Well, what did you really expect? AA helps some people get into undergrad, it then helps some people get into law school. Then, I know some law school that give preferences to minorities on law review in order to keep the student distribution on LR commisserate with the general LS population.

So, I guess my question is, when was the AA going to stop and allow people to perform on their own? Maybe minority litigators need a guaranteed 2 juror boost as well?

Sersiously, you can't push someone through all the schooling then expect them to do it on their own when their security blanket gets removed - you know, the real world.

I likewise hate "affirmation" action.

I think you should get one try to pass each bar. If you fuck up, then you're thru.
I think generally, whites perform better on bar exams than other races, even Asians.

In "the real world," it's "commensurate," not "commisserate." I hope you had a decent editor on law review.

1. AA exacerbates/creates racism. A minority will be viewed as unqualified. If he/she is a product of AA, then rightly so.
2. AA limits the pool of qualified applicants.
3. AA was originally created to EXCLUDE jews from academic institutions. They were admitted, on merit, in such large numbers that the quota system was used to keep them out. This shows the ever-present other side of the AA coin.
4. AA is paternalistic coddling. If blacks are equal, why do they need special treatment?
5. Asians are a minority group that has been discriminated against in the past. They don't need AA because they are admitted in droves on merit.
6. AA damages the academic environment. By letting in underqualified students, time and resources are wasted.
7. The abysmal social statistics of blacks in America is largely due to cultural factors, NOT racism. For a start, consider why a black man that gets good grades is derided and said to be "acting white". As long as "acting white" means being responsible, civil, and successful, and "being black" means being irresponsible, barbarous, and a social drain, the status quo will continue.
8. AA is using racism to fight racism. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The results of the study are spot on. Affirmative Action is the biggest source of racism in the country today. I will bet anything you won't see the results mentioned on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Only Fox News has the courage to run it on their cover.

I didn't know how I would make it through my four classes today. Now I do.

Where did this come from? You hard-up for page views?

Clusterf**ks to $190k!!

passing the bar exam is not a sign of intelligence

9:48: "I think generally, whites perform better on bar exams than other races, even Asians."

Where do you get that? The stereotypical Asian is a math/science nerd, sure. But the Asians who go to law school are self-selected humanities types.

If we had the data, I bet they'd show that Asians outperform whites (as they generally do at all levels of education).

By graduate school, people are where they are.

The way to bring minority accomplishment up is to fix the outrageous disparities between primary schools. Get more black kids into well funded suburban elementary schools, and I bet THAT would actually make a bigger difference.

By graduate school, people are where they are.

The way to bring minority accomplishment up is to fix the outrageous disparities between primary schools. Get more black kids into well funded suburban elementary schools, and I bet THAT would actually make a bigger difference.

9:49 asks: "Where did this come from?"

From Fox News, of course, that oh so fair and balanced news source...

AA was developed so certain elites could "feel good" about themselves, and give themselves a good pat on the back.

AA was as wrong and unconstitutional when it was developed as Jim Crow was, and it is wrong and unconstitutional now -- notwithstanding whatever Justice O'Conner says.

I don't quite get the argument that getting into a better law school makes students less likely to pass the bar exam. Even if we accept the proposition that AA gets some black students into schools for which they would otherwise not be qualified-- and what's the point of AA if it doesn't do that?-- how does it follow that these students would be *more* likely to pass the bar exam had they gone to a *less* competitive law school?

9:51
Here's a study from the Texas Bar Exam showing Whites performing better than Asians.
http://www.ble.state.tx.us/one/analysis_0704tbe.htm

9:55: It's because they don't graduate from the schools that they get into but aren't qualified from. Sander's study focuses on students from the time of their admission to law school all the way through to taking the bar exam (or not taking it).

I meant "qualified for," not "qualified from."

Whatever you feel about AA, there is no denying that Sander is acting in good faith, without a predetermined agenda, and is a serious social scientist. Thus, there is no good reason for the BA to hide their stats - it's just completely indefensible.

9:55-It doesn't follow if you're a liberal arts major who thinks that everything functions in the real world like it does in your head (in other words, unless it makes logical sense in your head, you don't see how it can be so). However, Sander has these things called "statistics" that tend to support his mismatch theory. I know that statistics probably mean nothing to you, but if you care to read his studies, you'll find there's some quantitative support there.

Mark Twain had it right: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Black students are "below the median"? By definition, half of all students in any law school class have academic creditials that are "below the median." That's what the word "median" means.

Only 1/3 of black students who enter law school pass the bar on the first try? Fine, but what percentage of people entering law school overall graduate and pass it? There were plenty of white people in my law school class who dropped out, who failed it the first time. In many states, 60% of takers fail the test. And there could be a variety of reasons that they're not staying in law school and not going on to become lawyers that might have nothing to do with their academic credentials.

I agree that people who are manifestly unqualified should not be admitted to a school in the name of "affirmative action." It's not good for the students admitted that way, and it's not good for African Americans as a whole for white students to see black students as manifestly unqualified (we had one of those in my law school too, but only one out of many black students). But the most important piece of information is missing from this survey: I'm not seeing the proof that the students who failed or dropped out were manifestly unqualified for the schools they were admitted to.

9:54

Fox News is just reporting on the article from the Stanford Law Review. Are they not "Fair and Balanced" enough at Stanford either? I know those elite California schools are known for their right-wing bias too.... oh wait!

Does the existence of AA allow society to ignore the factors that make AA "necessary" in the first place? It's a bandaid, in other words.

"In many states, 60% of takers fail the test." Name one, you f**king liar.

More AA in WGWAG!!

Hooray for diversity! No, not diversity of opinion. No, not diversity of ideas. No, not diversity even of abilities. True diversity is reflected only on the outside, not the inside silly.

www.ble.state.tx.us/one/analysis_0704tbe.htm
This shows how Whites perform better than others, including Asians

"There were plenty of white people in my law school class who dropped out, who failed it the first time."

The study, if you read it, makes precisely the case that AA's are not at a disadvantages relative to the student body in TTT's, like the one you attended, where *everyone* sucks about the same. The underperformance correlates with the aggressiveness of the AA program at a given school.

The giant assumption here is that failing the bar on the first try means someone was unqualified to attend that law school. That doesn't have to be the case; bar exams test whether you can memorize a huge amount of information and regurgitate it, which isn't what law school is about, or what actual practice is like.

Clarence Thomas' grandfather's son's uncle's turtle's nephew's niece's third cousin twice removed got into HLS on affirmative action.

9:51 - "passing the bar exam is not a sign of intelligence"

Passing the bar is a much better sign of intelligence [and/or work habits] than flunking.

"Whatever you feel about AA, there is no denying that Sander is acting in good faith, without a predetermined agenda, and is a serious social scientist. Thus, there is no good reason for the BA to hide their stats - it's just completely indefensible."

Absolutely and 100% accurate. Next time you're sitting around waiting for a project from a partner read/skim his Stanford L. Rev. article. Stunning. Of course it's obvious why the BA won't release the results; just look at whose ox is being gored.

Finally, FOX news is generally a joke, but they deserve kudos for pursuing this story.

Scroll to page 12 of this website: http://www.nybarexam.org/summary.pdf

enough said...

The proof is in the pudding.

"passing the bar exam is not a sign of intelligence"

But failing the bar exam is a sign of stupidity.

Tracey said "In many states, 60% of takers fail the test." REALLY?

I know the following survey is old (2001), but the results should generally hold year to year:
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/barchart.html
Your "stats" would require the pass rate for first-time takers and repeaters to average 40%. That didn't happen in ANY state except for the February exam from California. If you want to use the really low number of test takers from Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands from the July 2001 exam, maybe you could add a couple more to your "in many states" statement.

Fairness issues aside, the costs of AA to non minority students are pretty light. Any borderline candidate that would have gotten into Harvard or Yale but for AA, will undoubtedly get into Columbia, NYU or Penn instead. And if they’re that much better than the other students at those marginally less prestigious schools, AA isn’t going to effect their future success or career. Given the enormity of the problem it’s meant to correct, historical discrimination (diversity is the issue presented to the courts, but law school don’t really care about diversity of ideas or experience), it’s a really cheap fix. The biggest issue to me is whether it works. The Sanders theory is so interesting because it goes straight to that problem. For an AA admit to a top 14 school who would otherwise be going to Texas, Emory or Wash U, the boost from AA probably impacts their future in a big and positive way. But if the mismatch ripple effect leads to a substantial number of students at T2 and lower schools taking out huge loans and never passing the bar or gaining meaningful legal employment, it’s worth asking whether AA is doing more harm than good. The CA bar should hand over the info to make those judgments.

I like the fact that the author of the first substantive comment couldn't even properly use the English language, while impugning the academic and legal credentials of the purportedly unqualified.

Maybe the problem isn't affirmative action but the bar exam?

Why bother debating this? Justice O'Connor hath decreed that, roughly 18 years from now, AA will no longer be constitutional. The living constitution -- is there anything it can't do?

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/barchart.html

While the results are from 2001, only the February 2001 results from California and July 2001 from Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands show a 40% pass rate.

It is simply and patently untrue that "in most states, 60% of takers fail the test."

Ivy AA, don't reduce yourself to grammar snarking. It's the blog comment equivalent of working blue. You concede that, at least, the comment was substantive. Do you disagree with it?

True, O'Connor has decreed that AA will disappear in 2028. But what if some liberal justices intervene? Heaven forbid! Here's an idea: if AA is so damaging to EVERYONE (it seems), then let's pass a constitutional amendment banning it once and for all! See, e.g., Michigan.

Amendment XXVII

Section 1. Neither affirmative action nor any other racial preference, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The idea/purpose behind AA is illustrated in the following:

Two athletes run 100 yards. One had a lot of great coaching, runs with the perfect stride, and so on. He finishes the 100 yards in 11 seconds. The second runner has never been coached, runs with a terrible stride, but nevertheless finishes the 100 yards in 12 seconds. Who gets the track and field scholarship?

The second runner. Why? He's just missing the first, well-coached runner by a second. With proper coaching, and the right stride, the second runner could really improve - perhaps to a significantly better time than the first runner's.

The idea is that society benefits more by providing the second runner some proper coaching because the result is the fastest runner. The same theory would apply to the kid who hasn't enjoyed good teaching but still shows some academic proficiency. That kid, through AA, could become the best lawyer, or best doctor, etc. AA is supposed to benefit not just the underserved community, but also society in general.

That's what AA is supposed to do.

The problem is that in practice the "second runner" isn't spotted until high school (at the earliest). Usually, the benefit of the "proper coaching" through AA isn't provided until college or graduate school - at which point it is WAY too late to overcome the years of no coaching (or bad coaching). The candidate for best runner is lost by then.

To make AA work as it should, it would have to be applied at the very early stages of education (and continued throughout). By the time these AA students apply to college, they wouldn't need the help. They'd be admitted on merit.

Tracey @ 9:59, you don't quite understand the concepts here.

"Black students are "below the median"? By definition, half of all students in any law school class have academic creditials that are "below the median." That's what the word "median" means."

Right, but the point is that, disproportionately, individuals below a school's median do more poorly than those above, which, as you indicate, is mathematically sensical. But then why are schools consistently admitting an overwhelming percentage of their admitted black students who are below the median, when statistics show that those who enter below the median are more likely to do poorly? Rather than it being 50-50 black students above-below the median, it's more like 20-80. (I'm making up the numbers to show the point.) THEREIN lies the problem.

"Only 1/3 of black students who enter law school pass the bar on the first try? Fine, but what percentage of people entering law school overall graduate and pass it? There were plenty of white people in my law school class who dropped out, who failed it the first time. In many states, 60% of takers fail the test."

First, an overall passage rate for first time bar takers is generally around 80-85%, far, far from 33%. Second, while many white people drop out or fail the first time, the question is whether blacks disproportionately do so. And third, I think once California's bar passage rate from accredited law schools for first-time takers is over 60%, making the failure rate below 40%. Your claim that "In many states, 60% of takers fail the test" is flatly wrong.

Strike that!

Amendment XXVIII

My bad!

AA minorities lag behind their non-coddled academic peers on objective tests of legal knowledge?

WHAAAAA-OOOWWWWWWW

I think I would support AA on the undergrad level (not so much based on race, but based on zipcode, it would probably end up being racial anyway). Schools in inner cities are known to be horrendous. As such, there are probably a lot of people who go to those schools, that could thrive if given the right environment. The bar should be lowered for them to get into college, since their schools probably did not prepare them well enough for the SAT etc...

After 4 years of undergrad, on the other hand, AA should have no place. For 4 years people who got into college under AA, have been on equal footing with everyone else. They should no longer need the bar lowered.

The biggest issue to me is whether it works. The Sanders theory is so interesting because it goes straight to that problem. For an AA admit to a top 14 school who would otherwise be going to Texas, Emory or Wash U, the boost from AA probably impacts their future in a big and positive way.

==========================

You are drastically underestimating the effects of AA preferences. AA applicants aren't getting the equivalent of a 2 or 3 point LSAT boost. They are, in general, WAY below the medians for the schools to which they are admitted.

A black student who could be admitted to Emory on the basis of merit alone would easily get into Columbia or NYU, if not Harvard or Yale. I would venture to say that any black student who cracks the 90th percentile pretty much has his pick of law schools.

look at the charts: http://www.nybarexam.org/summary.pdf

esp page 12.... enough said

Passing the bar exam is a prerequisite to practice law. Anyone who scores really low on the LSAT is awful at multiple choice tests and is going to REALLY struggle on the MBE part of the bar. If AA is causing lower tier law schools to admit a disproportionate number of minority law students with LSAT scores that indicate a really high potential failure rate on the bar, I don’t think they’re doing anyone any favors. Especially if these students are loading up on student loans. At more elite schools it doesn’t really matter to me, but toward the bottom it just seems exploitive.

"www.ble.state.tx.us/one/analysis_0704tbe.htm
This shows how Whites perform better than others, including Asians"

Actually, the samples in this study differ too greatly (1290 White test-takers vs. 75 Asian test-takers) for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Moreover, these findings are limited to Texas, when the majority of Asian JD grads take the California or New York exams.

10:22 - It was a vocabulary snark, not a grammar snark. The poster's grammar was actually nearly perfect, except for the lack of subject-verb agreement in the third sentence (although that's probably due to poor proofreading). As they teach us in the firms that pride themselves on the quality of their work product, misusing language has the effect of weakening your argument, by lowering your credibility. But what do I know, I'm a minority.

10:25, Unfortunately, the numbers are more dire than your hypothetical 20-80. According to Sander, it's more like 10-90.

What does law school have to do with the bar exam?

10:24, your hypo has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of AA. If remedying discrimination had anything to do with AA, rich blacks would be excluded from it. But they are not. You could be the son of a black surgeon who went to Harvard undergrad, and still get a racial preference when you apply to Columbia law school. It's absurd.

"But what do I know, I'm a minority."

That is a run-on sentence. Replace the comma with a question mark next time. :)

10:35 - Good point. I didn't find much correlation. On the other hand, the LSAT isn't a good predictor of law school performance, either (after the first year). There might be an LSAT-MBE link, though. At least the reading comprehension sections of the LSAT seem to test one's ability to digest an impossible amount of arcane material in a short period of time - which is more or less what preparing for the MBE does.

10:35 - And what does the bar exam have to do with the practice of law (aside from restricting it)?

Wow, who would've guessed that so many spoiled white brats follow ATL?! Sounds like some of you are still upset at getting snubbed by your first choice law school.

Consider this: the utterly unique and devastating experience of African Americans in this country. Sure the Asians, Jews, Irish, and Italians face(d) discrimination but how can one even begin to compare the experience of those peoples to that of African Americans!? Pure ignorance and, dare I say, racism.

AA is by no means a perfect system, and perhaps this study will show (after obtaining bar data) that it is in fact having a negative impact on African Americans. But to suggest that African Americans are on an equal footing and therefore simply need to try harder is intellectually dishonest. And when you do it with vitriol, it's racism.

"This shows how Whites perform better than others, including Asians"

I have to disagree with that point. I have read on countless occasions that per capita Asians far outperform any group in standardized testing be it in law, medicine, college, etc.

You're kidding right?

"A black student who could be admitted to Emory on the basis of merit alone would easily get into Columbia or NYU, if not Harvard or Yale."

"This shows how Whites perform better than others, including Asians"

"I have to disagree with that point. I have read on countless occasions that per capita Asians far outperform any group in standardized testing be it in law, medicine, college, etc."

According to those certain Harvard sociologists who rose to fame/infamy in the late 80's, Asians outperform every group on standardized tests, with one major exception: Ashkenazi Jews, who are the New England Patriots, (according to the book, which I do not necessarily endorse).

Is that why you have a strong black population at schools like GW, G'Town, Duke, etc. They should've just gone to Harvard, duh.

10:39 - Poetic license? (Touche.)

10:24(2) and 10:26(1) make good points.

Until law school and the discussion surrounding the Sanders article, I was a huge supporter of AA.

But, the students that law school AA helps are not the ones that should need it anymore. At my T14 law school, almost all of the black students went to Ivy league schools for undergrad and a number of them went to private high schools. They've had the best preparation for the last 4-8 years.

10:37, you're just naming another way in which the practice of AA fails to meet its goals/purpose.

Of course children of black surgeons should be excluded. But (1) at the time AA was put into widespread practice, there weren't all that many black surgeons. And (2) the policy makers have let racial politics get in the way of the whole point of AA.

AA should be applied at a much earlier stage and according to factors having little to do with race - though socio-economic realities may result in a higher percentage of minorities benefiting from AA (when compared to the percentage of the minorities in the general population)

10:28
I posted the link to the Texas bar exam study because in my own experience, I've known a bigger percentage of Asians to perform poorly in law school than Whites.
That being said, I'm Asian and those other Asian people I knew were idiots. But that doesn't change the statistics.

This is a blog, not a brief. Lighten up on the comments regarding vocab, spelling, grammer, etc. I find it annoying.

10:42:

I understand that slavery was a horrible thing, but aren't today's African Americans better off because of it? Had slavery never existed, their ancestors would have never come to the US, and the descendants would be living in much worse conditions over in Africa as a consequence.

This is exactly why I refused to annex Hawaii.

Why can't we talk about a real issue, like whether Britney's latest arrest will affect her child custody status?

