but they're doing it for LR too? students kill themselves over grades and in write-ons trying to make LR. some poor kid finishes in the top 11% and they slam the door in his face. but some black kid is below the fucking median and they eagerly welcome him because he'll contribute to their fucking diversity? having LR on your resume often makes or breaks whether you get an interview or not; these are people's CAREERS we're talking about.

DA FUCK!?!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12135594)

But yeah, that point absolutely needed to be made.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12140826)

Law Review is a business at heart. In looking for members, it is looking for employees. Why the heck should any employer care about the careers of every job applicant? Law Reviews need to accept the people who will make them successful. The truth of the matter is that choosing a homogeneous group of people solely based on one or two narrow and frankly unpredictive measures.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12136700)

Author: ()--()

See, your mistake is that you think Law Review is some sort of honor to which people are entitled or that they have earned.

Law Review is a business at heart. In looking for members, it is looking for employees. Why the heck should any employer care about the careers of every job applicant? Law Reviews need to accept the people who will make them successful. The truth of the matter is that choosing a homogeneous group of people solely based on one or two narrow and frankly unpredictive measures.

---

wtf? i hope that is a joke. The last part isn't even a complete sentence.

They "need to accept people who will make them successful," eh? How about smart people, regardless of race, who can form complete sentences?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12137637)

And speaking of your argument:

First, just because someone managed to do well in law school exams does not mean they are smart. Second, just because someone may be "smart" in an academic sense doesn't mean they have what it takes to make a peer-led rigorous publication successful.

I think it's perfectly sensible for a Law Review to give a plus to someone who has for example a journalism PhD, experience managing teams of people, a personal statement that evinces an attention to detail or ability to meet deadlines, or even education, background, and experiences that may help them critique, select, and edit diverse scholarly articles.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138005)

You are making the assumption that just because a person checks URM on their application, they are automatically bumped up and put on LR.

The OP has made a very thin argument without any facts to back up his assertions other than anger.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138192)

But, to the extent that a Law Review might give a plus to someone simply because they check some demographic box, that can make a lot of business sense just as it does for other organizations. Qualified minorities might not apply to be part of an organization that they perceive to exclude them. Leading authors might be hesitant to submit articles to a group they perceive as discriminatory, especially when there are so many alternate venues. Submissions about issues of particular interest to certain groups might be overlooked or misunderstood if the viewpoint they represent is completely missing. This is exactly why law firms often invest so much in attracting certain demographic groups -- it is necessary to attract qualified candidates and customers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138245)

Of course they are. Don't be ridiculous. They'll take the best of the URMs that they can get, and they may not (or may) take someone in the bottom 25% of the class, but of course they are going to see that they get a "reasonable" number of dark faces in the group photo.

I will say, however, that giving (or not) a "diversity" boost is, in most cases, something that the school's *admin* has okayed, urged, or even mandated.

________________________________________________________

"Qualified minorities might not apply to be part of an organization that they perceive to exclude them. [Really unlikely, actually--someone, of whatever race, who "qualifies" by being in, say, the top 10% of the class is *quite* likely to apply to LR. However:] Leading authors might be hesitant to submit articles to a group they perceive as discriminatory, especially when there are so many alternate venues. Submissions about issues of particular interest to certain groups might be overlooked or misunderstood if the viewpoint they represent is completely missing. This is exactly why law firms often invest so much in attracting certain demographic groups -- it is necessary to attract qualified candidates and customers. [Practically speaking, I think this is a solid point.]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12139450)

what an incredibly shitty idea

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12144483)

1. actual set-aside seats for "diversity" candidates who don't make it through the regular process

2. personal statements evaluated for diversity that person would add, which results in a bump to some score used to rank candidates that don't blow away the grade/write-on cutoffs

3. using the school's diversity program as a proxy to bump, e.g., if the school has a diversity scholars program or something, those individuals can get a bump up

also, if your school has some sort of diversity scholars program, is it just traditional diversity or is it actually people from disadvantaged backgrounds representing all racial/ethnic groups, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12135671)

Kindly killself.

EDIT: This post is addressed to both you and the shithead directly below.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138053)

"The Law Review evaluates personal statements in light of various factors, including (but not limited to) race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, socio-economic background, ideological viewpoint, disability, and age."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12137516)

No LR anywhere in this fucking country is going to admit someone who is below the fucking median. URM or otherwise.

If you are going to be a racial-troll, at least be convincing and not make up bullshit reasons to hype up the rest of the anti-AA crowd on this board.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12137997)

Of course, A lot of the top schools take diversity into consideration, or include a personal statement or resume or give credit for things like foreign travel, graduate degrees, second languages, specialized degrees, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138060)

But I can tell you that NO ONE on law review was not in the top 15% grades or write one, is white or asian.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138075)

Unless LR keeps tabs on their member's gpa's and will kick them off if they drop.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138166)

Can anybody get upset at a LR that gives points to URM that are under the median if they allow White boys below the median?

If that is the case, then the top 10% have legitimate beef not with unqualified URM, but unqualified STUDENTS as a whole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138244)

EDIT: Additionally, the fact that NYULR has many fewer racial minorities than it has diversity spots should be clear and convincing evidence that it is NOT principally AA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138304)

Law reviews really are a business. Their main purpose is to put out a product--a product that requires a lot of mind numbing but arduous and difficult work and a good deal of skills like meeting deadlines, working with colleagues and authors, and managing a business. They need people who will excel at that. They are not honors organizations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138163)

Moreover, AA that does take into account identity status could be valuable to the business for the same reason it is valuable to other business. It helps attract top talent and business (here, staff and authors).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138345)

I think AA bleeds into LR because it raises uncomfortable questions. If AA admits are "qualified" then why so few on LR? Well, let's just practice AA on LR, problem solved!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138428)

As for the authors choosing not to publish with the journal, I admit that it is much less of an issue but would argue that it still has some small effect on the margins. There have been law review articles about discrimination on law reviews and which have made it clear which journals are more inclusive than others. Authors have presumably read these and have them in their mind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138648)

Now, LR AA is admittedly less aggressive. But enough with the word games. These are students that wouldn't be on LR but for their URM status. You can say they are "qualified" all you want, however, the fact remains: by the metrics chosen (grades, BLIND-graded competition) many would not be on LR.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138896)

Anyway, you're kind of arguing past me anyway. First, your point is kind of irrelevant because law reviews simply are not admitting far less qualified applicants because of their race.

More fatal to your argument is that you seem to think "qualified" can mean "was among the X highest scoring candidates by one measure." If I get 100 applicants to shine my shoes, I bet at least 90 would be qualified. I could give them an arbitrary test that has little if any bearing on their ability to shine shoes and then rank them according to that. But that doesn't mean the shoeshiner who comes in 10th place on my little test is unqualified.

You also talk about the metrics chosen--the point of this whole thread is that the metrics chosen are MORE than just grades and a competition. 1L grades don't seem to correlate strongly with the skills needed to be successful on LR, and a LR competition only modestly better. Taking into account other factors, as most journals do, is likely to yield more qualified staff members than just the two narrow criteria you identify.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12139334)

I guess whether these applicants are "far less qualified" really depends on the LR we're talking about. I do think AA on LR is not nearly as robust as in admissions, so I think there is something to your argument.

However, the rhetorical device that AA is merely a tie-breaker among similary qualified applicants is more often a lie than an actual depiction of reality. The difference in treatment is usually quite amazing (if not unqualified, the candidate is usually MUCH less qualified than his non-URM peers).

The inescapable truth is that if AA was only needed to push an otherwise qualified applicant over the arbitrary line then AA wouldn't be needed in the first place--there wouldn't be a paucity of URMs in elite law schools, or law review, etc. If there are significant numbers of URMs just outside the qualification line, well, then I AA would not be needed in the first place because there would be significant numbers of URMS over the line as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12139511)

Second, I'm skeptical of your implied claim above that preferring members of a certain race is the same (or at least, in the same genre) as preferring members who otherwise have accomplished things in their life. Do you really believe this is true, or do you think that race is just a proxy for other, more substantive, criteria? If so, I think that a much better process is to judge a person's actual experiences, which is exactly what I did when I graded our LR submissions.

