Subscription pricing
Hey so I have this irrational fear of being overlooked in the admission process because I am a Chinese-American who's family is solid middle class (so can't make any great donations and I can't say I have some hero struggle back story either). #chineseadmissiondisadvantage
I have a friend (when applying for undergrad) who had outstanding achievements in high school (like A student, SAT 2400, and national champion in math or something) but really only got into one of her choice schools. She was wealthy too. This story just did not help with my irrational fear.
This irrational fear affects me as I complete my application and I don't know what can I do to cope with it.
1
39 comments
Closing this thread as it's getting out of hand. Debates are fine and encouraged, but please be respectful to each other. We're all friends here.
@mma038827 said:
@14969
IMO it should strictly be a race-blind process. I would prefer that law school admissions be a true meritocracy.
Even if law school admissions abandoned AA and removed questions of race in the admissions process, certain races would still be advantaged/disadvantaged because of of the history of race relations in the Untied States. This wouldn't be a meritocracy in virtue of the fact that merit wouldn't solely determine one's chances of getting into law school.
I am with you, I support meritocracy as well. But we have to remember a true meritocracy can only exist if there is a level playing field to begin with and everyone starts out with more or less the same resources and opportunities available. And this just isn't the case in the US. Equal opportunity never has existed here, and it probably never will. So, if you really want a true meritocracy, you have to do something to try and level the playing field, so to speak. Affirmative action is an attempt to do that. Arguably, it is a deeply flawed attempt that hasn't really worked (after decades of AA, African Americans are still one of the poorest groups in the country), but the there aren't very many other obvious alternatives.
With that being said then it would make more sense for admissions to be based on race and adjusted for socioeconomic status.
Whew, this got interesting. I'll just say, there's a good reason TLS has a strict rule against debating the merits of affirmative action/URM bump.
Also I like this forum roughly 1000000 times better than TLS for being generally kinder, more supportive, more understanding, and more welcoming. I sure hope we can stick to that and treat everyone respectfully here.
@14969
IMO it should strictly be a race-blind process. I would prefer that law school admissions be a true meritocracy.
Even if law school admissions abandoned AA and removed questions of race in the admissions process, certain races would still be advantaged/disadvantaged because of of the history of race relations in the Untied States. This wouldn't be a meritocracy in virtue of the fact that merit wouldn't solely determine one's chances of getting into law school.
I am with you, I support meritocracy as well. But we have to remember a true meritocracy can only exist if there is a level playing field to begin with and everyone starts out with more or less the same resources and opportunities available. And this just isn't the case in the US. Equal opportunity never has existed here, and it probably never will. So, if you really want a true meritocracy, you have to do something to try and level the playing field, so to speak. Affirmative action is an attempt to do that. Arguably, it is a deeply flawed attempt that hasn't really worked (after decades of AA, African Americans are still one of the poorest groups in the country), but the there aren't very many other obvious alternatives.
Yeah I've tried editing my post but this app won't allow me, so I just want to apologize for the quality of English in my previous comment ?
@14969 Any person that is contained in your quote will get a notification when you quote it. If you want to target one person, and not use the entire quote do what I did here....type @acsimon699 to tag them individually
@mma038827 said:
@14969
Asians are deemed an overrepresented minority... Don't want to start any kind of race discussion here so I won't say anything beyond that but you can you google relatively recent articles in which this is talked about. Personally, I think it is ridiculous and why applications should be race-blind. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination have no place in any form of academic admissions. To be given an advantage/disadvantage due solely to race is inherently racist itself.
I completely agree, to be given an advantage/disadvantage due solely to race is inherently racist in itself. However, the problem is that without affirmative action or something like it, certain races will be at a huge disadvantage merely because of historical and continued injustices inflicted upon their race which result in massive disparities in opportunity (think slavery, discrimination against people of color, and wealth inequalities based solely on race). Like you said, this is inherently racist. And if I am not mistaken, you aren't down with that.
