<p>I would argue anyone - black, white, pink, purple or green - would suffer if they attended a law school (or med school, or undergraduate school for that matter) that was well above their head academically. I’ve seen this in action, not only with affirmative action students but also with legacies, athletes, and other students that for whatever reason are at a real reach school for themselves. Some students rise to the challenge but most flounder, many of whom get discouraged and quit. They just can’t compete. It’s sad, in my opinion, because many of them would do well in a different environment where they would be more on par with their colleagues.</p>
<p>Lakewashington, your statement was “no bearing” and that is simply a foolish statement. </p>
<p>You are mixing apples and oranges. The reason a lower tier law school located in New York may have higher pass rates in New York than an elite law school is precisely because lower tier law school is located in New York and that law school teaches New York law. If you took 100% of the law students at Cornell and 100% of the law students at St. John’s and then had them all take the California bar I am willing to bet you would see a significant difference in the pass rates for each school.</p>
<p>“The fact that affirmative action supporters do not like Professor Williams’ conclusions does not mean the conclusions are poorly argued or ill founded.”</p>
<p>But in this case, they are. Professor Williams presented no evidence whatsoever that these same students would have done better at second- or third-tier law schools. He likewise presented no evidence whatsoever that students who attended first-tier law schools “because of affirmative action” suffered as a result. (In fact, he didn’t even bother to try to determine whether non-white students admitted “because of affirmative action” did better or worse than those not so admitted.)</p>
<p>(He might have made the case that first-tier law schools could do a better job preparing students for bar exams, but he didn’t.)</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of disagreeing with his conclusions. He simply didn’t make the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok Razor, this is precisely the point. What exactly is williams or sanders for a matter of fact identifying ?</p>
<p>If either are saying for example that 47% of the AA graduates from yale law school fail to pass the georgia, mississipp or name your state other than NY & CT, then just say that and back it up with the facts. Why can’t they state based on the a survey of <strong><em>, (AA, Hspanic, Asian, Purple ) students who attended Yale law from 19</em></strong> to 20<strong><em>, we found that </em></strong>_ sucessfully completed law school. _<strong><em>% graduated in the bottom of the class. and </em></strong> were successful in passing the bar on the first round in the following states: </p>
<p>according to the ABA, Cardoza law school nudged out Cornell to rank # 3 in NYS for bar passage rate, and CUNY has an 83 % NYS bar passage rate. Should I expect someone from Boalt, also a T14 school to successfully pass the NYS bar coming out of law school? Should I expect someone coming from Fordham to successfully pass the CA bar?</p>
<p>[Cardozo</a> and CUNY Gain in Bar Pass Rates | ABA Journal - Law News Now](<a href=“Latest News - ABA Journal”>Latest News - ABA Journal)</p>
<p>I am going to read the article because I would like to know how he gathered his data, the schools looked at and if this is a longitudinal study</p>
<p>I think you’ll find that he didn’t gather any data, and he doesn’t read or analyze real well. (from Walter Williams, this is far from the first time).</p>
<p>Why should there be AA for law school? Wasn’t the playing field already levelled by AA in undergrad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had not thought of that. Good argument.</p>
<p>It is likely that Walter Williams had not even bothered to read the critical analysis of Sanders’ original work. (He suggests that 1) there is AA; and 2) that ALL Black students are there as a result of AA.)</p>
<p>If you want to follow the original argument (and have the time), you might find this useful:
<a href=“http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=umichlwps[/url]”>http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=umichlwps</a></p>
<p>gnrfan, very good point.</p>
<p>Excellent comment Sybbie.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, if you’re already familary with the law and legal education, then please overlook the rudimentary nature of my following coments.</p>
<p>While there are 52 sets of distinct primary legal jurisdictions in the U.S. (the states, the federal government and the District of Columbia), the basis of all American jurisprudence is English Common Law. Law school instruction begins with the review of common law traditions. EVERY law school curriculum (that I am aware of; I can’t speak to places such as Pat Robertson’s Regent University School of Law) is structured this way. The vigor and rigor of Law School instruction will vary of course, but when it comes to the foundation, particularly in the first year classes of Torts, Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure, course content will be similar at most American law schools. My point is that “teaching to the bar” is not necessarily the directive nor mission of regional (what you call second tier) law schools. Their mission is to produce critical thinkers whom can rationally and impartially analyze a fact situation and theorize how a set of rules and standards should be consequently applied to remedy conflicting claims, rights or obligations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure there is a dispute about your point. However, it may not be the directive or mission of a non-elite Law school to teach to the bar but it is a fact that many regional law schools teach both the national rule and the rule applicable in their particular states. A law student attending a regional law school in New York will likely have much more exposure to New York law while in law school than would a law student attending Cornell Law school. The most likely consequence of this is a higher bar pass rate for students attending a regional law school in New York.</p>
<p>I would argue that if you wanted to practice law in New York, you would be better off being in the top 25% of your class at St. John’s than being in the bottom 25% of your class at Cornell. Sometimes being the big fish in a small pond is the best course of action. On the other hand, if you wanted to practice law in California, you would be better off attending Cornell.</p>
<p>I don’t see a case made here. The better the law school the less actual law is generally being taught. So take a review course for your own state and pass the bar exam.</p>