<p>There is a new study out refuting the Sander’s study’s conclusion that affirmative action decreases the number of Black Lawyers.</p>
<p>Here’s the synopsis from jbhe:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and here’s the link to the whole paper so you can read for yourself:
<a href=“http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/archive/v75/75_2/Rothstein75-2.pdf[/url]”>http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/archive/v75/75_2/Rothstein75-2.pdf</a></p>
<p>That JBHE synopsis is beyond biased. It doesn’t have a shred of neutrality. [Inside</a> Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/09/03/affirm]Inside”>http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/09/03/affirm) has a far more balanced summary of what happened.</p>
<p>As I understand it, Rothstein and Yoon’s study corroborates some of Sander’s points, namely the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>There are “substantially different qualifications, on average, between black and white law school applicants.”</li>
<li>There are “gaps in performance in law school.”</li>
</ol>
<p>Most importantly, in page 12 of the PDF article Tyler09 linked to, the authors acknowledged that “…the mismatch hypothesis is certainly plausible.” This is at great odds with the JBHE, which claims that the mismatch hypothesis is “racial slander.”</p>
<p>Ironically, Rothstein and Yoon’s paper may actually harm one of the most common arguments thrown around by the pro-racial preference crowd: the students who are admitted are qualified to do the work. Rothstein and Yoon flat-out state that absent racial preferences, “…many black applicants to law schools would simply never get in.”</p>
<p>Those two statements are not at odds with each other. </p>
<p>Many many MANY qualified students are not admitted to their school of choice each year.</p>
<p>Thanks for the article references about law school affirmative action policies and their societal effects. I’ll have to read those and digest them for a while.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looking back at what I wrote, I see that these two statements need not be in conflict. However, I disagree with your reasoning. According to Rothstein and Yoon, without preferential treatment, you can forget about school of choice; many of these students don’t even have safeties because their qualifications aren’t strong enough for them to have safeties in the first place!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rather, Rothstein and Yoon’s findings make the equally-common claim, “affirmative action has a minor impact at best,” even more ridiculous than it already is. (For the record, ten years ago, Bowen and Bok admitted that absent race-conscious admissions, “underrepresented” minority enrollment would plummet.) Whereas Sander concludes that blacks can still make it without racial preferences, R&Y conclude that blacks are doomed without them; the elimination of preferential treatment makes it impossible for many to get into even a single law school, regardless of prestige.</p>
<p>I hope there is no disagreement here that many black college graduates are amply qualified to thrive at some law schools–I’ve seen it done. It is an interesting question, irrespective of the ethnicity of applicants, whether matching the preparation level of applicants closely to the challenge level of higher education schools makes for a better learning experience for admitted students. It seems to me that there are some legitimate arguments to be put forth, in a world in which some higher education institutions are selective by preparation for rigorous academics, for making sure all admitted students in a rigorous institution are well prepared for that institution’s curriculum. That’s something that could be made sure of with or without the institution knowing the “race” of applicants.</p>
<p>I disagree with your interpretation of R&Y’s conclusion. </p>
<p>While both papers argued that urm enrollment in law school would plummet with the elimination of AA, Sanders argued that the ones that would remain would be in better matched schools, more likely to pass the bar exam and would ultimately result in more lawyers than if the students were “mismatched”. </p>
<p>What R&Y adds is that many urm students wouldn’t pursue law degrees or attend law school in the first place if they didn’t believe they would have a shot. And many, as you did say, would not have a shot with their entering credentials. </p>
<p>I compare R&Y’s conclusion to the current situation of UCLA and Cal where they were having problems enrolling black students because many either did not want to go to a school without a vibrant black community and attended more diverse schools or because they didn’t think they could get in anymore and didn’t apply at all.</p>
<p>The argument is that if that situation is factored in, the elimination of AA DOES NOT result in more lawyers, as formerly concluded.</p>
<p>Where do we find a national count of students who enter various kinds of professional schools, who graduate from those schools, and who pass professional certification examinations?</p>
<p>Two questions:</p>
<p>1) I am multiracial. One parent is Asian. One parent is Caucasian. Would I have a better chance of getting into a given college if I specifically stated this, or if I just left the ethinicity section blank?</p>
<p>2) My parents aren’t rich, but their combined salaries are slightly over $100,000 a year, meaning I likely won’t get a significant amount of financial aid, if any at all. If I I say that I won’t apply for financial aid, do I have a better chance of getting in? I’ve heard this is the case,and it makes sense (if all things are equal, why not pick the guy who will pay more?). From my parents’ perspective, losing a small amount of financial aid would be worth it if I got into a better school.</p>
<p>You could qualify for quite a lot of financial aid at top private colleges given your parent’s salaries as long as their assets are in line with the salary.</p>
<p>My guess is your ethnicity will neither help nor hurt. You are from two ethnic backgrounds, both of which are well-represented on college campuses. Race/ethnicity might be a help if a student is from an under-represented group, but other than that I think it’s just neutral. You can report it or not report it, as you wish.</p>