So my question for you is this: without something like affirmative action or other systematic attempts to compensate for injustices that result in certain races being majorly disadvantaged compared to others, what do you propose we do to guarantee that no groups of people are advantaged merely because of their race?
It seems to me that the only other alternative would be a massive redistribution of wealth to those who are currently disadvantaged and a strengthening of public goods and services to guarantee that everyone, regardless of race, has access to the same essential resources and opportunities.
Any other ideas?
If I quote the person does the person see that I responded to them? Still fairly new to the forum so unfamiliar with all the features.
IMO it should strictly be a race-blind process. I would prefer that law school admissions be a true meritocracy.
I agree ?
Just go on lawschoolnumbers , look for ridiculously law lsat scores people got accepted with and then see the minority status. In a white immigrant who has many more obstacles than my native colored law school applying friends. Just saying
@fsu27761 said:
I don't expect someone like @uhinberg359 who is riding the coat tails of affirmative action to argue a position against a policy that makes it easier for him to get into better schools. But you should at least be able to make an argument for such policy.
A real argument. Please stop with the bull shit emotional appeals.
Let's keep this discussion respectful please. It's ok that other people have made arguments you may not like, and vice versa, but on this forum we are going to always put kindness above those disagreements and respect all respectful people's arguments.
You must have meant to tag someone else in this post, lol. I'm not sure how one would form any opinion on whether or not "someone like me ... who is riding the coat tails of affirmative action" would argue any position. I've literally said nothing on the issue or told you whether or not I am an a recipient of said AA. If you're interested in law school or the LSAT, it's probably best to stay away from baseless claims.
I think my position on this matter is best explained with an analogy. So, I look at the AA debate as one taking place on the marketplace of ideas. The issue is that it is being framed like a Mutual fund position. That is to say, one only has "long" positions such as "Are you for AA or against it?" There's no room for middle ground. And I think that all of the interesting positions are Hedge Fund-like positions, or relative value trades, where one can hold a more nuanced opinion. For instance, something like "Well, I'm for helping URM's have an even playing field, but perhaps the policy could be improved in the following way..."
By the way, this is NOT my actual opinion on the matter, but just an example of how we can work to be a bit more logical and less emotional when it comes to these matters, since that's what you mentioned your beef was about above. It's an emotional issue for many. And while I understand and accept that you may not see it that way, it is still possible to remain respectful of others you disagree with. The irony is that you post that you're an academic and prefer evidence-based arguments, all the while making unsubstantiated claims about me. It's clear sometimes we aren't as logical as we could be...
For what it's worth, here's one of several posts I made on TLS over 4 years ago when I was a freshman in college RE: AA. Looks like your "expectations" of me may have been a bit misguided, hehe! :mrgreen:
https://i.imgur.com/tpFZJpa.png
I've said very regularly on here and TLS that my goal is a 180 and I think everyone's should be because, well, why the heck not? Why bother setting a goal less than a perfect score? I've been prepping for this test for some time now, and if I was riding the coat tails of AA, I'd have taken the test, taken my ~165, my 4.0, my softs, and just have applied already. The truth is, my position on AA is that it has zero bearing on my mindset. Thus, I just don't consider it.
If this discussion is to continue, however, it has to remain respectful. I know we are all capable of that but I also understand it is a sensitive subject for many. Forums that lack the face to face interaction that is conducive to the empathy necessary to discuss an issue like this probably make these discussions better served for other places.
@pcainti665
http://i.imgur.com/GLAl2JK.gif
@oberdysz231 That's not my plan, no.
@leahbeuk911 said:
Yes, you will have to perform well, and better than URMs. You probably can't bank on getting anything lower than the median GPA/LSAT for a school you want to attend.
Does that mean if you're a splitter AND Asian-American your chances are doubly bad?