Two-thirds of the way to an official comments comments clusterf**k!!!

guvy, that's hilarious. Why do you think Africa is the way it is today? Idiot.

I can see a place for AA following the Civil War. Now, however, there's not one minority alive that ever shed a drop of sweat for my benefit.

guvy, please tell me you're being sarcastic?

10:56 = Barbara Bush

What about affirmative action for the rich? I attended two ivy league schools, and I can tell you that for every minority student (AA or not) there was at least one underqualified matriculant who was either a legacy or related to a prominent member of the profession.

If you really want to make the application process fair you couldn't find a better place to start than removing this unjustifiable bias.

Wait - my kids will benefit from this someday? Never mind! Nothing to see here!

What about affirmative action for the rich? I attended two ivy league schools, and I can tell you that for every minority student (AA or not) there was at least one underqualified matriculant who was either a legacy or related to a prominent member of the profession.

If you really want to make the application process fair you couldn't find a better place to start than removing this unjustifiable bias.

Wait - my kids will benefit from this someday? Never mind! Nothing to see here!

What about affirmative action for the rich? I attended two ivy league schools, and I can tell you that for every minority student (AA or not) there was at least one underqualified matriculant who was either a legacy or related to a prominent member of the profession.

If you really want to make the application process fair you couldn't find a better place to start than removing this unjustifiable bias.

Wait - my kids will benefit from this someday? Never mind! Nothing to see here!

10:56 -- I never thought that, you're right. Now you better get going, you don't want to be late for the Klan meeting.

Where my reparations?

guvy = internet badass. That's on old IB shtick.

matriculation in a JD program and bar passage are two separate problems for a would-be lawyer, and thus require two separate solutions. the fact that bar exams disproportionately exclude minority applicants relative to whites does not invalidate the means (AA) that schools have chosen to address minority under-enrollment in law school.

11:02: Preferential admission for legacies and for rich kids (so-called "development cases") is not ideal. But it's a necessary evil.

The huge amounts of money that alumni and other rich people donate to top universities makes possible financial aid for people from less privileged backgrounds - many of whom are minorities.

11:02 - How many times did JFK Junior fail the bar? So sad that he was hurt by affirmative action.

AA is only covering up the faults of the system. As long as primary education is funded by property taxes there will be no equal opportunity. The system favors children from rich neighborhoods (largely Whites and Asians) and children from poorer neighborhoods (minorities) are fundamentally disadvantaged.
Clearly AA is not the solution, rather a complete reform of the education system is necessary. Only if every child received the same resources and quality pedagogy in its education, does a meritocracy make any sense.
A rich child from Westchester, Orange County, Naperville, etc. would not do as well in life it went to school in South Central, Cabrini Green, etc.
As a country we want [and need] the smartest and not the most privileged children to receive the best education. Otherwise, America just becomes like pre-revolution France, were the status of your parents determined your chances and opportunities in life.

10:42 said: "Sure the Asians, Jews, Irish, and Italians face(d) discrimination but how can one even begin to compare the experience of those peoples to that of African Americans!? Pure ignorance and, dare I say, racism."

Um, you know the Holocaust? Ever heard of it? Oh, but I see what you mean: six million Jews in a furnace is really no big deal.

"Fairness issues aside, the costs of AA to non minority students are pretty light. Any borderline candidate that would have gotten into Harvard or Yale but for AA, will undoubtedly get into Columbia, NYU or Penn instead. And if they’re that much better than the other students at those marginally less prestigious schools, AA isn’t going to effect their future success or career."
===========

First of all, what about qualified applicants on the fringes, that get wait-listed to the top 5 schools? Without AA these applicants might have gotten in, and instead are not going those schools. Sure, they would get into a top6-14 school, but the point is there are spots in the top 5 that are being filled by AA admits that don't have the same qualifications as the other students there.

Second of all, who the fuck are you to decide what school someone should get re-directed to simply to unfairly give an AA admit a leg up and take a slot that they would have otherwise not gotten if their skin color was lighter? This is someone's life we're talking about here.

AA is such fucking bull-shit it's scary. If the original purpose of AA was to remedy the discriminatory effects of slavery and Jim Crow, then why is there also AA for hispanic students? Also, why is there no AA category for Middle Easterners?? They are considered "white" according to the application standards, which in and of itself is a farce because if they're truly seeking "diversity" in law shcools, they should have categories that appropriatley distinguish all relevant race characteristics.

@11:09 -- Please, funding and results are not necessarily related. D.C. (if treated as a state) has the highest per-pupil funding in the nation, and their schools suck balls. North Dakota has the highest SAT scores, and is below average at per-pupil funding. Throwing money at the problem does nothing.

"Consider this: the utterly unique and devastating experience of African Americans in this country."

10:42,
I'm not sure I'm clear on what this utterly unique and devastating experience is. Maybe you should clarify. The current African American benefitting from AA is not a former slave, so I don't count "slavery" as an experience that has to be overcome. (I don't deny that some current African Americans suffer vestiges of racism.) I would think that immigrants from Vietnam or 1990's Bosnia or Darfur have a much more devastating experience/former life/background than African Americans currently in this country.

Hell, what about religious diversity in law school?

It's a crock that Carlton Banks and Theo Huxstable are taking admission spots from better qualified poor white kids from rural America just due to the color of their skin.
If there should be AA, it should be based on $$$ class and not skin color.

How big a boost do legacy admits get? I knew a guy who got dinged by Harvard undergrad, even though his father, grandfather, and great grandfather all went there. Given that his numbers were good enough to get into a top school without any legacy preferences, I don’t think the boost is that much. I’m sure it’s different if your family has given millions of dollars to a school. But if letting in one underqualified rich kid means that 10 qualified poor kids get scholarships, it’s a pretty good deal for everyone. It’s not air, but it doesn’t hurt anyone either (anyone who gets bumped from Harvard to let in a legacy, ends up at Columbia, so just like AA there aren’t any real costs to the qualified majority). Moreover, anyone with enough wealth and family connections to win a spot at a law school, isn’t going to be screwed if they fail the bar and have $80k in loans outstanding.

I find comments about "grammer" annoying, too.

"But what do I know, I'm a minority."

That's what everyone thinks when they look at you. Sorry, those are the facts. And I love the entitlement complex you seem to have.

Moreover, if I remember correctly from CT's Grutter dissent, don't preferred minorities get into U Mich w/ a median 155 or 156 LSAT. That's a *horrible* LSAT score! If you're non-preferred you'd get laughed out of most top tier admissions offices.

11:05: "The huge amounts of money that alumni and other rich people donate to top universities makes possible financial aid for people from less privileged backgrounds - many of whom are minorities."

I call bullshit on this. The school is much more interested in building it's $30B endowment than in making financial aid available to minorities. Besides, is there some reason why minorities can't go to school riding on a mountain of debt like the rest of us? This is law school we're talking about.

No amount of money can justify the creation of an dynastic class of elites. It's obscene.

10:56 aka guvy
-"Had slavery never existed," who is to say that Africa would not be a great place to live today? No one knows because history did not play out that way. You might as well ponder what would the world be like if we lost World War 2.
There are many valid arguments against affirmative action, but saying blacks are better off for slavery isn't one of them.

11:10 -- My point centered on the AMERICAN experience of those groups. Jews were established in American society before the holocaust. African Americans were brought here as slaves.

The excerpt we have here leaves a big question about the study....are they comparing black students to white students on a school by school basis or overall? Do we know whether there are more black students in the tier-1 schools in California, or in the tier-3 or 4 schools? That would probably sway the data tremendously. If there are a higher % in the tier-1 schools, that would make the statistics look even worse for AA.

I do think that there is really no need for race-based affirmative action, but instead it should be based on economic background (as Bondurant stated). This would continue to help minority families (as a higher percentage of minorities live in poverty), and just makes more sense. A middle-class black student living down the street from me didn't really have any disadvantage in schooling. A poor student on the other hand, probably didn't have the best of schools. Just look at the LSAT, there are a bunch of courses that middle class/rich people can take that will guarantee a score boost, that option isn't there for poor people. Shouldn't the admissions standards reflect that disparity?

guvy,

Because everyone in Africa is starving and running around naked, right? Blacks are better in the USA, where they can get the following treatment: 1) guaranteed illegal search by police by age 16; 2) parents who went to segregated schools; 3) racists whites blaming AA for the end of the world; 4) old ladies clutching their purses while the blacks have business suits on; 5) public schools where it is a gurantee that you get your first fight by 13. Being black in America is A-OK! Damn, I wish I were black.

Congrats Lat!

10:42/11:21

If the Holocaust could happen even though Jews were "well established in American society" at the time, then what does that say about the relative merits of being a well established minority in American society?

And don't for a minute tell me that Americans didn't know what was going on in Germany until we got to the Death Camps in 1945.

11:21
Basing my response on no facts what so ever, slavery benefited Blacks in terms of selective breeding. Only the strongest slaves survived and slave owners bred the strongest slaves to create "super slaves". Descendants of these "super slaves" now get PAID as pro athletes.

I love how the idiot pro-AA people are still crapping themselves to respond to guvy when I already identified him as the internet badass (or a copycat thereof).

Perhaps AutoAdmit.com needs AA to ensure that self-hating whites (I'm looking in your direction, 11:25) know what "flamebait" is.

100th, you beat me to it - this thread is officially a comment clusterf**k.

Lat, you know your audience well...

To AA Dissers:

I actually socialize with blacks, and most of whom at (fill in name of elite school) were not affluent. In fact, many came from the ghetto. They tried to assimilate with their peers and really did not go into "livin' in the hood." Really, how the hell would you know if someone is "middle-class" or "affluent" unless you are very close friends with them. The idea that all these upper class blacks benefit from AA is a little misleading. If you go to a Black student social function or party and speak to people about their backgrounds, it is clear that a lot of students are far from privileged.

Furthermore, Sanders is an uber-conservative whose personal mission is to end AA. There are many flaws in his study, and I have to hear him address them. When there is an empirical analysis that is unbiased, and genuinely interested in analyzing the impact of AA, not providing ideological fodder, I will pay attention. Until then, we are left with right-wing and left-wing banter that is largely supported by unsupported or dervived from personal experiences.

AA is not about restitution for past racism AT ALL. It's about gaming the system in order to, among other things, get people, communities, and institutions used to thinking of underrepresented ethnicities/races/etc. as potential professionals/self-made richies and not just likely criminals.

It probably just can't work though because all people everywhere are selfish racist assholes.

100!

Sounds to me mate that you have quite a few bitter people on this board. For the chap who spoke about the Black Surgeon and his underachieving children being admitted, pray tell how often does this occur?

Also, Lat's obsession with Clarence Thomas is most unfortunate. I'm sure AA played no small role in getting him to where he is now. He is a classic case of drawing up the ladder once you have reached.

Systematic racism cannot be overcome in a single generation. African-Americans have faced a system which, up until 40 odd years ago, purposefully excluded them from positions of meaningful power. Further, they have had to face negative stereotypes proffered by a white society which has had a negative consequence that cannot be easily shaken off.

Asian-Americans and children of 1st and 2nd Generation immigrants to the USA have always performed better than native children. A whole variety of social factors are at place and to continue the disingenous attacks on African-Americans as being molly coddled is most unfortunate.

11:40 - Go back to England, douche.

11:19 - I'm not sure where you're getting the "entitlement complex." I don't mind ad hominem attacks; they're fun. I just don't see how noting the poor writing skills of someone who is criticizing the "unqualified" betrays a sense of entitlement. I actually wonder at times if a lot of the outrage over AA comes from the "entitlement complex" of those who are right on the cusp of making the cut at the institutions they feel they deserve to study at, but which they cannot attend due to AA set-asides.

Oh, also, people don't actually think I'm a minority when they look at me. They're usually stunned when they discover my surname, and members of my ethnic group are similarly surprised when I address them in their native language without an accent. So I'm in the somewhat unique position of minority group membership (which I'm sure got my application looked at more closely) as well as a good undergraduate transcript from a highly ranked institution and a kick-ass LSAT, to boot. And, I'll probably be interviewing you some day. Please don't make any typos on your resume! ;-)

Preferential treatment in undergrad.

Preferential treatment in law school.

Preferential treatment in hiring.

At some point one must take a step back and say, "Goddamn, this isn't working at all."

11:19 - I'm not sure where you're getting the "entitlement complex." I don't mind ad hominem attacks; they're fun. I just don't see how noting the poor writing skills of someone who is criticizing the "unqualified" betrays a sense of entitlement. I actually wonder at times if a lot of the outrage over AA comes from the "entitlement complex" of those who are right on the cusp of making the cut at the institutions they feel they deserve to study at, but which they cannot attend due to AA set-asides.

Oh, also, people don't actually think I'm a minority when they look at me. They're usually stunned when they discover my surname, and members of my ethnic group are similarly surprised when I address them in their native language without an accent. So I'm in the somewhat unique position of minority group membership (which I'm sure got my application looked at more closely) as well as a good undergraduate transcript from a highly ranked institution and a kick-ass LSAT, to boot. And, I'll probably be interviewing you some day. Please don't make any typos on your resume! ;-)

really. who gives a fat crap? i know this blackguy, and there's a story he tells and retells, with misty eyes. and everyone makes believed their moved, mortified, mobilized ... anyway, after a lot of build-up, dramatic pauses, and that lip-biting thing people do that seems to be the signal for "serious political topic," the guy finally gets around to a pretty simple story: one night, he started out to cross the street and forced a car to stop abruptly. The driver hit the horn, yelled "n-word," and drove away. whatever. if people want to send him to stanford instead of georgetown as compensation ... again, who cares. the white slobs who get all lathered up about AA shouldn't cut it so close. if you're brilliant, you'll get in; if you're not, you're expendable. someone will be the last mediocre white guy admitted. so you're not it, and you would have been next, but they took a black guy who answered two fewer reading comprehension questions than you and didn't bother to go to that professor and kiss his butt to get the B+ changed to an A-. you're angry. you go for a drive. you call someone a "n-word" and here we go. you call someone else a ch*nk. now there's a crying chinaman. you hire the chick with big tits instead of the Mexican. you laugh harder at a joke a good looking athlete tells; you ignore the frail guy or fat chick when they tell the same joke, tell it better. there's some sadness to it all. so be sad. but get over it. i got called a bad bad name: who cares.

Ivy AA, are you Borat from Kazakhstan?

I'm actually Aussie mate. Want a Foster's?

“First of all, what about qualified applicants on the fringes, that get wait-listed to the top 5 schools? Without AA these applicants might have gotten in, and instead are not going those schools. Sure, they would get into a top6-14 school, but the point is there are spots in the top 5 that are being filled by AA admits that don't have the same qualifications as the other students there.”
It’s just not a big deal to me. 85 to 90% of students get into law school without any preferences at all. The 10 to 15% of students that end up displaced end up at schools that are only marginally less awesome. If the 10-15% of displaced students that end up at Columbia and NYU instead of Harvard are that much better than their classmates, they’ll finish in the top third and have the opportunity to transfer up, end up editing the law review, ect. If they don’t do any of those things, we’ll maybe that’s why they were in the group that got cut. But either way, their future is set. In fact, they might even get a scholarship to the lesser school and end up better off.
Never mind the fact that without AA, Harvard might just have a smaller class size. Law schools class sizes have generally expanded by more than 10% over the past 30 years. For all I know nobody is getting displaced at all.
“Second of all, who the fuck are you to decide what school someone should get re-directed to simply to unfairly give an AA admit a leg up and take a slot that they would have otherwise not gotten if their skin color was lighter? This is someone's life we're talking about here.”
Calm down. I’m not deciding anything. Admissions committees are. They’re not turning down Rhodes scholars to make way for AA admits, they’re turning away borderline candidates. That’s what admissions committees do. It’s what they’ve always done.

As for the life of the unfortunate waitlist candidate, see above. If there are employers out there who only consider Yale and Harvard grads but not NYU and Columbia grads, they probably aren’t looking for the students that barely got admitted.

I'm actually Aussie mate. Want a Foster's?

Hey Dundee, did Queensland run out of commas?

11:29 -- I fail to see how your point is relevant to mine. I never degraded the Jewish experience, rather I distinguished it (and that of Asians, Irish, etc.) from the black American experience.

11:40 -- How dare you insult my Irish heritage by being British.

Australian...even worse.

Aussie...even worse. Unless you're of Hibernian stock, of course.

Why are Asian people such horrendous drivers?

Ladies and Gentlemen, please join me in welcoming John Rocker to the discussion.

At my top 20 school, a great majority of the AA admits came from wealthy families or were faux minorities that laid claim to being hispanic, even though that was on their mother's side, and they looked white. I am all for AA if it is given to those who deserve it, not, for example, the child of a federal judge.

Wise up. You can not take a simple statistic and extrapolate like that. Isn't it more likely that blacks in America are more likely to be lower middle class or poor and/or go to crappy schools and get bad scholastic advice and not go to law school until many years after undergrad and therefore more likely to go to a tier 5 law school and therefore more likely to flunk the bar just like their classmates.

The only way to legitimize this discusion would be to see the pass rates of blacks at top 50 lawschools compared to their classmates.

The fact that everyone is so happy to jump on and say that all blacks need AA and will likely flunk the bar exam is an example of why more diversity is needed.

Lat, lighting fires merely to get a lot of comments is cheap and easy.

Why does Sanders get so much press when all of his studies are fatally flawed?

Oh, wait, it's because law students and journalists majored in Poli Sci.

If the man really wants to shoot his mouth off about AA, he should at least hire a few good math students. As far as I can tell, he's more incompetent than the students he studies.

11:56:

You said only an ignorant racist would equate the experiences of Jews, Asians, and the Irish with those (presumably more iniquitous) experiences of African Americans.

That's degrading because it denies a long history of violent anti-Semitism. It is ahistorical because it equates acknowledgment of that long history of violent anti-Semitism with the same ignorant racism that spawned it. To purport that the Holocaust is in the same ballpark at least as African Slavery is not, I dare say, pure ignorance and racism.

10:17,

"Fairness issues aside, the costs of AA to non minority students are pretty light. Any borderline candidate that would have gotten into Harvard or Yale but for AA, will undoubtedly get into Columbia, NYU or Penn instead."

