 11:57 AM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor i understand this response, definitely. but i think there are two flaws: (1) it might not be most useful to argue whether law review is more like X or Y. if it gets 10 points in the X column and 15 in the Y, that doesn't mean we should treat it as an exclusive Y. for the sake of argument, let's say X is honor society and Y is work organization. in my opinion, if something that looks a little more like a work organization than an honor society still confers huge prestige, that raises the same X issues regardless. should they be balanced against the "work organization" concerns? certainly, but see below. (2) i think there's a good argument that law review editors don't seek out people of color simply because they "add diversity." (and i have big doubts about whether that's ever actually why we practice AA anyway.) they seek them out because they know being on law review will help the URM students get jobs and clerkships. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:01 PM Author: rusted milk goyim (1) sure, good analysis. but still raises the question, as you acknowledge, of how to balance concerns of X against Y. i privilege the concerns of Y. honor societies are much less important in a job market that is primarily grades driven.
(2) hard for me to say what's in the hearts and minds of various law review editors around the country who practice some form of AA. i for one care about it not being a white male club as an end in itself, not b/c it will get the non-whites good jobs. but i can't speak for others. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:06 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor i can dig it. ty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7257668) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 12:56 PM Author: frozen newt FWIW, there seems to be enough confusion about the entire selection process that there should be more transparency. It would be nice at least if applicants received: 1) Their writing competition score, 2) the minimum writing comp score needed to get one of the '10 writing slots', and 3) the average writing comp score + GPA of the people who received the '25 writing comp + GPA slots.'
I can't imagine this being extremely difficult to do, and it would do a lot towards making the entire process more transparent. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:04 PM Author: Fear-inspiring chad i think this would be a good idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258096) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:10 PM Author: Soggy stage Why not bring this up to the EIC for the Law Review? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258134) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:22 PM Author: rusted milk goyim credited. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258214) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:52 PM Author: frozen newt I've never even met the EIC of the law review. I don't think he would give me the time of day if I went to him with these ideas/concerns. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258441) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 3:37 PM Author: rusted milk goyim I'm sure he'd give you the time of day. But you're right that he probably wouldn't change the policy on the basis of your complaints (nor encourage next year's board to do so). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7259135) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: Anal whorehouse This is a great idea.
It's really silly how much work we put into the writing competition and that we receive no transparency whatsoever.
The argument against this is that he really shows the URM's who make law review WHY they made law review. I mean if they have a 3.2 and subpar writing score, it's obvious why they made it. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:54 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor i like the idea but i don't think law reviews would. here's why: they like keeping these things hush-hush both because they don't want review people comparing themselves to each other, and also because they don't want it to get out how URMs are subject to different standards. if the latter were made concrete and publicized i think you'd see a huge backlash. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258458) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:57 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency which is why any unfair decision-making process is better made in the dark. Actually I do think it's a good idea not to have law review students comparing themselves to each other, but really would people ask about each other's scores? Do people ask you about your LSAT/GPA? I can't imagine it. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:59 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry Here's the deal: people would only know the scores of others if those people shared it. Just as AA admits don't go bragging about their 165/2.8, they probably won't wave their writing score/gpa in people's faces. Likewise, comity on the staff wouldn't be affected if people kept their scores to themselves. Besides, I imagine people get ideas about the qualifications of their fellow staff members without needing scores to justify it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258498) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:01 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor i think you'd be surprised at how easily and quickly information about individuals' grades moves in law school. seems very likely we'd see the same for review competition scores. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258522) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:06 PM Author: Anal whorehouse The latter is a really good point. It would really suck to know that you missed law review by 1 writing competition score. And it would breed resentment against URM's because you could say that they actually took your spot, not that they might've taken your spot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258574) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:08 PM Author: walnut contagious codepig plus you can walk around for the next 2 years telling everyone that you missed LR by 1 point. Maybe even put it on your resumae (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258591) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:16 PM Author: Motley Church Building Ceo Hahaha. Transparency in law review decisions? Why not transparency in how professors grade exams? In how law school admissions decisions are made? In how firms decide who to call back and hire for 1L and 2L jobs?
This little tiny aspect of law school leading to so much discussion, anger, self-pity and resentment seems so ridiculous to me.
So one doesn't make LR. So what? Some options are closed off. Options were closed off the day you got that B in contracts, or the day you got that DING! from YLS.
So one doesn't make LR. So what? Now you have a ton more free time during 2L and 3L year. Go enjoy it instead of discussing the merits of LR admission and feeling sorry for yourself. Or take the time and study your ass off if you don't get the job you want as a 2L because you didn't get the tiny bump LR membership gives you so you can reinterview during 3L year.
It's strange how people think they are entitled to have things done the way they want. I guess this is why people walk around with headphones in their ears all the time; if they actually looked around and listened to the real world they just couldn't handle it. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:39 PM Author: frozen newt "Why not transparency in how professors grade exams?"
I'm OK with that. A grand list of several other things that aren't always clear isn't an argument against transparency in the law review selection process, In fact, I don't hear one argument against transparency in your entire post. "Get over it and stop whining" is not much of a reason.
More transparency is so easy. It wouldn't even take much effort. The only reason I can think of against transparency is people on law review don't want to be held accountable for how they make their decisions. And this, I think, is a pretty bad argument.
EDIT: Also, for the marginal candidates, law review membership is not a "tiny bump." I bet a 3.6 w/ law review does dramatically better in OCI and in the clerkship process than a 3.6 w/ no law review. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:39 PM Author: Turquoise disturbing famous landscape painting turdskin Subject: How many LRs do this? So how many Law Reviews actually do this? I know for sure they don't do it at my T2. Is it just a prestigious-school thing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258348) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: Vibrant locus Not that many, and even fewer are very overt about it.
However the ones that do tend to be at top schools. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 1:55 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that reserving spots for minorities doesn't necessarily hurt white guys. It could have been that there were 35 spots and only 2 minorities on law review, so they decided to expand to 40 and reserve seven spots for minorities. If that's the case, then no one really has anything to complain about unless you're concerned that making law review is now marginally less prestigious than before. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258464) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:03 PM Author: Curious address cuckoldry I think you mistakenly assume that the only objection to aa is that it hurts white guys. i think its stupid to say "aa hurts white males," but there are plenty of arguments against aa that are unaffected by your hypothetical. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258542) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:11 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258613) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:30 PM Author: Fear-inspiring chad I think you're right that it's the "main reason people are upset." People generally don't get emotional about policies they see as ineffective, counterproductive, or morally wrong in a general sense. People usually only "get upset" when they feel they are somehow hurt.
So you're right about that--but I think that ignores the fact that people have legitimate reservations about AA. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:13 PM Author: Hairraiser flushed private investor it could've been that way - we don't really know. anyway, think about this. suppose a law review has 40 members per class. if they phase out AA, that doesn't mean they'll go back to 35 each. that would just mean more work for everyone. so it'd be still be 40 spots up for grabs based on writing and grades. the arguments remain the same, unless you think the fact that the law review expanded to include minorities, at some point in the past, is somehow dispositive. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:47 PM Author: bat shit crazy aphrodisiac national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7258861) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 7:35 PM Author: Fear-inspiring chad People could argue against AA for many reasons: (1) AA actually hurts the URMs it is meant to help (2) AA exacerbates racial tension and strife, resulting in a less civil society (3) AA reduces the overall quality of the staff because it introduces factors that can trump merit (4) AA is wrong in principle, regardless of its impact, because it is inherently unjust to judge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character (5) AA is completely ineffective in furthering any of its goals (6) AA was a necessary evil when racism was more pervasive and damaging, but now that institutional racism has been reduced it is no longer relevant (7) AA encourages dishonesty, as non-URM or marginally-URMs misrepresent themselves to get a boost
These are arguments, not facts. And I don't think all of them have validity--but they go to show you that there ARE other reasons to oppose AA besides trying to help out non-URMs or hurt URMs. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:58 PM Author: Drab filthpig mediation the thing about law review is that it's sole value is in signaling that the members either 1) got good grades, 2) are excellent writers, or 3) some combination of both. w/out transparency as to the use of aa in law review membership, it loses a lot of it's value as a signaling method.
law school admissions, otoh, is different. while there is a lot of signaling there as well, the main value of attending a better law school is (supposedly) educational. an aa admit from, say, cls can very well come out a better lawyer than a regular fordham admit (w/the same #'s) by virtue of having studied under better professors and with better students. furthermore, everyone knows about the use of aa in admissions. The effect on signaling value is thus reduced for those two reasons. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: Vibrant locus I'm not so sure about that losing its value as a signaling method part. I think a lot of the value is just that it's selective and something all schools have. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260843) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:01 PM Author: Drab filthpig mediation what is the value in its being 'selective'? it signals that its members are the law school elite. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7261638) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:11 PM Author: Vibrant locus Wow, this turned out to be a pretty fascinating thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260754) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: Costumed brethren theater stage you mean the outting, in the third post? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260777) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:18 PM Author: Vibrant locus Is it a real outing or flame? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260821) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:20 PM Author: Obsidian set yarmulke it's flame. there is no CLS student by that name (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260835) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: Vibrant locus That's what I figured. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548829&forum_id=2#7260848) |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 11:39 AM Author: Insanely creepy mind-boggling candlestick maker main people Subject: Evan-2001 Excellent posts. However, law review has a substitute: other law journals. Sure, they're not as prestigious, but Penn isn't as prestigious as Columbia either.
Your views are honest in my opinion. You recognize the true purpose or AA: redressing historical wrongs. However, I think your view that AA is proper in many institutional decision-making processes, except the one you're currently going through or recently went through is self-serving. It's always easy to support AA if you're lucky enough to get admitted, get selected, or get the job despite its presence.
Get used to AA. It's not a one, two, or even three time boost anymore. It follows people throughout their careers. In the legal universe, it helps all the way through. College admissions, law admissions, law review selection, law firm hiring, and now it's almost certainly extended into partnership decisions.
You need to either accept the fact that AA must be pervasive throughout our institutions because of (1) the need to redress historical wrongs and (2) minorities' consistent failure to live up to standards of excellence in sufficient numbers. Or you need to oppose AA as wrong everywhere. |
|
Date: September 4th, 2007 7:39 PM Author: medicated dark point factory reset button Reminder: XOXO used to be able to have a 315+ thread discussion about AA with only one idiotic post yelling stupid racist shit.
Oh, how far we've come. |