I would never look at it like your chances are bad. If you're a splitter, you should aim to do REALLY well on one of those two criteria - GPA/LSAT. Of course this is completely dependent on what school you want to attend.
Take for example UVA. They typically admit people in the range of 164 (25th) to 170 (75th), and a GPA range of 3.48 (25th) to 3.94 (75th). Their admissions is largely numbers based. They've created an index, like many law schools, that computes a number based on a mathematical formula that weighs your GPA and LSAT according to the whims and wishes of the admissions office.
For example, UVA weighs 40% LSAT and 60% uGPA. The formula creates a number between 40-60. If you are a +55, then you are essentially auto-admitted. The standards were lower for in-state kids. If you were in a lower part of the index, say like 50-55, you were read (but with scrutiny); further examination of your softs and what not, including race and demographic factors.
What's the takeaway from this? The admissions game is still largely numbers driven. If you can kill the LSAT but have a bad GPA, you may still be in the auto-admit index for many schools. For example, my friend with a ~2.7ish GPA from Bowdoin got a 177 on his LSAT. Consequently he got into T-14 school he applied to besides Yale, but including Harvard. He got scholarships from all schools, and a full-ride from UVA. He is part of an over-represented minority group, but overcame this through a bomb LSAT score.
TL;DR - if you're really concerned with your race "disadvantaging" you in admissions, just kill the LSAT and be the top of your class and all should be fine :)
P.S. - all index weighting numbers + the formulas can be found on the LSAC website. The LSAC has compiled the formulas and weights for each school.
@jhaldy10325 said:
@fsu27761 When people have a certain opinion, perspective or cemented mindset, there really is no point. We'd be going back and forth for hours....
Not to be snide, but isn't this what we're all signing up for as lawyers? Going back and forth for hours trying to change others' opinions...
@fsu27761 @jhaldy10325 @jhaldy10325 @uhinberg359 @leahbeuk911 @pcainti665 @oberdysz231 @57803 @acsimon699 @mma038827 @marine4life6798246 @uhinberg359 @14969
@leahbeuk911 @vtm14207 @mma038827
Regardless of everything else in this post. Regardless of everyone else in the world. Regardless of whatever opinion you hold. Regardless of everything bad you face. I am one person who thinks you're awesome anyway. I just wanted to let you all know that I value you in the community and that regardless of whatever heated topic we find ourselves in, we're all still awesome people.
https://media1.giphy.com/media/vCKC987OpQAco/200_s.gif
EDIT: I wanted to tag @gregoryalexanderdevine723 @chenoabailey93611 @uhinberg359 @jhaldy10325 and @oberdysz231 just because they are awesome people too and have all helped me out!
@fsu27761 When people have a certain opinion, perspective or cemented mindset, there really is no point. We'd be going back and forth for hours....
Ok people. You can't just say things like "you are the problem" & "you have no knowledge of racism". Explain and educate. Make valid points backed by solid reasoning. Otherwise your arguments are just emotional and essentially shit.
I'm a god damn academic, if you want to convince me of something then show me the merits of your argument. I don't expect someone like @uhinberg359 who is riding the coat tails of affirmative action to argue a position against a policy that makes it easier for him to get into better schools. But you should at least be able to make an argument for such policy.
A real argument. Please stop with the bull shit emotional appeals.
@pcainti665 said:
Moving beyond the philosophical arguments, let's take a pragmatic approach:
Yes, you will have to perform well, and better than URMs. You probably can't bank on getting anything lower than the median GPA/LSAT for a school you want to attend.
Does that mean if you're a splitter AND Asian-American your chances are doubly bad?
I guess the point of my post was whether or not you think this system is right or wrong, it exists. Law school admissions is a game. You're dealt your hand, you gotta play with what you got. Focus on changing what you can - your GPA, LSAT, LORs, Resume - regardless of whether you think it's fair or not.
https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpjpXMFPshSYGLm/giphy.gif
This whole thread got real awkward real fast.
You guys didn't want to turn this into a race discussion, but did so anyway. Also people who hate Affirmative Action, are the same people that have no inkling of knowledge regarding institutionalized racism. Its a shame, truly.
Moving beyond the philosophical arguments, let's take a pragmatic approach:
Yes, you will have to perform well, and better than URMs. You probably can't bank on getting anything lower than the median GPA/LSAT for a school you want to attend.
Your race won't hurt you, but relative to URMs, it will "disadvantage" you in the review process - AKA your scores will have to be higher than theirs, etc.
It's the sad truth of the game. Take this analysis for example regarding the SAT:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html
On the SAT, Asians must score ~280 points higher than African Americans to be considered equals regarding SAT scores; a similar trend is observed with Hispanics (yes, this could mean that an Asian person who got a perfect score on the SAT is less impressive than an African American person who got a 2200).
The similar trend is present in law school admissions. I suggested you watch this video given by former LSAC chairman Alex Johnson:
TL;DR - You will have to perform very well, and better than URMs. You can interpret this as being disadvantaged against them in the review process. The theory is that URMs are disadvantaged in all other life processes, so by "lowering" standards for them, it equalizes the playing field. Whether you believe that or not, or if affirmative action is normatively okay, is up to you.
@jhaldy10325 said:
@57803 , I understand the inherent problem with terms like "reverse racism," and I apologize if my comment came across that way. Racism is obviously not a legitimate basis for an argument.
To clarify my meaning, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the affirmative action debate and that must be recognized before a constructive conversation can take place. It's the kind of issue that people feel very passionate about, and sometimes people need a reminder that they can address the issue without attacking the opponent. For example: a discussion about the problems behind terminologies like "reverse racism" is very helpful. Many people legitimately don't know and use those terms without any understanding of their implications.
I'm relieved to hear that you agree there's no such thing as reverse racism. But there also aren't "legitimate arguments on both sides of the affirmative action debate" either. The affirmative action critique on which we should all be focused is that it doesn't go nearly far enough. Affirmative action is an important start to be sure. But implemented alone, it serves as a pretty inadequate band-aid. Alone, it doesn't even begin to address and repair even a tiny fraction of the consequences of structural white supremacy for people of color, especially BLack and Indigenous folks, in the US today (one commenter mentioned massive wealth redistribution, for example). To argue that affirmative action is unfair to white people is to put forward racism as a "legitimate" basis for an argument.
I say this as a white person: it honestly scares me to know that some of the white people who are whining on here might be granted the power to be lawyers in the future. I am honestly not trying to be inflammatory. Colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, the carceral punishment system ... the list of race-based forms of oppression goes on and on and on. All of these things profoundly shaped, and continue to shape, the legal system. If you're going to practice law, it is unequivocally you're responsibility to understand that.
@57803 , I understand the inherent problem with terms like "reverse racism," and I apologize if my comment came across that way. Racism is obviously not a legitimate basis for an argument.
To clarify my meaning, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the affirmative action debate and that must be recognized before a constructive conversation can take place. It's the kind of issue that people feel very passionate about, and sometimes people need a reminder that they can address the issue without attacking the opponent. For example: a discussion about the problems behind terminologies like "reverse racism" is very helpful. Many people legitimately don't know and use those terms without any understanding of their implications.
@jhaldy10325 said:
Hey everyone, so far so good on this thread, but this is a sensitive subject, so let's all just bear that in mind and grant the legitimacy of the opposing argument. It's important and appropriate to debate this, let's just make sure to proceed with respect and to debate the topic, not each other.
Thanks guys!
Im not trying to start or inflame a debate (online forums are not the site of social change), but I just wanna note that racism is not a valid viewpoint. And as such it's actually really problematic for you to instruct people to recognize its "legitimacy." Anybody who says that affirmative action is "reverse racism" against white people, as a recent poster did, is just factually wrong. There is not such a thing as reverse racism. Here, let this comedian explain it: