As recent fiscal irresponsibility has forcefully led America into an economic recession void of any immediate solutions, many of us approach our college graduations without the plethora of opportunities we had witnessed in years past and had grown to expect. A decade ago, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft, to name a few, offered entrance level jobs with not only upward mobility, but also strong starting salaries to almost any employee with a college diploma. Today however, such offers are few and far between. But one avenue to abscond this recession and dismal job opportunities has become the solution for nearly 12% of all college students. What promises a bright and lucrative future that allows young adults to postpone facing the scary Bear that is the job market for three years? Law school. It is now the road most traveled by for young, ambitious Americans, and thus, is the foundation and focus of Against the Odds with Admissions Gods.
Although the number of law school applicants has increased an insatiable 41% in the last five years, the average incoming class sizes has remained relatively constant. Getting into law school, especially into the most elite, is now incredibly competitive to say the least. The extremely rigorous and formulaic admission process offers travelers no easy stroll in the park. However, successfully navigating this arduous process is possible, as most of the factors that determine one’s acceptance or rejection are controllable: undergraduate GPA, LSAT score, teacher recommendations, and the personal statement. All of these factors project an admission process marked by a fair and equal assessment of each applicant, the most deserving being chosen. But don’t get too ahead of yourself. The process projected to applicants by most law schools is in fact, merely a façade disguising the political motivations that drive much of the real admissions process: the extreme preferential treatment towards those solely because of their race and or ethnicity. This is more commonly known as affirmative action and I, like the majority of applicants, am not benefited by this system.
Originally, affirmative action was created to combat and absolve the inadequate opportunities provided to certain underrepresented factions of society. Although affirmative action was essential to strengthen and improve society immediately following the Civil Rights Movement, it has become a noxious means of discrimination against the majority, dangerously eroding the merit-based system upon which America has been built. Simply viewing a law school applicant in a completely different light because of race or ethnicity contradicts not only the valiant work America has done to rid itself of the naïve and ignorant bigotry that once plagued society, but also the elemental aspect of affirmative action, equal opportunity for all. I feel it is important that I address the pink elephant of affirmative action that sits in the room of law school admissions, thereby disseminating a blunt, yet truthful portrayal of the admissions process.
While this blog will discuss the highly controversial topic of the excessive use of affirmative action in the law school admissions process, it will also scrupulously examine the admission process as a whole, providing the best strategies for gaining acceptance to law school. Additionally, it will discuss the pros and cons of student loans, second and third tier law schools, LSAT prep courses, applying early versus regular decision, and it will provide updated lists of school rankings. Law school has completely consumed my everyday life, which primarily consists of lots of coffee, studying, cigarettes, reading, and oh yah, more studying because there is always a faster runner in the race. Success is a byproduct and reward for hard work. So if you are as serious about gaining acceptance to law school as I am, Against the Odds with Admissions Gods will be your guide, providing you with the necessarily tools to auspiciously conquer this daunting process.
-----------------------------------------------
Hello soon to be law students (Post 2),
Last week, I was lucky enough to discover Law School Expert. Acting as a welcoming encyclopedia for all law school inquiries, this blog contains ample information on every facet of the admissions process and beyond. Catering to a wide variety of law applicants and schools, LSE is an free and accessible resource. Ann Levine, the creator of the blog, has an impressive resume that stems from her rigorous academic career, which concluded with her graduating magna cum laude from the University of Miami Law School. After authoring several well-received books on the law school admissions process and working as former Director of Admissions for two ABA law schools, Ann became and is still a full time admissions advisor and consultant. With many mediums, including radio, podcasts, and LSE, she has led countless students to admission success.
Posting every couple days, LSE has appropriately organized its posts to reflect the concerns that temporally parallel the admissions process. The posts almost serve as an interactive calendar reminding applicants where they should be in the process at given times. In addition to the precise and poignant material of her blog, each post offers several links to other blogs that provide alternate views on related subject matter. I see these links as a viable method for validating the content of my posts. With regard to style, each post encourages dialogue that helps to build relationships between followers and allows varied opinions to be vocalized. Many people follow the blog and religiously comment on posts, signifying its popularity. The students’ daily questions are expeditiously and thoroughly answered. I attribute much of LSE’s success to this active communication between author and follower.