I like your free-market analogy, although I am not sure that it is accurate because LR was (and is still) considered an academic signal. But there's a flip-side: if you cloud up the criteria for admission to LR beyond grades, writing ability, and life experience, employers eventually will want to know what your criteria so that they can accurately price your product. So, while I agree that the OP really should know the criteria for LR admission, my guess is that this criteria may not be something that will be "good" for LRs in the long-term, if you consider them to be a business.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12141101)

first, we're talking lrev here, not a secondary journal. by its very nature, it will always attract the largest amount of applicants, no matter what.

second, you haven't fleshed out the argument of why an URM would be so discouraged by the lack of aesthetic diversity on lrev that s/he would not even bother to apply. i can't speak for every school, but what candidates need to do to apply for lrev is materially indistinguishable from what they need to do to apply to every other journal. it's simply a question of printing out a couple more copies of your write-on submission.

the only plausible argument is that this hypothetical URM would be SO offended by the lack of aesthetic diversity on lrev that s/he would not even want to be associated with it. the argument is fine, but i think you'd need to produce a living, breathing person who actually embodies this viewpoint AND produces evidence that they were offered a spot on lrev and declined.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12140301)

http://www.law.wisc.edu/academics/courses/desc.php?iCatnbr=899&iTerm=1082-A1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138187)

Obviously the firm can look at the resume AND transcript.

If they still give an interview based solely on a person's resume, then that is entirely the firm's fault.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138272)

Obviously they don't put the same value and emphasis on grades and gpa as the OP does, otherwise they would review the resume AND transcript before giving an interview.

Law Firms know what the deal is in terms of AA, hell many of them have consulted their clients on how to structure AA-policies.

The OP is just pissed because somebody is enjoying the same level of success that he is, but they didn't follow his exact path and now he wants to cry foul.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138385)

You are gettin' defensive for no reason.

I said that Law Firms that give interviews based on the words "Law Review" on a person's resume and FAIL to examine that student's GPA obviously do not have this pristine image of LR being the end-all be-all for law.

In other words, that particular Law Firm just wants someone who is on Law Review because they recognize the marketable power of those two words.

If they don't look at a person's gpa (a better predictor of work ethic) then they don't see Law Review as an accurate demonstration of one's intellectual prowess. They simply see Law Review for its marketability.

To those firms. They want to put the words LAW REVIEW on their website for the same reason they want to put a MINORITY on their website: Because clients love it!

Nothing more, and nothing less.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138525)

Moreover, you still seem to be missing the point. You think of LR as just a signal. It's true that it is a signal and that is very, very important. But the main value of LR comes from the experience and connections it gives its members, as well as evidencing skills and traits not usually represented in a GPA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138577)

Second, as I've repeatedly tried to say, people are generally not getting on journals only because of their race.

Third, you imply LR membership is valuable only as a signal for qualifications going in. That's wrong. Firms could just get from writing samples or transcripts. LR is valuable to employers mainly because of the experience. It doesn't matter how someone got there, the valuable part is that they were there and are more qualified after two years on the journal than they would be had they not been there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12138547)

Sure, you have a few friends at WLRK not on LR. But they're pretty exceptional. I think more than 80% of WLRK associates were on LR.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12139396)

LOL... love that being on Law Review = enjoying life in your mind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12145741)

Acknowledging the benefits of diversity and making institutional efforts to insure that multiple viewpoints are represented is all well and good, but when it's simply dictated by PR - and it is in this case, despite some noble efforts to argue otherwise - it's demeaning to everybody involved.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12139459)

but we were required to write a personal statement - where people bullshit about their 'diversity'

yet it officially counts for 10%. (don't know if it actually weighs more)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12141992)

just don't be on the margin

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12144472)

But a lot of people here have been calling me out on my statement that "below median URMs" are getting on to LR because of AA. This is not something I made up or exaggerated to bolster my argument; in fact this whole thread was born out of a conversation I had with a URM poster in another thread. The poster admitted to being below median, yet getting onto LR because of AA.

The thread is here:

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031277&mc=26&forum_id=2

edit: fuck, apparently the OP from that thread deleted all their comments. but you can get the idea from my responses.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031666&forum_id=2#12144644)