Affirmative Action in Law
My latest at The Occidental Observer is about affirmative action in law admissions. I look at how AA works at the prestigious “Top 14.” Readers who like me learned the phrase from Half Sigma might find the article interesting. Read it here.
Update:
It’s actually much worse than I thought. I listed 156 as the black minimum for a top 14 school. That was the best I could do based on the statistics. In reality, colleges accept NAMs with all kinds of scores. That’s because there are going to be some NAMs with with relatively high LSATs with low GPAs and others who may opt out of law school. To meet their bare minimum of blacks schools have to take some scores even lower than the mathematical lowest in a 100% efficient system which I found.
There’s a website where prospective students post their numbers and whether they were accepted or rejected for a school and a table is formed of the results.
For example, here’s the chart for Cornell for 2008-2009, one of the lowest of the T14. LSAT score graphs along the bottom, the GPA up and down. Notice that green outlier all the way to the left? That’s a black who get into Cornell with a 150. We know because he’s an URM (under represented minority in admissions lingo). The average score for all test takers is around 152. Meanwhile there are non-URMs who were rejected with scores of 175 and 178, the 99th + percentile.
Something is really wrong with this country. But you, my reader, knew that.
26 Comments
Oct 16, 2009 9:57 pm |
Ballin’ article. I attend law school in Canada, and up here AA is, from what I understand, minute: a spot or two for Injuns.
Oct 17, 2009 1:58 am |
So what you are saying is that AA is not likely to be a conspiracy by the elites to keep middle class kids where they belong, but rather, AA is a result of possibly well-intentioned laws having unintended consequences …
Oct 17, 2009 9:41 am |
I went to a T-14 law school. There are a few other things you might be interested to know:
First, the “financial aid” office was in reality a second affirmative action office. Non-NAM students, no matter how poor, basically did not receive financial aid on the theory that they can borrow the tuition money and pay it back once they get a high paying job.
So why have a financial aid office at all? From what I gather, it was just a means of offering deep discounts to compete for high scoring NAMs.
Given that it took me quite a while to pay off my student loans, I’m a bit resentful. On the other hand, the reality is that having a European brain (as opposed to an African brain) is probably worth a lot more than free law school tuition.
Second, there were other subtle perqs for NAM students. For example, I learned that there was an unadvertised job fair so that big law firms could recruit first-year law students to work in the summer. I did an unpaid internship while most NAMs had the option of earning 15 or 20 thousand dollars.
____________
Anyway, I agree with you that the affirmative action students did not have much impact on the day-to-day life of non-NAM students.
More problematic were the affirmative action faculty members and of course the black female administrative employees.
Oct 17, 2009 11:26 am |
Don’t worry sabril. When the economy goes south, so does big law.
Some of them will no doubt want to get rid of under-performing partners but find themselves between a rock and a hard place with respect to AA hires. Tough titties.
Oct 17, 2009 2:34 pm |
big surprise.
sabril is a disingenuous little jew lawyer. no wonder he’s so good at dissimulating. he concedes nothing, and will fervently repeat debunked, fallacious arguments ad nauseam. he and his fellows are hypocritical to the core.
Oct 17, 2009 2:36 pm |
lol
Oct 17, 2009 3:49 pm |
“sabril is a disingenuous little jew lawyer.”
Lol. Nice rebuttal there.
Oct 17, 2009 4:21 pm |
Wash U Law , late 80s: We had a cafe au lait skin toned kid in the class, reminded me of Miami Vice’s Tubbs, very pompous and opinionated. At the start of his third year, he landed a clerkship with a SF area federal judge. Funny, you had no chance of landing a federal clerkship unless you were top 10% plus law review OR were a minority. Trouble for Tubbs, one of the old school professors (we called him Frontier Justice) failed him in Criminal Procedure. Tubbs accosted the Prof outside the lecture hall and followed him down to the faculty elevator. All he got from Professor Frontier Justice was a cloud of politically incorrect cigar smoke in his face. I dont remember any minority members of the law quarterly or even the 2nd team Urban Law Journal, not a problem though because enough affirmative action judges were around to pick up the slack.
Oct 17, 2009 6:13 pm |
Not rebutting anything.
Just describing you and your ilk.
Oct 17, 2009 6:18 pm |
“Not rebutting anything.
Just describing you and your ilk.”
:shrug: I’m here to discuss and debate. As opposed to hurling insults the way an angry monkey throws sh*t. Then again, I suppose the occasional ad homenim adds a little spice.
Oct 17, 2009 7:11 pm |
” That’s because there are going to be some NAMs with with relatively high LSATs with GPAs of zero ”
How’s such a relationship even possible, under any model that considers IQ and it’s correlations with academic performance? The table you list doesn’t show anybody with a score even approaching that.
Oct 17, 2009 7:14 pm |
I mean, surely an LSAT would be a better predictor of IQ than GPA?