One post that was especially interesting to me was entitled “Looking for an LSAT Tutor.” As I am currently preparing for the June 2010 LSAT, I have devoted much time and research selecting the proper program in which to invest. I ended up choosing Testmasters, and so far have been very impressed with its services. A beneficial source of information, LSE also provides a laundry list of great options for LSAT preparation. Placing an emphasis on individual tutoring, this specific post carefully compares private tutoring versus an in class experience. It also addressed the pros and cons for each of the many test preparation companies, thoroughly analyzing the many aspects of these companies. Ann states,
“I have some suggestions for where to find an LSAT tutor, and I’ve broken them down into 3 categories: Companies that specialize in private tutoring and who hire high quality teachers, LSAT prep companies who also offer private tutoring, individuals who are known LSAT tutors, and websites where tutors advertise their services.”
Her methodical approach allows readers to exhale, and begin to tackle the monster that is the LSAT. LSE provides its readers with detailed steps that allow you to construct a sharp sword, shield, and attack plan to conquer this monster. Quickly learning from my own preparation that you can never be too ready for the LSAT, this post will be extremely helpful for me to reinforce my Testmasters work with that of alternative resources. This post directly reflects the urgency and preparation that are imperative to achieving admission.
Another post that caught my eye was entitled, “Increase in Law School Applications for Fall 2010 Cycle.” The growing concern with the current and dramatic increase in law school applicants has rarely been appeased by viable sources. However, LSE debunks some of the rumors pertaining to admission and presents a more optimistic and encouraging forecast for the present and future admission cycles. Specifically, the post discusses the affect of more people taking the LSAT. Although it may seem that this is disadvantageous to applicants, it actually rewards those who thoroughly prepare for the test. Because many simply take the test on a whim, a far more forgiving curve is created that will benefit those who have adequately studied. Packed with statistical data, this post meticulously analyzes the ever maturing law school admissions process. She concludes the post by saying,
“Worry about what is still within your control – your applications, your interactions with the law schools – and when the dust settles hopefully you’ll have played your strategy well so you have good decisions to make.”
Prior to reading this post, I was really worried about the elevated difficulty of scoring highly on the LSAT, but this concern has been somewhat alleviated by the optimism of this post, allowing me a couple extra minutes of sleep at night.
Law School Expert is an amazing scholarly resource for all potential law school students. Conveniently located on the sidebar is a complete list of categories relevant to successfully navigating the admissions process. While this blog offers professional advice as an outsider looking in on the admissions process, my blog, Against the Odds with Admissions Gods, will provide viewers with a detailed first-hand journal of my current and future path through the admissions process as I chronicle each monotonous step I take. LSE is a great blog to receive guidance from an adept consultant, serving as a strong supplementary tool to AOAG. My personal flare and outlook on the overall process will not only be entertaining, but it will also reveal an up-to-date and straightforward account of this daunting process upon which so many of us endeavor.
----------------------------------------------
Hello law school gurus (Post 3),
This week I stumbled upon the blog Discriminations, a very useful and academic resource for analyzing affirmative action . This blog focuses in detail on the various forms of affirmative action that currently exist in modern society. Directly pertaining to the subject matter of Against the Odds with Admission Gods, was a post entitled, “Race Preferences, How Many Benefit, How Many Are Burdened?” This post critically analyzed not only the immense weight affirmative action has in the admissions process, but also how it actually affects those that are of minority and majority statuses. Jessie Rosenberg, the author of Discriminations, begins the post in a trite fashion, providing the typical support for the use of affirmative action. She includes statistics confirming that without affirmative action, the percentage of particular minorities attending law schools would diminish by approximately 10%. Her voice early in the post is indifferent to opinion. While she provides the readers with support for the use of affirmative action, she refrains from personally and adamantly advocating on its behalf. However, as the post continues, her true voice emerges.
In a vehement statement depicting her disdain for the lack of attention paid to those hurt by affirmative action, she states,
“Left undiscussed, however, is how much discrimination against whites and Asians is necessary in order to maintain the attendance of minorities. According to the University of Michigan Law School, 124 white, Asian, or unpreferred minority applicants were specifically rejected because of their race or ethnicity in 2006.”
To put this in perspective, only seven to eight hundred students are offered admission each year. This is an important point that many scholars and students alike forget, although some students are undoubtedly benefited by affirmative action, the majority are unfairly harmed by it. By citing statistics from Michigan Law, a top ten school, she makes the discussion relevant to the vast majority that is concerned by preferential treatment. Jessie continues this strong line of dismay for affirmative action by reinforcing the injustice of it with the support of several scholarly statistics.
“Black applicants are more than five times as likely as whites to be accepted to private schools, and 220 times as likely to be accepted to public schools.”