<p>At a school that is not “need blind” I would think your ability to pay at least a portion of your expenses would be something of a plus. I mean, I don’t know that that would be true in every case, but generally it stands to reason. You can still apply for aid, mind you. They will see that you will not need full aid, but perhaps there might be something for you that could help out a little. Or they might want to sweeten the pie with a little aid if they’d like to see you accept their offer.</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE TO “Race, Financial Aid in Admissions” THREAD: </p>
<p>I merged this thread into the preexisting FAQ thread because both of the questions you ask are being discussed here. I note with regret that College Confidential site search–which you may have tried first–is not doing a good job of keeping the most current FAQ thread visible to persons trying to avoid making duplicate threads. </p>
<p>You asked, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s really hard to say. Colleges don’t publish information that would allow a confident inference about what is more strategic to do in that case (which is a case I’m very familiar with). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That income range is eligible for financial aid at several highly desirable colleges. If you have any doubt about needing financial aid, apply for financial aid. The best colleges (those with the most resources) are “need-blind,” meaning your application for financial aid won’t hurt your chances of admission. (At some colleges it might even help your chances of admission if you can truly mention a background of limited family resources, and at some top colleges the admission will have no idea who has applied for financial aid from the financial aid office.) </p>
<p>P.S. I hope your screen name is not part of the email address you will put on your college application forms. That would be VERY off-putting and would definitely hurt your chances of admission.</p>
<p>Just a reminder that [post</a> #2](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061012008-post2.html]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061012008-post2.html) in this thread gives links (and quotations) for the official federal definitions of ethnic and racial categories used in college reports to the federal government, which is something that a lot of students wonder about at this time of year. Whether we are talking about the ethnic category Hispanic or Latino or the racial categories </p>
<p>White </p>
<p>Black or African American</p>
<p>Asian</p>
<p>American Indian or Alaska Native</p>
<p>Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander </p>
<p>all of those categories have federal definitions, and if you look at the definitions, you will agree with the Census Bureau staff who wrote, “The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.” </p>
<p>[Black</a> or African American persons, percent, 2000](<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm]Black”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm)</p>
<p>Links to United States Supreme Court cases directly on point on the issue of “race” as a factor in college admission, illustrating what some colleges and professional schools have done over the years. </p>
<p>Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978) </p>
<p>[Oyez:</a> Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“{{meta.fullTitle}}”>{{meta.fullTitle}}) </p>
<p>Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) </p>
<p>[Oyez:</a> Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“{{meta.fullTitle}}”>{{meta.fullTitle}}) </p>
<p>Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)</p>
<p>[Oyez:</a> Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“{{meta.fullTitle}}”>{{meta.fullTitle}}) </p>
<p>Two more recent cases, decided last year, refined the Supreme Court’s statements on the more general issue of considering “race” in school placement at the K-12 level. </p>
<p>Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 551 U.S. ___ (2007) </p>
<p>[Oyez:</a> Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. ___ (2007), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“{{meta.fullTitle}}”>{{meta.fullTitle}}) </p>
<p>Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education 551 U.S. ___ (2007) </p>
<p>[Oyez:</a> Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 551 U.S. ___ (2007), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“{{meta.fullTitle}}”>{{meta.fullTitle}})</p>
<p>I am really unsure what to put down here. I have African ancestry on my dad’s side, but I am only 1/8th East African, so would this constitute having a minority status or am I ineligible?
Thanks in advance</p>
<p>If you’re less than 1/2 African (and you don’t look “black”, crude as it sounds), then you should definitely NOT only put down African - imagine what will happen if you’re assigned to a minority advisor/multicultural dorm/etc and you’re supposed to be African, but you show up looking decidedly un-URM. You should either put down your majority race only or put down both African and your majority race (I’m guessing white). </p>
<p>As to whether mixed people (with URM background, not white/Asian mixed) get AA benefits, no one on CC seems to know for certain. Some people say yes and others say no.</p>
<p>The common app now asks where were you born and where were your parents born.</p>
<p>Yeah, I was definitely going to put down I’m mixed, but I just wasn’t sure if I am still allowed to put down “African,” as it is part of my lineage, but only to a minor degree.</p>
<p>Do you fit the U.S. Census definition of African American?</p>
<p>Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro,” or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.</p>
<p>Also at many schools it is not only about checking the box as many schools are asking for diversity statements. How has your life as an african american shaped your world view and how do you feel this can benefit the college.</p>
<p>Before your 1/8th ancestry, how did you live your life?</p>
<p>^ i was planning to include a short paragraph on my mixed background in one of my essays. Is there a separate form that i need to fill out to be considered a urm? also, what proof should i send to the colleges so that they can check my mixed race?
thanks again</p>