Oct 17, 2009 7:33 pm |
How’s such a relationship even possible, under any model that considers IQ and it’s correlations with academic performance? The table you list doesn’t show anybody with a score even approaching that.
Zero was an exaggeration. I changed it. And it is possible. GPA depends on work ethic too. There are people with 180 LSATs and GPAs in the the 2s. Such people are lazy and have high IQs.
Yes, LSAT is a better indicator of IQ and predictor of law school success too.
Oct 17, 2009 8:10 pm |
fair enough.
i’m just an angry monkey that throws sh*t and you’re just a disingenuous, dissimulating hypocrite.
Oct 17, 2009 8:15 pm |
“a disingenuous, dissimulating hypocrite”
Lol. Nice turd there, monkey-boy.
How about providing ONE example of my supposed hypocricy.
Oct 17, 2009 9:37 pm |
IMO, the LSAT is the best measure of intelligence amongst the crop of standardized tests, all levels. It doesn’t take long to learn and for two of the sections (arguments and reading comp), there’s little one can do to increase their score.
In fact, on those two sections, most people could take it with a week of practice and ace them. The games section requires some strategy and practice, but not much on the LSAT is “nurture” like vocab, it’s almost all “nature”.
@ shocked and awe:
I’ve seen sabril around the HBDosphere, of which HBDBooks probably represents the fringe. I have no clue what you’re talking about. There are many Jewish hypocrites out there, especially in the context of race, but I haven’t seen sabril engaging in this sort of behavior. You sound insane making these baseless accusations.
Oct 17, 2009 11:14 pm |
I didn’t even know that sabril was a dissimulating, disingenuous hypocritical Jew lawyer. But now that I do, I hate him.
Oct 18, 2009 2:31 am |
Something is really wrong with this country.
What are the two most prestigious professions that a college bound young person might aspire to? I think they are physician and attorney. Or should I say doctor and lawyer, to cut them down a peg or two. But to my mind these are wealth consuming, not wealth producing. Part of America’s slide into a FIRE-based economy.
Oct 18, 2009 3:49 pm |
I have two technical questions for you Richard: 1) Where did you get the LSAT 158=IQ 118? 2) How did Mensa arrive at LSAT 95th percentile (166 or 167) = IQ 130?
I know that Mensa accepts the pre-recentered SAT score of 1250 for membership. I also read that this was calculated as follows: 1250 was the 94th percentile among (the pre-recentered) SAT takers. 1/3 of the 17 year old US polulation (back in the 1980s) took the SAT and they assumed that virtually all people who could have gotten a 1250 actually took the test. Hence, 94th percentile of the SAT taking population = 98th percentile of the general population.
What I’ve never been able to figure out is how they got the 95th percentile figure on the LSAT and GMAT for the Mensa minimum requirement. First, it’s surprising that the minimum percentile for both these grad school tests is exactly the same and, second, it’s surprising that they seem to think that 94th percentile among the pool of potential college applicants is at the same IQ level as the 95 percentile of applicants for law and business school (a population that has managed to graduate from college and, presumably, is not the bottom of the barrel of college graduates). To me it looks like Mensa was being lazy and took a wild-assed guess as opposed to acutally evaluating the tests, but maybe you know something I don’t about it.
Oct 18, 2009 5:11 pm |
I have two technical questions for you Richard: 1) Where did you get the LSAT 158=IQ 118?
I estimated average test taker at 107. Standard deviation is 15 points. 158 is .75 SDs above the average.
That’s why I had the approximately.
What I’ve never been able to figure out is how they got the 95th percentile figure on the LSAT and GMAT for the Mensa minimum requirement. First, it’s surprising that the minimum percentile for both these grad school tests is exactly the same and, second, it’s surprising that they seem to think that 94th percentile among the pool of potential college applicants is at the same IQ level as the 95 percentile of applicants for law and business school (a population that has managed to graduate from college and, presumably, is not the bottom of the barrel of college graduates).
Law school applicants are probably representative of the college population. On the one hand, the most hopeless probably don’t want three more years of schooling. On the other hand, those that went into science and engineering are probably less likely to take the LSAT or a business test. We know that science and engineering students are smarter than humanities majors. A lot of law school and business school hopefuls are those not smart enough to do math and science. They got worthless humanities majors and law or business is their only hope of making their college degree worth something. If anything, they’re less intelligent than the general population of college students.
Oct 18, 2009 6:02 pm |
“They got worthless humanities majors”
Right. Physics degrees are also worthless. So are biology degrees. So are chemistry degrees. Most degrees are worthless vis a vis direct applicability to large numbers of jobs.
Oct 18, 2009 8:40 pm |
If anything, they’re less intelligent than the general population of college students.
I agree, though they tend to be more verbally and socially dominant. And those in the upper echelons often combine high intelligence that rivals the math/science/engineering types with verbal/social dominance.
Right. Physics degrees are also worthless. So are biology degrees. So are chemistry degrees. Most degrees are worthless vis a vis direct applicability to large numbers of jobs.
