Top Law Schools

Whatever one thinks of affirmative action (and I'm not inclined to debate that here), we can all agree that, if such a system exists, it should apply to ALL URM's. Consider Pacific Islanders, who are grotesquely under-represented in higher education, but are not accorded any sort of AA boost. The is manifestly unjust and unfair.


"Over 28 percent of graduation-age (25-or-older) have at least a 4-year-degree. By comparison, only 14 percent of single-race Pacific Islander Americans have a 4-year-degree. For advanced degrees, the national graduation rate is 10 percent, while the Pacific Islander graduate is 4 percent."



Source: 2010 US Census. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... -ff06.html

Compare that with African-Americans, 19% of whom have earned a BA: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html This is significantly more than the corresponding Pacific Islander rate of 14%

The black graduate degree rate, incidentally, is about 4%, or roughly the same as that of Pacific Islanders.

IBTL

No one gives a rat's ass.

Snort

Is this the best use of your time, leisure and resources?

Either your sense of irony isn't very acute, or you've simply forgotten the fact that you post here roughly 7 times as much as do I, given that we registered here the same day but you've logged more than 7 times the post total.

I care about this issue, because it's unfair. That is blindingly obvious.

rgndvo wrote:Either your sense of irony isn't very acute, or you've simply forgotten the fact that you post here roughly 7 times as much as do I, given that we registered here the same day but you've logged more than 7 times the post total.

I care about this issue, because it's unfair. That is blindingly obvious.

I'm sorry you're sensitive and this matter hurts your feelings but nobody really gives a shit how you feel about this. Pick up a placard or something.

rgndvo wrote:
I care about this issue, because it's unfair. That is blindingly obvious.

Oh. I imagined you were probably a pacific islander.

rgndvo wrote:Either your sense of irony isn't very acute, or you've simply forgotten the fact that you post here roughly 7 times as much as do I, given that we registered here the same day but you've logged more than 7 times the post total.

I care about this issue, because it's unfair. That is blindingly obvious.

Oh my! They did join the same day.
Maybe MY sense of irony isn't very acute, but I think these posters are one and the same.
This was a decent troll attempt to get AA debate going, though. I don't know why it didn't take off.

Blessedassurance wrote:

rgndvo wrote:Either your sense of irony isn't very acute, or you've simply forgotten the fact that you post here roughly 7 times as much as do I, given that we registered here the same day but you've logged more than 7 times the post total.

I care about this issue, because it's unfair. That is blindingly obvious.

I'm sorry you're sensitive and this matter hurts your feelings but nobody really gives a shit how you feel about this. Pick up a placard or something.

I recommend occupying Wall St. to make your voice heard.

kahechsof wrote:Oh my! They did join the same day.
Maybe MY sense of irony isn't very acute, but I think these posters are one and the same.

Do not impugn my dignity. I've been here way longer than my "join date" suggests. I do not know this (wo)man nor do I wish to be associated with it in any capacity. I want no part of whatever class war s/he's trying to incite.

Blessedassurance wrote:Do not impugn my dignity. I've been here way longer than my "join date" suggests.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Banned for alting and ban evasion.

Are fake accounts really against "the rules?" Seriously, this forum takes itself way too seriously. Almost enough to make me (and all of my TLS/LSN alter-egos) go to medical school.

rgndvo wrote:Are fake accounts really against "the rules?" Seriously, this forum takes itself way too seriously. Almost enough to make me (and all of my TLS/LSN alter-egos) go to medical school.

I have often thought, that the bandied about numbers of 45k law graduates and only 30k jobs might equalize once you remove all the alter egos.

rgndvo wrote:Are fake accounts really against "the rules?" Seriously, this forum takes itself way too seriously. Almost enough to make me (and all of my TLS/LSN alter-egos) go to medical school.

You're considering not being a lawyer solely because you're unhappy with the power-thirst of a few individuals on a private forum with no official connection to any law school, firm, or other entity whatsoever?

Correction: "We're not considering becoming a lawyer."

Blessedassurance wrote:

kahechsof wrote:Oh my! They did join the same day.
Maybe MY sense of irony isn't very acute, but I think these posters are one and the same.

Do not impugn my dignity. I've been here way longer than my "join date" suggests. I do not know this (wo)man nor do I wish to be associated with it in any capacity. I want no part of whatever class war s/he's trying to incite.

Sorry dude. I didn't mean to get you knocked off.

I agree with OP that does sound pretty crappy and I do care. But, this might not be the best place to voice that concern. We have no control over the system. And this site seems to be generally concerned with what is the best way to approach the system not what is wrong with the system. This might be an issue you could take up with Pacific Islanders community. Perhaps you can get a ball rolling somewhere.

Grizz wrote:No one gives a rat's ass.

LOL

chimp wrote:

Grizz wrote:No one gives a rat's ass.

LOL

We should point out that rat's asses are not URM's. There are plenty of them at my law school, who got in with no bump.

kahechsof wrote:

chimp wrote:

Grizz wrote:No one gives a rat's ass.

LOL

We should point out that rat's asses are not URM's. There are plenty of them at my law school, who got in with no bump.

You're over-generalizing. See: --ImageRemoved--

rgndvo wrote:Whatever one thinks of affirmative action (and I'm not inclined to debate that here), we can all agree that, if such a system exists, it should apply to ALL URM's. Consider Pacific Islanders, who are grotesquely under-represented in higher education, but are not accorded any sort of AA boost. The is manifestly unjust and unfair.

Ok fine. I'll bite.

You can't conclude it is unfair, without first defining why AA exists, and then showing how those reasons apply in this instance. Because, if the reasons don't apply to this community, then there is nothing manifest, unjust, or unfair.
Now, that conversation would need to take place in the lounge, I'm pretty sure.

So no, I disagree with your premise. Depending on the reason for the system, it will or won't apply to different communities.

This seems like a good place for an affirmative action debate.

Hey, what does everyone think about this article? http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/25/us/califo ... ?hpt=hp_t2

this thread seems to not understand where AA came from