Let's not put Penn as falling right after NYU. Three years ago it was not a top 10 school. It has only recently bought its way in.

African Americans are not the only people that receive preferential treatment. In law school, Asians and Latinos also receive preferential treatment.

Ask your Philippino friend what he got on his LSAT. You might be shocked (because his father might be an MD, and the guy had no excuse to screw up the LSAT)

I think the real issue for liberals (like me) is:

If AA lowers the number of attorneys of color by the mismatch effect (e.g., Sander's study), should a person committed to increasing the number of attorneys of color in society support it?

That's a tough question and Sander says no. I had Sander for property and although liberal profs slammed him for putting in his study that his son is bi-racial (African-American/White), he has a lot of time spent on increasing equity and access in urban housing and, in some senses, education. He did strike me as a very thoughtful person who wanted society to be more just, I just don't know if he's aware of how his research is being used.

Also, a lot of these posts seem ignorant to me, which makes me emotionally more likely to stay retrenched on AA.

this thread would have meshed well with non top tier law school week

It's sad to read these comments.

Is it not obvious that what is really needed is to focus our attention on giving minority students the an excellent primary education? As others have said, eventually recipients of AA will have to enter the real world where what matters is your ability to perform, not your skin color or ethnic/racial background.

Based on my experience with public schools (with many friends teaching at elementary, jr. high, and high schools across the country from inner city, "grade F" schools to excellent suburban schools), there are a few primary issues that need to be addressed:
1. Parent involvement. It is beyond question that parents who take an active role in their childrens' education vastly improve the quality of their education.
2. Child discipline (which is really the parents' responsibility first and foremost). Urban/innercity schools tend to have children who simply do not behave appropriately and many of whom don't want to learn (evidenced by explicit statements and behavior).
3. Teachers who are qualified and care about helping the students learn. And by qualification, I mean more than just having a P.C. education degree.
4. We need to inspire children in the African-American community to have normal, middle-class jobs. My friends who are teachers have observed a marked difference in the answers they get to "what do you want to do when you grow up?" when asked to kids in suburban schools vs. black kids in urban/suburban schools. The former often want to have "normal" jobs--jobs actually within their grasp if they work hard and get a decent education. The later often want to become sports stars, rappers, etc., which don't require a good education and thus contributes to not caring about school. ... This will be a controversial observation, but it really does have to do with the predominant African-American culture today. I have a friend who teaches at a school filled almost exclusively with poor white kids ("hicks," "rednecks", etc.). They mostly want to have "normal" jobs. Not so with the majority of the kids in urban schools with mostly African-American students. We need a cultural change. (I wonder what effect AA has on this? Do poor white kids know they won't get any help other than from their own hard work whereas poor black kids figure they have AA to help them out??)

What is our long-term goal? To simply have token minorities in prestigious social positions in society, or to have a world in which minority students work hard, receive good educations, and thrive accordingly?

We need to start at the root of the problem: primary education. If we solve that problem, admissions to college and law school should no longer be an issue--there would be no need for AA. Unless we believe that minority students are incapable of performing well and thus need our help, which is a racist and paternalistic view that I strongly reject.

Sigh. At Oxford we never had such problems. It was only right that children from Commonwealth Countries get a leg up. When you fundamentally undermine a people's ability to earn and be on an equal foot to yourself then it is only right and proper for them to be given a 'leg up'. He ain't heavy man, he's my brother.

I would have gotten into Harvard if it weren't for those AA applicants, whaaaaaaaaa!!!

It is very simple: If you look at a law student and lawyer and the first thought in your head is "Wonder if he or she is an AA admit/hire" then you are a racist. You view people and make negative assumptions about their abilities based on race.

And yes, there was massive discrimination against the Irish one or two generations ago. That means we should appreciate the reality of disrimination and help our brothers and sisters against "the man".

Oh and math major mike?

Sanders has a Ph.D. in economics and runs the UCLA Law School program on research and data analysis. A lot of people disagree with his studies, but his research and data are immaculate. Period. There are no fatal flaws. He is an undisputed mathmatician and researcher.

Which is why a lot of us have a very difficult time dealing with his work.

If you can find a "fatal flaw," write it down on a napkin; you'll get published by Stanford Law Review in a heartbeat and probably be offered tenure at any liberal university. :)

Publius,

Have you started volunteering at an inner-city school helping young people read yet? There are oppurtunities there for you?

The same question goes to all the MFers commenting here.

Do something about it in a real way. What are you waiting for?

Um, Annie at 11:35?

Wrong. Sander is actually incredibly pragmatic. Read his bio - he spent years talking about the need to increase housing subsidies to people of color to remedy re-segregation. He's a pragmatist. That's why it's so difficult. He's not some Ann Coulter or whatever. He's a really genuine person.

And I say that as a flaming liberal who had him for property.

Oh, and that's why I'm so liberal (I'm the one who took property with Sander). I HATE that so many people are like, "it's not about AA, it's about getting to people when they are young!"

Yeah, except you:

1) oppose nationalizing educational funding so you can keep your wealthy suburban schools
2) oppose busing
3) want to keep legacy preferences.

You nationalize educational funding and remedy the earlier stages, and THEN and ONLY THEN can we start talking about ending AA.

All Blacks to Cumberland!!

I was always under the impression that AA was intended to increase diversity in academia. Not just diversity of race but of ideas, background, and opinions.

Instead of asking a candidates race, why not ask them about their parents income, their family situation, their work experience? This would apply to all races. The poor white kid from Alabama who works to support his younger siblings while attending undergrad would contribute just as much to the diversity of a class as the poor black kid from California in a similar situation. Race is important for diversity only when it is coupled with divergent life experiences that will contribute to the learning environment.

Now before the grammar gestapo rape my informal blog post, I would appreciate a response as to the substance of my comment. I'm a black law student at a top-tier school and I am doing more than fine academically. I would like to think that if I can pass law school with a better GPA than 2/3'rd's of my counterparts--of any race--I should probably be able to pass the bar.

You're all sad for letting Lat goad you into this argument...

Actually 12:31,

Cumberland is very progressive when it comes to AA.... doing things like giving a full ride to people who get a 150 on their LSAT

Gypsies deserve the benefit of affirmative action.

9:48: Data is out there. Read the NY State Bar exam study posted front and center on their webiste. The racial statistics included are really eye-opening. And yes- whites outperform Asians in the NY bar.

low cpm for lateral link ads?

if, through AA, they wanted wasps to experience the other side of the coin, they've done an excellent job.

i receive no less than 5 emails a week from career services, stating, in essence, "job/clerkship/career fair available, whites need not apply--hell, don't even show up."

i've been discriminated against at every stage in my life
at least now i know how it feels, i guess.

it DOES breed contempt when at 92nd percentile, i was lucky to get in to any law school, where, had i spent some time in FL working on my tan, i.e., i'd be UMich/BC/BU bound, etc

this "AA gives small bump" idea is absurdly funny:

AA w/ 143 LSAT, crappy UG school, received easy admission to top 80 Law School, was waitlisted at top 50 law school where a female from same UG in same applicant pool with 161 was outright rejected?

yeah, AA=small bump. hold on, let me stop laughing long enough to hit "post"....

low cpm for lateral link ads?

wasp,

sorry, 161 would not get you anywhere close to umich. though i am sure it makes you feel better to think you would have gotten in if you had not been "discriminated" against. maybe if you spent less time crying and more time studying for the LSAT, you would not be so bitter.

can we look at what happened to UC Berkeley undergrad because of Prop. 209? i think it would illuminate the debate here. After Prop. 209 was passed, WGWAGs began dominating campus. pets must now be kept inside. morale is at an all time low. send help, immediately.

where's the love -- In the Grutter case, didn't they say that the median LSAT score for URM's at Michigan was something like 155?

I sometimes wonder what the purpose of AA is, are we trying to increase racial/ethnic diversity within the legal profession, which law firms and client desperately want us to do (but not too many associates from the postings I have seen above)? Or are we trying to remedy a historical wrong, i.e. slavery, segregation, past discriminatory immigration policies? It seems that these goals are often treated as one in the same.

Many of the comments here assume that considering race/ethnicity is inherently suspect whereas considering whether someone is the daughter of Marty Lipton, or attended University of Alabama (and is white), or worked for 4 years as a paralegal at a white shoe firm or whatever is alright.

The world is gray. If one kid gets a boost for being black and the other for attending some school I've never heard of in the Midwest and getting a good LSAT, where is the injustice?

I sometimes wonder what the purpose of AA is, are we trying to increase racial/ethnic diversity within the legal profession, which law firms and client desperately want us to do (but not too many associates from the postings I have seen above)? Or are we trying to remedy a historical wrong, i.e. slavery, segregation, past discriminatory immigration policies? It seems that these goals are often treated as one in the same.

Many of the comments here assume that considering race/ethnicity is inherently suspect whereas considering whether someone is the daughter of Marty Lipton, or attended University of Alabama (and is white), or worked for 4 years as a paralegal at a white shoe firm or whatever is alright.

The world is gray. If one kid gets a boost for being black and the other for attending some school I've never heard of in the Midwest and getting a good LSAT, where is the injustice?

I sometimes wonder what the purpose of AA is, are we trying to increase racial/ethnic diversity within the legal profession, which law firms and client desperately want us to do (but not too many associates from the postings I have seen above)? Or are we trying to remedy a historical wrong, i.e. slavery, segregation, past discriminatory immigration policies? It seems that these goals are often treated as one in the same.

Many of the comments here assume that considering race/ethnicity is inherently suspect whereas considering whether someone is the daughter of Marty Lipton, or attended University of Alabama (and is white), or worked for 4 years as a paralegal at a white shoe firm or whatever is alright.

The world is gray. If one kid gets a boost for being black and the other for attending some school I've never heard of in the Midwest and getting a good LSAT, where is the injustice?

haha, 1:08, yes, you could very well be right, i was just guessing. anyhow, i can definitely understand everyone's frustration, including that of "wasp." i didn't mean to be a jerk. i guess i just think it's, on a day-to-day basis, fruitless to complain about this stuff. i think everyone should just take it it comes, and to do his/her best. it's obviously impossible to come to a fair resolution of all of these issues. i am sure i have been discriminated against at times b/c of my minority status, and have benefited from AA at times as well.

Why is almost everyone ignoring the fact that AA generally gives preferrential treatment to ALL underrepresented groups, not just African Americans? This includes Asians, Hispanics, and, yes, even women. How does one explain the disparity in passage rates if that is the case?

Additionally, this study assumes that, had these minorities not gone to better schools than they would have otherwise gotten into (another assumption), they would not have gotten into law school at all, and, consequently, would not have taken the bar. Otherwise, they would have gone to a worse school and probably still failed.

To me, these two observations imply that the differences in failure rates are attributable to something else. Perhaps a better study would focus on test preparation. It costs a lot of money to take a bar prep course like bar/bri, and I know some people that opted out of taking any course due to financial concerns. Maybe this, like a lot of other matters, comes down to economics. . .

Btw, I am black, went to a top law school, and every black person in my class who took the bar passed (albeit in various states). . . Take that statistics.

Why is almost everyone ignoring the fact that AA generally gives preferential treatment to ALL underrepresented groups, not just African Americans? This includes Asians, Hispanics, and, yes, even women. How does one explain the disparity in passage rates if that is the case?

Additionally, this study assumes that, had these minorities not gone to better schools than they would have otherwise gotten into (another assumption), they would not have gotten into law school at all, and, consequently, would not have taken the bar. Otherwise, they would have gone to a worse school and probably still failed.

To me, these two observations imply that the differences in failure rates are attributable to something else. Perhaps a better study would focus on test preparation. It costs a lot of money to take a bar prep course like bar/bri, and I know some people that opted out of taking any course due to financial concerns. Maybe this, like a lot of other matters, comes down to economics. . .

Btw, I am black, went to a top law school, and every black person in my class who took the bar passed (albeit in various states). . . Take that statistics.

haha, 1:08, yes, you could very well be right, i was just guessing. anyhow, i can definitely understand everyone's frustration, including that of "wasp." i didn't mean to be a jerk. i guess i just think it's, on a day-to-day basis, fruitless to complain about this stuff. i think everyone should just take it it comes, and to do his/her best. it's obviously impossible to come to a fair resolution of all of these issues. i am sure i have been discriminated against at times b/c of my minority status, and have benefited from AA at times as well.

Reliable source informs me that the LSAT divide between black admittees and white admittees at GULC is roughly 10 points, which -- if true -- is huge. And the grade disparities are apparently fairly distressing as well.

If you opt out of a bar prep. course you have just thrown away the last three years of your life.

Asking why black people have higher bar failure rates and tend to practice at lower rates is only peripherally related to the AA debate. To the extent that it is related, the question only reveals people's pervasive sense of entitlement and the delusional belief in a meritocracy that actually doesn't exist.

I am a black woman who aced the LSATs (literally) and had stellar undergrad grades. That said, I believe the LSATs are a farce--they measure very little besides how much money you were able to pay for test prep.

Many people of color face frustrations w/ law school, the way law is taught and w/ the legal profession. They go in believing the law still holds the promise of helping level the playing field that has been mangled over this country's history. They go out realizing that the law is largely just a tool for preserving privilege and power, and that people working in the public interest are simply struggling to rebalance that power.

If we're not going to address this aspect of the problem, what's the point in addressing bar passage rate stuff? The root, people, the root.

1:20 Are you upset that you did not get into GULC or upset that you did get in and have to sit next to a black person?

1:26, I am responding only because that was one of the more intelligent responses, however I disagree with what you said and I think you illustrate something.

AA is not there so minorities can try to balance the playing field and fight the injustices in the world. That is for all lawyers to do to some extent, no matter what their race or history.

AA is there precislely so that minorities can get into the club and have some motivation at preserving the power and privilege. And once there they serve as an example to others that it is possible to make it to the top, and also show the top that minorities are just as capable as they are.

I submit that Clarance Thomas and Tiger Woods and Robert Johnson and countless other minorites who have made it to the top do more for blacks and poor people than any public interest lawyer.

Nobody who aces the LSAT calls it the "LSATs." I'd also be quite surprised to see someone who aced the LSAT not know how to use the word "literally."

But I do appreciate the misuse. Seeing it always reminds me of that David Cross bit...

"Dude, that weed was so good I literally shit my pants."

"So what did you do with the soiled trousers?"

Your comment really made no sense. I almost aced the LSATs and I call them the LSATs. Sorry I don't hang out with you.

I think that literally was used correctly there.

The only thing I've learned from these comments is that pro-AA people are substantially more likely to hit the "post" button multiple times. Perhaps that's telling...

"Reliable source informs me that the LSAT divide between black admittees and white admittees at GULC is roughly 10 points, which -- if true -- is huge."

You're just pissed because the SBA President and Evening VP are both black.

1:21, all three of the people I know who didn't take a bar review course passed on the first try. . . And, yes, one was black.

I love how worked up people get over AA.

I agree with 1:37; nobody with a clue calls the test the "LSATs."

It just doesn't make sense -- there's only one test.

1:18 - good point re bar prep class.

Of course, anyone who is willing to pay $100K for law school but not $2.5k for a bar prep class is a total fool. But that has nothing to do with AA.

Black People Are Fun!

AA helps whites too - many of the best engineering, science and math programs across the nation, as well as many of the best schools like Stanford (and the best high schools in the Bay Area) would be predominantly Asian if whites and other non-Asian minorities weren't given an advantage in the name of diversity. Do those who favor abolishing AA also favor a true meritocracy where Asians would take up an ever increasing number of the coveted spots in the best math and science programs and at the best schools?

1:41, could that be because they weren't so busy being editors on the law journal?

This argument doesn't make sense. If they AA students go to a lower-ranked school, they would still take the same bar, and law school does not teach you how to take the bar, that's what barbri is for. Higher-ranked schools have higher bar passage rates because the students are smarter, but if the same student went to different law schools, they would have the same chance to pass the bar at each.

And why are they asking the CA bar? AA has been banned at state schools (which make up a large proportion of the top tier of schools in CA) for over 10 years, which leaves a pretty small sample size. Why not ask NY?

2:14 - Yes.

HTH.

Anonymous 12:27,

I see. Unless I am actively involved in solving a problem (in this case as a teacher/tutor), I shouldn't express my view on how to solve it?

Not that you probably care, but I am involved in helping families living in poverty in other ways, such as providing adequate housing for them. Although not mentioned in my prior post, there is evidence that demonstrates a link between quality of housing and education (i.e., easier for students to study/do homework if they have a clean, safe home with adequate heating/cooling, of adequate size than if they live in a cramped, rundown apartment).

2:14 - YES. That's the point.

Kia at 1:26 wrote:

"That said, I believe the LSATs are a farce--they measure very little besides how much money you were able to pay for test prep."

I don't think that's true. If nothing else, the LSAT offers a measure of how a student performs in the context of a big stressful test. Performance in that environment might not tell you much about how good a lawyer an applicant will be, but it's a decent indicator of future performance on law school exams and the bar.

So here's my question: if I call your "end race based preferences" will you stop your "Oh the negro boy must be from office services" unless I'm in suit? I'm all for ending AA, the problem is, I bet half you racists would STILL find some way to diminish the accomplishments of blacks. Why do I say this? Because I'm in CA and after the UC schools got rid of AA for a long time many people STILL wrote on message boards and list servs how AA was still alive and well even though the enrollment of blacks and hispanics drastically tailed off (and today is still almost negligible).

So here's my question: if I call your "end race based preferences" will you stop your "Oh the negro boy must be from office services" unless I'm in suit? I'm all for ending AA, the problem is, I bet half you racists would STILL find some way to diminish the accomplishments of blacks. Why do I say this? Because I'm in CA and after the UC schools got rid of AA for a long time many people STILL wrote on message boards and list servs how AA was still alive and well even though the enrollment of blacks and hispanics drastically tailed off (and today is still almost negligible).

1:50, i love it how people would rather criticize word usage and grammar, than respond to an actual intelligent point.

PS- I bombed the lsat, but aced the bar.

I couldn't afford an LSAT review course and scored average. I graduated number one in college and in the top 5% of law school. It was certainly not indicative of the desire and passion one can have to succeed.

The problem with the AA debate is the exclusion of the third party beneficiary element. While many white people may sincerely say "I didn't have anything to do with past discrimination", they fail or refuse to recognize how they have benefited from it. For every slight suffered by blacks in the past, someone else (typically white) benefited. Compound that effect over the course of more than 300 years, and it's difficult for whites who are not recent immigrants to argue that they haven't benefited in some way. I mean Thurgood Marshall graduated at the top of his class at Howard only because they refused to admit him to the Univ. of Maryland. Right now there's probably a Maryland 1L who's only there because his/her grandfather got Thurgood's seat.

The idea that you need to spend $1500 on a prep course to do well on the LSAT is preposterous. Buy a some GOOD prep books (Hint: not Kaplan or Princeton Review), study hard for a few months, and you will likely perform to the best of your natural ability.

2:41 -

How much is an LSAT review class? $1500, at most? Anyone that just spent $50K to $150K on college and is about to spend an additional $50K to $150K on law school can afford to spend the extra $1,500 it costs to take a Kaplan class. If an LSAT course could actually raise your score 5 to 10 points you'd make up the price in scholarship money going to the exact same school.

That said, the main benefit of LSAT classes is that they force you to practice LSAT questions and taking the LSAT under exam-like conditions.

LSAT classes are helpful if you have a bad score, but typically the methods aren't designed for people who are already scoring in the top 5-10%

How can you tell someone is an AA admit merely by looking at them?

Slavery didn't cause Darfur -- globing warming did. Indeed, global warning is the ultimate cause of all wrongs, including those for which AA has been instituted. I can stop it. I won the Nobel Prize. All will be well. The wounds of a nation can be mended and, with time, heal. By mid-2009, there will be no more need for AA. Lat, I ask permission to use this blog (which, incidentally, I helped create) to officially announce my candidacy for the President of the United States. Now is the time for change. Now is the time for Al.

When you complain that most blacks in law schools are rich, how do you know that the dark skinned son of the dentist sitting next to you in Property did not score in the top 99% of the LSAT and graduation college with a 4.0? Why do you assume that he was an AA admittee? What does that say about the continuing racial prejudice?

3:12 -- I believe that's the point. Without AA, there would be no question.

lololol @ topic comments turning out exactly as Lat desired

2:14: Yes. Absolute meritocracy, even if it would hurt me (it would not). At the end of the day, you have to look at yourself in the mirror; I'd like to be able to say without question that I earned everything I have.

Let's take this MF to 200!!!!

Anonymous:

Last time I checked, economics was a separate discipline from math. Economists just know how to punch numbers into a statistical program designed by math Ph.Ds.

Secondly, the last time I checked Stanford Law Review published law articles -- not math proofs.

"3:12 -- I believe that's the point. Without AA, there would be no question."

Ahhh, so if we get rid of AA, then all racism and discrimination will go away. Why didn't we think of this sooner?

200th bitches.

2:14 --

Yes.

A few points should be made:

First, the boost blacks get is approximately 10-11 points on the LSAT and .1 for GPA. It is an enormous advantage. In fact, there are approximately only 20 blacks in the country with GPAs and LSATs worthy of a top school without AA.

Second, increased investment in elementary education would not close the gap. Rich black students still perform substantially worse than poor white students.

Third, and this is the one I'm not 100% sure about, AA really only hurts Asian students. Fewer Asians are admitted and more blacks are admitted than would be the case in a race-blind system.

I meant that there only 20 black applicants with worthy numbers each year.

interesting thought. i was just in the GULC main journal office (we have all the current member's pictures on the wall) there is not a black face in sight.

sad. especially considering we even save up to 10% of our spots on the merits of a 'diversity essay'

i don't know what statement that makes about AA, but i'm just personally disappointed that we are NOT diverse, despite the effort

An issue that has been slightly touched upon by a few posters is the fact that most of the black students (at least at my "elite" law school) came from very privileged backgrounds. I don't know of any of them who had low quality primary school education - or low quality education at any stage of their education. I don't think they deserved an AA edge over non-minority applicants. What did it accomplish except better diversity statistics for the school? (BTW - I have no idea who did, or did not, passed the bar.)
The people who are supposed to be helped by AA aren't even the primary beneficiaries; it's helping rich and privileged minorities in my experience - not people who actually need/deserve a helping hand. AA is hurting more people than it helps; it's a crutch that suddenly gets yanked out from under some individuals, and then they find themselves face down in 6-figures of law-school debt with no income to service it. (Okay, that last sentence may not be completely true. Upon my recollection, the minorities at my school had rich parents who were writing checks for their tuition bills. I, however, do have 6-figures worth of debt, but I also have a BIGLaw job that allows me to service it.)

I completely disagree that AA admits only get 10-11 LSAT points at the TOP American law schools.

Most AA admits at many top 25 schools are at LEAST 10 pts below the medians and on full scholarship ( know several personally). At most T14's AA admits are getting a 10-15 LSAT boost. I forget which Sp Ct case it was but there is a statistic that in a sample year (2000something) about 65 blacks in the entire NATION scored a 165 or higher. Realize that anything BELOW a 165 if you are white makes you an automatic reject at most T14's (except Boalt, maybe). It also makes you a reject at many T25's unless you have something else spectacular.

If 65 blacks scored above this range (165), you have to consider taht MOST of the blacks attending T25 schools are in school with people whom scored significantly hirer than they did. Most T14's have median LSAT's of at least 169-171......

Wow you guys are funny...AT LEAST 10 points of a bump and up to 15 huh? So a Black person with a 160 on the LSAT is basically guaranteed into Stanford right? Why was I (and my other black friends) so STUPID. We all got 155-165 (I realize that's a very wide range but it is what it is). Hence we could've gone to schools where the whites typically comprise 170-180. Hey, where's the elite school where the MEDIAN LSAT score is a perfect 180 again? Oh well, stupid me for not taking full advantage of AA. Alas, I still managed to be in the top quarter of my measly Top 20 school and I still got in Biglaw (but I'm sure its to promote AA, I mean everywhere I look down the halls I see nothing but fellow tokens). Of the 100+ lawyers in my LA office 3 are black. I would just like to apologize on behalf of my entire race for taking up less than 3% of the spots here that could've gone to the hard working white man instead of the token black person. I mean after all isn't that the point? I'm sure AA propped my grades up to put me in the top quarter and I'm sure the AA points I got on the bar allowed me to pass (and thereby caused an otherwise deserving white person to fail).

Racists--wow. It's like shining a light on a den of roaches. You never knew there were so many.

Annie, i wish you could keep up with the statements (arguments) being made here. I'm embarrassed for you.

I want to also lend another voice defending Sander from ad-hominem attacks. He is an upstanding professor who cares about the pursuit of truth. He is not on a mission to end affirmative action and he cares deeply about justice and bettering our society/making it more diverse.

5:48 - mind telling us your LSAT score?

To 5:16
I am black. My father died when I was young and my mom is a teacher. So we are not all rich! In fact, my story is not rare.

To: Those who claim that the LSATs matter
I finished in the top 30% at my law school class. Yet, my LSAT score was below the average of the Ivy league school I attended.

Obviously, I don't speak for all black law students but we are tired of this debate. I wrote this in another post, but here it is for your edification.

You can defend affirmative action on a number of grounds: (1) correcting the past; (2) current racism; or (3) diversity in the academy and profession. Any one of these points is enough to validate the program. And taken together they are even more compelling.

(1) Correcting the Past :
+200 years of slavery (i.e. free labor to the United States)
+200 years of Jim Crow(i.e. legal racism)
+Brown v. Board (1954 but not implemented until 1964 and in some places later)

(2) Current Examples of racism in society:
+Jenna 6 (not the response but the nooses that led to it)
+ UConn Law thug party (our future state prosecutors , judges, and interviewers)
+ Columbia – noose incident
+ Megan Williams
+Countless hate crimes around the country

(3) Diversity of opinion
+African Americans in the legal profession gives a voice to those who are silenced (schools value this perspective)
+ There are many legal issues that affect solely communities of color. These communities need competent attorneys to solve complex problems.

"5:48 - mind telling us your LSAT score?"

Why bother? If it's high, you'll say I must be white (or black and lying). If it's low, you'll say I must be black (or white and lying).

It's a pointless game when both of us can twist the facts without recourse.

I find it interesting that there are 200+ comments here (a law forum) and no one has has brought up what the constitution (i.e. justice o'connor's opinion) says on this (apologies for my paraphrasing but I don't feel like looking up the case and I'm going from memory here): The future leaders of tomorrow are today's law students and states have a compelling interest to make sure that law schools are as diverse as their states, so the future leaders of the state will be exposed to the thoughts, ideas and perspectives of every group in that state. And an affirmative action plan is narrowly tailored enough to meet this interest to pass constitutional muster.

Instead of everybody making these racist allegations (on both sides, I might add), let's argue the merits of what the constitution says. Do states really have this compelling state interest to have diverse law schools? Given the fact that no one on either side has brought this up, I think the consensus opinion on ATL (perhaps the one consensus that has been reached in this comment Cluster***k!) is that the O'Connor opinion is a pretty lousy one. Am I reading this correctly?

When did this board degenerate into xoxo? ATL admittedly just wanted a reaction when it posted this garbage. Can't we just agree to disagree on the subject?

For what its worth (nothing), here's my take.

