Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 5/1/2002 12:35:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/1/2002 12:36:34 PM EST by AnotherPundit]
The center used the freedom-of-information laws to get data from the three public law schools in Virginia — from the University of Virginia, William & Mary, and George Mason University. Consequently, it will be hard for the schools to deny the numbers themselves. If they're wrong, it's because the schools supplied bad data. The data were then turned over to two independent social scientists, Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai of Rockville, Maryland. They crunched the numbers and wrote the report, "Racial and Ethnic Preferences at the Three Virginia Public Law Schools." The study, along with similar reports by CEO about undergraduate and medical-school admissions, is on its website. If you thought that law schools would be less likely to play fast and loose with laws and precedents that cast a cold eye on blatant racial and ethnic discrimination, you would be wrong. In fact, of all the schools that CEO has studied — 47 undergraduate institutions, six medical schools, and now these three law schools — the University of Virginia School of Law wins the dubious distinction of discriminating the most. At UVa, the odds favoring a black candidate over an equally qualified white candidate were an astonishing 731 to 1 in 1999 and 647 to 1 in 1998. William & Mary is no slouch when it comes to discriminating either: The odds ratio favoring blacks over whites there was 168 to 1 in 1999 and 351 to 1 in 1998. To put it in other terms: In 1999, if you had an LSAT score of 160 and an undergraduate grade-point average of 3.25 — these are the two measures that law schools typically weigh most heavily in making admissions decisions-you had a 95 percent chance of getting into UVA if you were black, but only a 3 percent chance of getting in if you were white. At William & Mary, in 1999, if you had an LSAT of 155 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.0, your chances of getting in were 84 percent if you were black but only 3 percent if you were white. The black-white gap in GPA during the first-year of law school was greatest at William & Mary: six-tenths of a point on a 4-point scale.
View Quote
source: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/clegg/clegg042502.asp[/url] I'm sitting on the waiting list at William & Mary Law right now. Reading this sort of thing makes me *sooooo* happy.
Link Posted: 5/1/2002 12:48:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/1/2002 1:01:21 PM EST
At Stetson, it is almost the opposite. People with good credit seem to have the best chance of getting in here- provided of course, that you have the LSAT/GPA. There are very few minorities here. Ditto the comment about 90% of the professors being uber liberal. My Constitutional law professor especially chaps my ass, for obvious reasons.
Link Posted: 5/1/2002 1:13:22 PM EST
hrm, maybe I should apply there next year. (LSAT 164, GPA 2.96 from Davidson College.) I got wl'd or denied everywhere but University of South Carolina -- this was apparently a really bad year to apply; due to recession, etc. most schools got about double their normal # of applicants. so I'm debating whether I should wait till next year & reapply places, or go to USC.
Link Posted: 5/1/2002 1:23:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/1/2002 1:26:38 PM EST by another_shooter]
I'm served on a professional school admissions committee for a public university. Interestingly, we've done away with race criteria for what was obviously preferential admissions. Although we still can use terms such as "underserved communities" as a consideration, since we do need to try to make health care available to all the public, the ethnic background is no longer a valid criterion for establishing "special consideration." Our committee is filled with University-type liberals, moderates and closet conservatives that must use the liberal language, and so-called minorities such as myself who simply do not believe in hyphenated Americans. Americans are Americans, period. I just cannot see anything fair about affirmative action or it's thinly disguised successor "special consideration for underserved communities." We still have some problems. One of my favorite problems invented by our liberal leanings (I'm in California, afterall) is that we cannot discriminate against people with learning disorders.... slow learners who were diagnosed by some Berkeley group as just having a learning disorder, so they need to take examinations all by themselves in a special room and with more time allotted. Now, since we are cranking out people who will be able to provide surgical intervention, I would think that a slow learner may be contraindicated. But no. My advice to you is to go to Berkeley. Get some PhD there to say you have a learning disorder (after all, this means more Federal $$$ for the research group of the PhD, who can tell funding agencies that such learning disorders are far more serious a problem than previously estimated). You won't be wait-listed anywhere, with that strategy!! Edit -- you'll be accepted, straight-up!
Link Posted: 5/1/2002 1:28:03 PM EST
Heh. I probalby could fake a convincing ADD. But. .urg. I'd feel dirty.
Link Posted: 5/1/2002 1:45:16 PM EST
That's a helluva strategy! Wish I would have thought of that when I was applying to UF. Disability=the ultimate minority status. Good thinking!
Top Top