This is true. Aside from a few engineering disciplines, most college degrees are worthless, including the non-engineering science and math ones. You might say that science and math degrees signal intelligence and are hence worth something, but if it’s signaling you’re after you could replace every degree with a 15 minute IQ test.
Oct 18, 2009 9:24 pm |
Elder said: “you could replace every degree with a 15 minute IQ test”
I take it you mean this theoretically. In the States, I think written employment tests with “disparate impact” are illegal. Degrees (whether in humanities, sciences, engineering, whatever) are used as proxies for this.
(Degrees also show some amount of interest in a field, discipline, and willingness to do work assigned by authority figures.)
Oct 18, 2009 11:00 pm |
Yes, theoretically.
Oct 19, 2009 3:04 pm |
I should congradulate you on your article Richard. Another fine job, but to nitpick:
“I estimated average test taker at 107. Standard deviation is 15 points. 158 is .75 SDs above the average.”
No, an S.D. would almost certainly not be 15 points in this case. 15 is the S.D. for the entire general population. The group of LSAT takers is a subset thereof and would almost certainly have a narrower S.D.
Perhaps average IQ is lower for recent college graduates, but according to the NLSY, the average college graduate (not attendee) has an IQ of 114. IQ 114 is also the threshold that Gottfedson (1997) calculated for being able to do a professional job (e.g., lawyer, doctor, engineer) competently and pass the certification examinations.
According to Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve, 1994), the average lawyer has an IQ of around 120 or a little higher. Eysenck (Intelligence: A New Look, 1998 – an HBD book that you should review, by the way) gives a higher figure (IQ 128). He also gives a S.D. for lawyers (10.9).
The above would imply that the average LSAT taker probably has an IQ of between 114 and the low 120s. (Not all LSAT takers are accepted to law school or become lawyers and pass the bar, but they are also probably somewhat brighter on average than the average college graduate (though you would dispute this).)
LSAT takers have a mean LSAT score of about 150 or 151. Accepted law students average around 153. According to the Texas board of Bar examiners, people who pass the bar in Texas, going from memory, average about 155 or 156, so this number is probably indicative of an IQ of around 120 or a little higher. My guess is that an LSAT of around 155 equals an IQ in the low 120s and that the LSAT S.D. of 10 points is between 11 and 15 IQ points (i.e., between that of attorneys on one hand, and the general population on the other).
Here are the average LSAT scores of undergraduates from various Universities that take the LSAT:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/760585-mean-lsat-scores-top-universities.html
I’ll take an upper and lower Ivy as an example:
University of Pennsylvania 163
Harvard 166
At these institutions, the median SAT (extrapolating from the 25th to 75th percentile range) – http://www.montclair.k12.nj.us/WebPageFiles/375/special_reality2.pdf ) is 1415 (1330-1500) and 1495 (1400-1590), respectively.
Looking at this SAT/IQ comparison site: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
This would yield average undergraduate IQs of 145 and 139, respectively. (Interestingly, I know my WISC-R score from when I was 11 and this site’s conversion table for the pre-recentered SAT (which I took) matched my WISC-R IQ almost exactly. It’s GRE-IQ predictor also almost exactly matched my WISC-R score. I’ve since tried it with other family members, and this site’s tables yielded predicted IQ scores based on their SAT scores that have invariably been within a couple of points of their tested IQs.) Maybe, as you say, the best and the brightest at the Ivies are in science and math majors and not taking the LSAT, but the 25th to 75th percentile ranges at Penn and Harvard equal IQs in 133 to 145 and 138 to 151 range, respectively. Even assuming that the Penn and Harvard grads who take the LSAT average at their University’s bottom quartile, this would still yield an estimate of IQ 133 for LSAT score 163 and IQ 138 for LSAT score 166.
Oct 22, 2009 10:40 am |
I’ll take an upper and lower Ivy as an example:
University of Pennsylvania 163
Harvard 166
At these institutions, the median SAT (extrapolating from the 25th to 75th percentile range) –
http://www.montclair.k12.nj.us/WebPageFiles/375/special_reality2.pdf ) is 1415 (1330-1500) and 1495 (1400-1590), respectively.
Looking at this SAT/IQ comparison site:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
This would yield average undergraduate IQs of 145 and 139, respectively.
Something is off. 166 is about the 95th percentile of all test takers. You claim that that’s a 145 IQ.
Only 1 in a thousand people has an IQ of 145. But if 5% of all test takers have it, and test takers are representative of the 35% of the people who’ve been to college, that means that 5% of 35% of the population has an IQ that high.
If your calculations are correct 1.75% of the population has an IQ of at least 145. In reality only .1% is that smart.
Even if you claim that LSAT takers are much smarter than the college population it doesn’t work. Let’s say LSAT test takers are the top 10% of the population. 5% score at 166 or above. According to you, 0.5% of the population would have an IQ of 145. That’s five times too many.
Leave a Reply