Her use of the term black evokes a disregard for writing in a politically correct manner, an integral aspect of her argument, which is that society has become overwhelmingly and unnecessarily obsessed with remaining pc, regardless of its actual cost to society. Although this is merely one of many statistics Jessie provides, its placement adds great depth and validity to her voice. These statistics also illustrate a degree of cynicism in her voice, as she blatantly contradicts the assertions of the many law schools that deny affirmative action’s immense weight.
Throughout the post, Jessie oscillates between the pros and cons of affirmative action. Now, inferring from her posts and speaking on my behalf, affirmative action has beneficial aspects that make its usage relevant in modern society. One of the most important aspects stems from the debate of funding for public high schools. Because public schools are entirely funded by local taxes, all public schools are provided with different amounts of financing. Thus, some schools are not provided with adequate resources and in turn, these students doe not receive adequate educational opportunities. Proponents of affirmative action blindly argue that this failure in our public education system validates the use of preferential treatment, but they are neglecting an essential part of this argument. Although certain minorities may comprise a larger percentage of those living in and attending these improperly funded public schools, they are not the only ones. Almost every school district has at least some diversity. As a result, this argument should contend that affirmative action or preferential treatment should not look at race, but rather family income and socioeconomic status. This will much more accurately reveal to universities and law schools the students that did not receive equal educational opportunities and thus, who are justified in receiving preferential treatment. However, this aspect of affirmative action is conveniently left out of their argument. Schools are solely focused on the façade of a racially represented school. One’s struggles or true disadvantages are consistently overshadowed by the color of one’s skin. So this begs the question, what happens to financially poor white men and women? Nothing good. This improper use of a once beneficial program completely undermines the foundations of equality and the incentive to work hard for those who will be adversely affected by affirmative action.
In a second post from Discriminations entitled, “Diversity Research Advances Progresses Accumulates,” Jessie continues to express her dissatisfaction with the misuse of affirmative action. The title of this article immediately screams the anger and frustration she has towards the whole notion of “diversity,” a term that has become the catch-all justification for preferential treatment. In a very intellectual and well learned tone, Jessie states,
“Even former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who relied on that research in her infamous Grutter opinion, now may have doubts about whether that research “clearly demonstrate[d] the educational benefits of diverse student bodies.”
Jessie’s reference to Grutter, a United States Supreme Court case that banned the use of racial quotas in the admissions process but allowed for race to be used as an indeterminate factor, evokes great knowledge on her part, further legitimizing the authority of her voice. If the US Supreme Court is questioning the beneficial effects of diversity, then who is to say we shouldn’t? Society should be scrupulously analyzing this notion of diversity and not just go with the flow in fear of appearing racist, another term inappropriately used to denigrate the word of those that don’t inherently accept being unnecessarily discriminated against.
The post goes into great depth analyzing the concept of diversity and how diversity has become a viable reason for the existence of affirmative action. Jessie questions the argument that race equates to diversity. The justification for the use of diversity is that it will provide the classroom with people of assorted backgrounds and experience. But again, how does simply being of a certain race ensure diversity of experience? It doesn’t. Jessie states,
“The hollowness of the “experience” justification for “diversity” (actually, its only legal justification) has been noted.”
Her use of quotations within the sentence exudes her cynicism and unwillingness to accept these facially appeasing justifications for affirmative action.
Jessie witnesses the current hypocrisy of affirmative action and how its weight on the admissions process is downplayed to prevent outrage from white and Asian students. Her voice is powerful and scholarly, permeating throughout the posts. The amplitude of statistical evidence she provides the clear foundation of her tone. Accompanied by strong adjectives such as atrocious and ludicrous, Jessie’s voice and views are most clearly represented here in a sentence from one of the posts:
“I want to dispense, again, with the ubiquitous canard that there is no discrimination because whites, as a group, are not seriously injured.”
Her verbose sentence structure combined with rather intellectual vocabulary displays the scholarly tone of not just this post, but also of her blog Discriminations as a whole.
It is very evident from this sentence and the rest of her posts that Jessie, like I, find it to be both naïve and quite frankly, untrue, to say that non minority students are unharmed by preferential treatment and affirmative action in the admissions process. It is her clear and precise counterarguments to the main proponents of affirmative action that make her voice so valid and respectable. The two previous posts from Discriminations eloquently shed light on the highly controversial topic of affirmative action. Her words and voice shall enlighten the many ignorant people who naively equate opposition to affirmative action with racism. America is a land of opportunity, freedom, and most importantly equality. It is the barbaric mechanisms of discrimination themselves, such as affirmative action, that erode the perilous work America has done to both free itself from discrimination and become the great country it is today.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment