<p>jf215: Call me pandy. I’d have much less of a problem with it. I’d still rather see the applicant whose grades, scores, and ECs are better get in. Ideally, and this is within our reac. Universities would collectively set up more (because there are already programs like these and they’ve had much success) programs to allow disadvantaged youth to educate themselves. Economic based AA seems to help those it is designed to help much better than race-based AA, (if you want an awesome read in support of economy based AA, then read this study by Sander <a href=“http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/classbased.pdf[/url]”>http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/classbased.pdf</a> who is a Professor of Law at UCLA and is one of the bigshots on the admissions committee). It addresses much of the issues I have with race-based AA. My only real qualm is that it might hurt the middle class more and it might actually give a benefit to wealthy students (I’d be against assigning specific quotes like 10% Wealthy, etc.). And, again, I’d rather have the programs elaborated above. I’ll elaborate more later if you want</p>
<p>Filmy: I did not say that at all about the black students on campus. In fact, I showed that you’d have more than 2-3 black students on campus. I don’t think you read my post, but I’ll take my argument further. 13,897 people in total scores higher than 1500.
Let’s double that number and assume that that number scored higher than a 1450. That would mean, according to your logic, only 231 people per class in total among what US News designates “Top Schools.” I believe that initially the numbers might go down (I believe they would not go down, or they would go down less, if my programs were initiated. Where would the money for these expenditures come from? From a collective basket of foregone tuitions and private donations).</p>
<p>Now, as to our L.A Times article (manyal, looks familiar? i’m not sure if you noted that you were taking it from the LA times, so i won’t accuse you of anything) I’ll quote some things from the summary and the study itself that directly comment on your quoted part: "Despite the prevalence of affirmative action policies in higher education, scholars are only beginning to study seriously the relative costs and benefits of racial preferences in admissions. The recent development of several large, longitudinal datasets on law students and lawyers has made it possible to ask more ambitious questions about the operation and effects of these policies. A Systemic Analysis asks a number of these questions, and reports surprising answers. (This article focuses only on blacks and whites.) " The use of longitudinal studies is just being made available, which counters the first paragraph of the LA times article. And the rest of the article is countered by these from the summary: --Second, black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades in law school not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage. The median black student starting law school in 1991 received first-year grades comparable to a white student at the 7th or 8th percentile. </p>
<p>–Third, these low grades substantially handicap black students in their efforts to complete law school and pass the bar. Only 45% of black law students in the 1991 cohort completed law school and passed the bar on their first attempt; in the absence of preferential admissions, I estimate that this rate would rise to 74%. </p>
<p>–Fourth, the job market benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated; regression analysis of job market data strongly suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades would generally trump the costs in prestige. </p>
<p>–Fifth, it is far from clear that racial preferences actually cause the legal education system to produce a larger number of black lawyers. Careful analysis indicates that 86% of blacks currently enrolled in law schools would have been admitted to some law school under race-blind policies, and the much lower attrition rates that would prevail in a race-blind regime would probably produce larger cohorts of black lawyers than the current system of preferences produces. </p>
<p>In the case of blacks, at least, the objective costs of preferential admissions appear to substantially outweigh the benefits. The basic theory driving many of these findings is known as the academic mismatch mechanism; attending an advanced school where ones credentials are far below those of ones peers has a variety of negative effects on learning, motivation, and goals that harm the beneficiary of the preference. Over the past several years, a wide range of scholars have documented the operation of the mismatch mechanism in a number of fields of higher education.
His information can be found here: <a href=“http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Data%20and%20Procedures/StanfordArt.htm[/url]”>http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Data%20and%20Procedures/StanfordArt.htm</a>
Sanders research has also been replicated as expanded upon here: <a href=“http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/Chambers5%20Mina.pdf[/url]”>http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/Chambers5%20Mina.pdf</a> (it directly responds to Clydesdale) It’s quite a lengthy read and I myself have not finished it, but it is extremely interesting. Highly important and key to our debate, however, is the part that begins with the Roman Numeral Three.</p>
<p>This is Sander’s final draft, by the way <a href=“http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/Sander%20FINAL.pdf[/url]”>http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Documents/Sander%20FINAL.pdf</a> . It’s 117 pages long, but if you reading the other link quoted above seems, to me, to be in expedience’s best interest because it responds to published claims against what is linked in the sentence before this
Don’t hate me filmy!</p>