A few black kids getting into college and law school (to paraphrase Colin Powell) is not a threat to our society or the end of the world. The people we saw on our nightly-news wading through waist-high sewage during the Katrina fiasco deserve much more of our attention.

Here's a challenge: why don't the same reactionary white guys who are appalled at the notion of AA become similarly appalled by the fact that most of the impoverished African American (the other "AA") neighborhoods in this country don't have decent schools; that the school kids graduate (when they do) reading at an 8th grade level; that New Orleans will never be rebuilt; that there are more black men in jail than in college; and that statistically, MOST black boys born into our society today are headed for jail, probation or parole?

Americans have always cloaked their bigotry, misogyny, etc. in code -- from dressing in silly white sheets and invoking the "states' rights" argument, to throwing rocks at Affirmative Action and invoking "color-blindness." Our society isn't remotely color-blind. Why should a corrective measure like Affirmative Action be any different, and how could it work if it was?

And that bunk about diversity of “thought” is just plain ridiculous. Lest we forget, black people weren’t dragged from Africa, robbed of their history, cultures and dignity, raped, killed and mutilated, separated from their families, hanged, humiliated some more, and then subjected to de jure and de facto apartheid because they “thought” differently than whites. No. It was done (and arguably is still being done in more insidious ways today) solely because of race. So to rephrase the preceding question, how would a corrective measure like Affirmative Action possibly work if it was based on diversity of “thought?”

And to debunk that silly “AA makes whites not like blacks” argument, remember, AA was created to give a fair shot to those who have been systematically excluded from certain areas of the workforce and higher education. If many whites treated blacks badly solely because of race BEFORE the existence of Affirmative Action, and presently, AFTER the passage of Affirmative Action laws, many beneficiaries of Affirmative Action continue to be thought of as lass-than by some whites on the basis of race, how is the “AA makes whites not like blacks” argument/threat possibly compelling?

By the way, Hillary Clinton failed the bar on the first try, 10:05.

Full disclosure, I’m the guy who posted at 09:36 PM, and I’m African American. I just thought about this study done last year that I saw on 20/20 where the aim was to see why whites were enrolled in more advanced placement courses than blacks (i.e., nature vs. nurture) within a public high school district.

When white and black students took a test which they were told was designed to measure innate physical ability, the blacks outperformed whites by a large margin. When the inverse occurred, and white and black students took an almost identical test, but they were told the test was designed to measure intelligence, the whites outperformed the blacks by a large margin.

The verdict: we are all card-carrying racists who internalize racism and then act accordingly. Now whether or not this sort of thinking impacts academic performance or standardized test scores, I don’t know. (I do, however, buy the previous argument raised here about third party beneficiaries of a white supremacist society being whites – even those who fancy themselves innocents.)

Also, I think the “rich black kid” argument against AA is a straw-man too. Sure, most of these kids aren’t Katrina refugees, but then the white kids in their 1L classes aren’t from Appalachia either. I suspect that most black recipients of AA share a similar background to mine: educated mother, no father at home, lower middle class background and a bit less affluent than their white counterparts. I’d be interested in seeing a study that contradicts this assumption.

"If the Holocaust could happen even though Jews were "well established in American society" at the time, then what does that say about the relative merits of being a well established minority in American society?

And don't for a minute tell me that Americans didn't know what was going on in Germany until we got to the Death Camps in 1945."

11:29: you're kidding, right? Your argument makes no sense. You seem to be arguing that since the Holocaust could happen to European Jews, then apparently it wasn't so great to be an American Jew during that same time, even though you were a part of an established minority.

What does one have to do with the other? Yes, Jews were well-established in America. Yes, people, including American Jews, knew of the persecution of Jews in Germany, especially early on, when Jews could still leave. Yet these American Jews did jack shit to help their Eastern European brethren. These American Jews were also perfectly safe in the U.S. and are still perfectly safe, except that now whenever they're criticized, they get to use the Holocaust to show themselves as victims. For the more unscrupulous American Jews Holocaust was thus, perversely, a good thing - victimhood status for free that can be endlessly milked for cold, hard ca$h.

If it were the case that American Jews tried to do everything they could to help European Jews, but the big, bad U.S. government stopped them, and they were too poor, small of a minority to do anything about it, then you'd have a point. As it is, all you have is some basic history (and current affairs) to read up on.

Carson Johnson at 11:45--

Where have you been all my life?

"At my top 20 school, a great majority of the AA admits came from wealthy families or were faux minorities that laid claim to being hispanic, even though that was on their mother's side, and they looked white. I am all for AA if it is given to those who deserve it, not, for example, the child of a federal judge.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2007 12:07 PM"

This has to be some sort of joke posted by some silly aspiring TTT law student. Nobody says top 20, they say top 14. While 15 through 50 are very good schools, anything ranked lower than GULC doesn't count as per se elite. And second of all, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF A GREAT MAJORITY OF THE AA ADMITS IN YOUR CLASS?

You make yourself a laughing stock and destroy your argument when you make such silly blanket statements.

AA is a small price to pay to prevent a revolt or overthrow of the gov't/Amercian system. The way blacks have been treated in this country, it's a miracle there hasn't already been some serious armed revolt (beyond the riots in the 60's, etc).

AA gives many minorities -- the best and brightest of them who would otherwise lead a revolution -- a stake in our system. This is a good thing. So think of AA like that -- basically a small bribe to ensure stability and the continuation of a system that minorities might otherwise overthrow (arguably w/ good reason).

So I'm sorry if some white rich kid loses his seat at HLS and has to settle for Stanford. Better that than to place my property and the entire system that protects it in jeopardy ,b/c we have a large, armed, oppressed, pissed-off group of people that feels hopeless w/ no stake in our system. That's a dangerous recipe -- read history.

One other point:

Thomas Clarence is a perfect example. He used to be a radical (a potential rebel), but b/c of AA, he's now part of the system. Great. AA is working -- but for a different purpose.

Um, math major mike?

It's anonymous again. Uh, do yourself a favor and look at the Stanford Law Review issue right after Sander's study.

THE ENTIRE SLR WAS DEDICATED TO REBUTTALS FROM PRO-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Professors. Including one from a Harvard Prof who tried to attack the statistics (and failed).

So yeah, maybe economists can't do studies (uh, Nobel Committee disagrees!), but I assure you, if you can do a math study showing the "fatal flaw" it will ABSOLUTELY be published as frankly no one has published anythign attacking the empirical data.

And if you disagree, send your finding of fatal flaws to me and I will jump ship from biglaw and use your "but of course it is so obvious" whimsy to get me a nice fat tenured job someone.

There are so many bullshit numbers flying around. For example:

"In fact, there are approximately only 20 blacks in the country with GPAs and LSATs worthy of a top school without AA."

That is f'in bullshit. I know more than 20 blacks with the stats 165 plus, cum laude or better at top undergrads.

"AA gives a 10-15 point increase on the LSAT"

I'm pretty sure no one who has posted is an Admissions Officers at a law school. 10 point increase? Where the fuck are these numbers coming from? I doubt there is a magical "AA number."

02:20 AM:

Flaws with Sanders study:

1) Does not address the discrepancies that exist with Asian students. Asian students traditionally have had high numbers in law school but are not represented proportionately in the partnership ranks at law firms--why are they not as "successful" as their white peers;

2) Does not acknowledge the differences that exist between black men and black women, or immigrant blacks and native blacks. There is a success gap between these groups that is ignored. How does these affect his analysis;

3) Limited information on how law firms implement AA--it is an assumed that being a minority is a huge benefit for law firm hiring purposes and other post-grad employment;

4) Fails to fully evaluate the reasons why black lawyers exit/reject legal practice (because it surely has nothing to do with racism). Are there certain fields that they gravitate toward (business, entertainment?);

5) Fails to acknowledge the impact of personal social connections and social network for business development purposes at a law firm. It primarily focuses on success after two years from graduation. This is a very incomplete picture.

These are just a few of the flaws with his study. It is fairly comprehensive, but it is missing many key factors that would help understand the impact of AA.

Many have criticized his research, and Dauber is a good starting point for reading some of the critiques. I'm not sure how one can conclude that these critiques have failed to identify the flaws in his research; if they did not he would not need to publish a response what seems like every few months.

Anonymous:

1) Critique by law professors and sociologists =/= proofs by math professors. Like economists, law and sociology profs just know how to punch numbers into programs.

2) Didn't they give Hurwicz et al. a Nobel for developing Mechanism Design theory?

3) I can pretty much guarantee that a math proof will never get published. Those of us with math Ph.D./JD combos are making too much money in IP to waste our time publishing articles. Further, law reviews are run by students, virtually none of whom have ever taken DiffEq, let alone have advanced degree enabling them to understand what they're reading. Finally, it won't get published in math journals because math professors don't give a damn about law professors flawed use of statistics.

4) I never said it's an obvious flaw. It's very, very subtle, and usually only seen in medical studies.

"Here's an idea: if AA is so damaging to EVERYONE (it seems), then let's pass a constitutional amendment banning it once and for all! See, e.g., Michigan.

Amendment XXVII

Section 1. Neither affirmative action nor any other racial preference, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Might I propose a different amendment banning AA?

"No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I benefited from AA, and I finished in the top 1/3 of my top 5 law school class. And I crushed the bar exam!