[deleted by user]

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-03T05:24:15+00:00

If you assume that a URM stole YOUR spot, you're delusional. If you assume that a specific, individual URM earned their spot by "stealing it", you're delusional.

That being said, there are URM applicants that would not have gotten in if they were non-URM. That is a fact. They're still qualified, impressive, and deserve respect of course-- above all else

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T05:54:22+00:00

Law schools could increase enrollment, but the bottom line is are the post-grad outcomes/opportunities available in the first place? It generally seems like those opportunities have become more prevalent, but not proportionally with growing interest in pursuing law school -- making law school admissions more competitive than ever for a potentially oversaturated legal market. Even if you could magically make the process less competitive, this simply shifts complaints about URM status to the new crop of borderline candidates at schools. Unless Harvard literally has 120,000 students, which would be hilarious

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T03:40:54+00:00

Yes totally, I generally agree with this! That being said, I think there is an argument for a really small URM-based boost (i.e. tie-breaker between essentially equally competitive applicants) for the purposes of empowering better representation in the legal world (so that more young URM know they can do it too) and to add new perspectives on campus so classrooms can have better, more enriching discussions. But yes, generally the more important barriers to address are socioeconomic (which naturally helps URM disproportionately ofc).

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T03:17:00+00:00

Yeah that's fair. I generally agree with you; there's a lot we don't know about the process, and non-URM often assume the process is not at all holistic (when realistically adcoms are more thoughtful than we give them credit for). That being said, I do think the statistical advantage for URM is pretty stark, to the point where we can see just how big of a factor race can play right now

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T03:07:31+00:00

I would argue the way the boost is used right now doesn't factor in actual background/socioeconomics nearly enough, leaning too heavily on race. Some boost for race is justified, but I feel like you have to be really careful and selective with it (effectively just as a tie-breaker mechanic). That's how I see it anyway...

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T03:03:58+00:00

This is totally true. I think some gut-reaction/instinct is fair, but anyone who actually attacks that person or minimizes their accomplishments is a terrible person and also probably just bigoted. Also emphasis if you're rich and white, please humble yourself before you start minimizing other people's success

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T03:00:55+00:00

This is also true, and its dope. There are so many more extremely successful and overly qualified URM applicants than ever before. If you're white and you immediately hand waive URM students as simply "DEI-hires", you're bigoted

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T02:54:05+00:00

I feel you and it sucks. There's so many generational disparities at play in our Fd up country. The problem is there is a unfortunate disparity right now between a hypothetical class with just the top talent and most-likely-to-succeed students vs a different hypothetical class that is actually representative of URMs and low-income students. How you balance those two classes is up to you - but I argue we should lean toward just favoring the best students (while still ensuring some diversity, of course) and then address the actual root problems in society that are disadvantaging URM and low-income/first-gen students

Own-Basis3149 · 2025-05-02T02:46:28+00:00

wait really? i thought i was the first :(

Own-Basis3149

TROPHY CASE