Hypothetical Situation

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>Affirmative Action and legacy benefits, moreover, are not mutually exclusive. To argue that legacy exacerbates the preponderance of caucasians in any given student-body is sheer ignorance. AA policies fulfilled their purpose quite some time ago, and there are quite a few Hispanic and African American alumni from Ivy-League schools, such that their progeny also benefit from legacy status. Even worse, such students enjoy the double benefit of affirmative action policies and legacy status… need I go on?</p>

<p>Edit: But why use empirical evidence?:wink: We should have something a priori that both denies the verity of AA, yet promotes legacy benefits…
…I am drawing blanks.</p>

22

<p>wow -interesting to see how you steal a thread to comment on something that wasn’t asked of you.</p>

<p>M&B: Interesting to see how you favor something that, apparently, benefits you. Yet, attack something that, apparently, does not affect you at all. So, much for character, I guess. Money talks, right?</p>

23

<p>“I actually have to agree with M&B. AA based on skin color is absurd. Because of the Hispanic thing, he does have a shot, whether he deserves it or not, I don’t know.” ~CCShamrock</p>

<p>Good, because you do not need to know-period.</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>I suppose the same could be said of you, since no one asked for your opinion.</p>

25

<p>Listen: I am just pointing out a fact. The OP asked for opinions regarding his chances to HLS, and for some reason people started to argue about the merits of AA -or lack of. Moreover, there was a similar thread not too long ago that discussed that topic, and after a while, it was locked. Now, some of the information posted is interesting, and even useful. Let’s just not forget that this thread, it its origin, was asking for something specific -out of respect to the OP, the thread’s topic should be respected -futhermore, the OP should be respected. </p>

<p>If you want to discuss something that’s not related to the OP’s question, feel free to open another thread. </p>

<p>And yes, I suppose the same could be said of my reply, but, once again, I did it to point out something. Thanks for your supposition, though.:)</p>

26

<p>The reason the discussion on AA seems spontaneous is because there were posts that raised the issue, but the moderators deleted it.</p>

27

<p>“AA policies fulfilled their purpose quite some time ago, and there are quite a few Hispanic and African American alumni from Ivy-League schools, such that their progeny also benefit from legacy status. Even worse, such students enjoy the double benefit of affirmative action policies and legacy status… need I go on?”</p>

<p>How presumptuous is that? I agree with Wildfower on how you make baseless suppositions on something that completely does not affect you. Your entire thought process is tainted with solecism and you have denegraded the entire purpose of AA: cognitive learning. Acclimating to the need of diversity in top schools helps create a broader panoply for aggregate learning and understanding. Perhaps you can learn something from that black student in your African American Studies class at Harvard. His/her experiences may (and most likely will) starkly contrast from yours and it might expand your perspective to learn from him/her. That is assuming you have the perspicacity to do so. Also, why are you being so absolute with this matter? What about those students (like the OP) that have terrific stats? Why should they have to resort to worry about whether or not their hard work and determination proved ancillary to their skin color? Moreover, AA is not going to affect YOUR chances on admission. Why would they? AA Minorities represent only an infinitesimal portion of HLS. Now, the most incendiary comment was how you “obsensibly” favor legacy acceptances over AA. Even more, you try to justify your claims by saying that they inherently are granted a place at top schools because their forebears financially contributed to the school’s well being. How is this not inviting the same type of social bias that is inherent in AA? What does the student body gain by all of this? College admissions is a two way street. It is about what the school and, most importantly, the student gains by attending the school. </p>

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>You have terrific stats and you deserve a shot at any law school regardless of the box you checked on the ethnicity part of the application.</p>

28

<p>Just my thought:</p>

<p>We all benefit tremendously when there are lawyers who are not white men. Likewise, there is a tremendous societal benefit to having black and Hispanic doctors. Perhaps law schools don’t just admit people who will be successful law students but admit people who will benefit society. It isn’t always about a school saying that they have a certain percentage of minorities or trying to make up for past wrongs; this is about broad representation in our legal community, which is a very important and powerful aspect of our society. It is about admitting people who will be lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and judges years down the road - and wanting them to represent more than the old boys club.</p>

<p>The final thing I have to say on this is that it strikes a nerve with me. I was told countless times in high school that I was admitted to my undergrad because I’m a woman who applied as an engineer. Never mind my straight As, my perfect math SAT score, science team, 10 varsity letters - nope, must’ve been my gender. Just sick.</p>

29

<p>Which school do you attend?</p>

<p>You sound awesome by the way.</p>

30

<p>

</p>

<p>I rendered no such assumptions; my post was pure speculation on the possible implications of affirmative action policies. To ignore them is sheer ignorance, as you are so capable of demonstrating.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I once thought the same way you did, but some articles on reality changed that…
… need I utter “Bill Cosby” and “affirmative action” in the same sentence.</p>

<p>Using euphemisms only renders your claims more spurious. “Cognitive learning”, or so you say, may be the justification for such programs, but that is hardly what is being encouraged empirically.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Diversity”? Another silly euphemism employed be colleges. Universities might not employ racial descrimination in admissions, but they definitely promote thought and ideological discrimation. Students who do not fit “their mould” of what is “virtuous” or what is “the good life” are not admitted. It is perfectionism in disguise. Only fools fall prey to the semantic sleight-of-hands employed daily by competitive schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I will not dispute that; I am not racist. You commit an atrocity to logic by claiming that since I do not endorse AA, I am somehow against the African American population at large. All I am asking is that individuals of different races be judged on identical criteria, with no benefit being given to any specific group of persons. You may argue that the socio-economic status of African Americans, Hispanics, and native Indians are not conducive to equalizing the credentials of their respective applicants, but how long can we use that as a justification? A plethora of Asians immigrated in the 70s, and many had to live in the same degrading socio-economic circumstances as other minorities, yet we are now observing that an excess of students from such backgrounds are rising to the top, thus exluding Asians from the “URM” category. Why have African Americans, Hispanics, or Native Indians done the same? I am not employing an a priori argument against racism. I am asking you to consider the empirical evidence. Affirmative Action programs might be providing disadvantaged students with access to valuable resources, but the problem is that many students who are classified as URMs see AA as implicitly affirming that they need not put as much effort. AA policies are sending the wrong message.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is great; nowhere have I implied that URMs with terrific stats should not be admitted. Perhaps it would be prudent for you to disregard your passions when arguing with me.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am Asian, think again;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So much for accomplishing its goals…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your reading skills are lacking. I never explicitly advocated that justification. If you analyze my posts again, perhaps you will be able to find the impetus for my endorsing legacy programs.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The evidence is piling.</p>

<p>I would even go so far as to argue that AA policies hurt URMs more than they help…</p>

32

<p>I could refute everything nspeds countered me with, but I don’t want to turn this into another AA war. </p>

<p>“once thought the same way you did, but some articles on reality changed that…
… need I utter “Bill Cosby” and “affirmative action” in the same sentence.”</p>

<p>Wow the eptiome of justification</p>

<p>“I will not dispute that; I am not racist.”</p>

<p>haha</p>

<p>“I am Asian, think again”</p>

<p>Good to know. I like long walks on the beach. </p>

<p>Its painfully flagrant that Asians suffer the most in the admissions process. :)</p>

<p>" but the problem is that many students who are classified as URMs see AA as implicitly affirming that they need not put as much effort. AA policies are sending the wrong message."</p>

<p>Wow the conjecture here is astounding. Tell me, what am I thinking now?</p>

<p>“Your reading skills are lacking. I never explicitly advocated that justification. If you analyze my posts again, perhaps you will be able to find the impetus for my endorsing legacy programs.”</p>

<p>Yes sir! Right away!</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>Much more palpable than the vociferous attacks that you provided, most of which were ad hominem justifications.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The empirical evidence speaks for itself. You can choose to ignore it, but that is what renders your arguments even more laughable. You can either provide me comedy and entertainment, or actually deliver a coherent argument. Your skills in the former are prima facie stellar.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have provided the evidence. What have you done? Delivered pedestrian and paltry musings in the form of incoherent polemics that only serve to deride those who make legitimate arguments. Hardly the mark of ‘cognitive learning’. HA!</p>

<p>My professor was told, point-blank, that he did not belong at Rice University because he was Christian. These were not students who threatened him, but faculty. Walk into the philosophy department at Harvard and you will be laughed at for being a theist altogether. ‘Diversity’… you can utter the word until you fall asleep, but academia is far from engendering it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>…and in blatant self-contradiction, you deride me. So much for that…</p>

34

<p>I sought not to decry or castigate you, nspeds, because, quite simply, I could care less about skewing your opinion. This thread is…what is the word you so un-“polemically” typed…laughable. Have a good day.</p>

35

<p>The reason AA admits fail out more is because universities do a spectacularly awful job of helping them make the transition. These kids don’t come from Orange county california or Greenwich CT…mommy and daddy aren’t lawyers already. They often times have the ability but not the preparation. This is something that universities need to address, but eliminating affirmative action is the equivalent of tearing down a whole house to solve a leaky faucet.</p>

<p>There is no excuse for preferring the children of alumni. Period. There’s nothing that anyone can say defending legacy preferences that doesn’t sound at least a little bit racist, classist, elitist, or bigoted…or a mixture of the 4.</p>

<p>Let’s all remember some of the great affirmative action admits of our time: Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall, Larry Thompson, Janice Rogers Brown, Alberto Gonzales…need I continue.</p>

36

<p>And yet another thread digresses into an AA discussion…</p>

37

<p>Okay people…let’s all put our SAT word-prep books down and return to the dispute at hand…we’re all future lawyers here…no need to try to impress the other with words that we know…but rarely use.</p>