Well the minorities all support it, and then the self hating whites all support it, and that probably gets you to 50%
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/IVOY2BJLE5L5XLZX2RJBSSYU3A.jpg)
Just what the world needs, more lawyersLaw schools embrace LSAT alternatives after affirmative action ban
By Karen Sloan | December 13, 2023
A statue of John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore and founder of Georgetown University
A growing number of law schools are experimenting with small-scale admissions programs that don’t rely on the Law School Admission Test — a move they hope will broaden their applicant pools and bolster diversity.
Georgetown University Law Center and Washburn University School of Law this month won American Bar Association approval to begin admitting some students without considering the LSAT, while the accrediting body also granted 14 more law schools permission to admit students through the fledgling JD-Next program — an eight-week series of online legal courses that culminates in an exam.
Altogether, 47 schools of the 197 ABA-accredited U.S. law schools have been cleared to use JD-Next in admissions this year.
Those programs come amid turmoil in college admissions and uncertainty about the LSAT. The ABA in 2022 moved to get rid of its longstanding requirement that law schools use the LSAT in admissions, only to pause that effort in May after many legal educators said the move would open the door for schools to admit students who are unlikely to graduate and pass the bar exam.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision banning race-conscious admissions has also prompted law schools to consider how to bring in diverse classes without taking race into account.
Administrators behind these LSAT alternatives say they are looking for ways to identify promising law students for whom that test poses a hurdle and bring in more diverse applicants. Critics say the LSAT is a barrier for aspiring minority lawyers because on average those individuals score below white test-takers, and because law schools rely too heavily on those scores. LSAT critics say the exam is biased, while others say score gaps reflect larger racial disparities within the education system. A 2019 study found the average score for Black LSAT takers was 142, compared with 153 for white and Asian test-takers.
The Law School Admission Council, which produces the LSAT, has consistently maintained that its exam is the single best predictor of law school performance.
The Supreme Court in June ruled that applicants may discuss their race in personal statements, but colleges and universities cannot make admissions decisions based on race — a change experts say will make it more difficult for law schools to bring in diverse classes.
Georgetown is planning to admit up to 10 students into its part-time evening program without any standardized test scores, said dean of admissions Andy Cornblatt. His office instead will rely on their life and work experience to make admissions decisions, since nearly all part-time applicants are non-traditional students with careers.
“Were we missing out on people who otherwise would be very interested in law school, but for whom taking the LSAT felt like climbing Mount Everest?” Cornblatt said.
Washburn Law’s program is limited to Washburn University undergraduates with a minimum grade-point average of either 3.3 or 3.5 (the school is still working out the details), said interim law dean Jeffrey Jackson. Applicants who meet those criteria are guaranteed admission. They still must take the LSAT, with those scores playing into merit aid decisions, but Washburn won’t consider their scores in admissions, Jackson said. That should relieve some pressure and allow them to do their best on the exam, he added.
Among the 14 newly approved schools to use JD-Next are Boston College Law School; Emory University School of Law; and George Washington University Law School.
Law schools embrace LSAT alternatives after affirmative action ban
By Karen Sloan | December 13, 2023
A statue of John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore and founder of Georgetown University
A growing number of law schools are experimenting with small-scale admissions programs that don’t rely on the Law School Admission Test — a move they hope will broaden their applicant pools and bolster diversity.
Georgetown University Law Center and Washburn University School of Law this month won American Bar Association approval to begin admitting some students without considering the LSAT, while the accrediting body also granted 14 more law schools permission to admit students through the fledgling JD-Next program — an eight-week series of online legal courses that culminates in an exam.
Altogether, 47 schools of the 197 ABA-accredited U.S. law schools have been cleared to use JD-Next in admissions this year.
Those programs come amid turmoil in college admissions and uncertainty about the LSAT. The ABA in 2022 moved to get rid of its longstanding requirement that law schools use the LSAT in admissions, only to pause that effort in May after many legal educators said the move would open the door for schools to admit students who are unlikely to graduate and pass the bar exam.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision banning race-conscious admissions has also prompted law schools to consider how to bring in diverse classes without taking race into account.
Administrators behind these LSAT alternatives say they are looking for ways to identify promising law students for whom that test poses a hurdle and bring in more diverse applicants. Critics say the LSAT is a barrier for aspiring minority lawyers because on average those individuals score below white test-takers, and because law schools rely too heavily on those scores. LSAT critics say the exam is biased, while others say score gaps reflect larger racial disparities within the education system. A 2019 study found the average score for Black LSAT takers was 142, compared with 153 for white and Asian test-takers.
The Law School Admission Council, which produces the LSAT, has consistently maintained that its exam is the single best predictor of law school performance.
The Supreme Court in June ruled that applicants may discuss their race in personal statements, but colleges and universities cannot make admissions decisions based on race — a change experts say will make it more difficult for law schools to bring in diverse classes.
Georgetown is planning to admit up to 10 students into its part-time evening program without any standardized test scores, said dean of admissions Andy Cornblatt. His office instead will rely on their life and work experience to make admissions decisions, since nearly all part-time applicants are non-traditional students with careers.
“Were we missing out on people who otherwise would be very interested in law school, but for whom taking the LSAT felt like climbing Mount Everest?” Cornblatt said.
Washburn Law’s program is limited to Washburn University undergraduates with a minimum grade-point average of either 3.3 or 3.5 (the school is still working out the details), said interim law dean Jeffrey Jackson. Applicants who meet those criteria are guaranteed admission. They still must take the LSAT, with those scores playing into merit aid decisions, but Washburn won’t consider their scores in admissions, Jackson said. That should relieve some pressure and allow them to do their best on the exam, he added.
Among the 14 newly approved schools to use JD-Next are Boston College Law School; Emory University School of Law; and George Washington University Law School.
I don't understand this. Is anyone actually auditing the admissions process? What's stopping harvard from rejecting a white kid with a 170 and letting in a black kid with a 160?
www.newsweek.com
shut up racist!!
still boggles my mind that my Asian brethren still support the left. When are we going to learn? I mean, fuck these people. Racist pieces of shit.How The University of Washington Discriminated Against White And Asian Candidates
By Sean O'Driscoll, Senior Crime and Courts Reporter | Jan 04, 2024
The University of Washington has revealed that "an internal whistleblower" exposed discrimination against white and Asian job candidates in its psychology faculty.
An internal report found that a third-placed job applicant, who was Black, was given a tenure-track assistant professor job last April, above white and Asian candidates who were ranked higher in the selection process.
Other violations included excluding white staff from meetings with job candidates, deleting a passage from a hiring report to hide discrimination, and discussing ways to "think our way around" a Supreme Court ruling that barred affirmative action in colleges.
A UW spokeswoman told Newsweek on Thursday that the case was exposed when "the dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, responding to an internal whistleblower, requested an internal review of this process by what was then called UCIRO (University Complaints, Investigation and Resolution Office) and is now the Civil Rights Investigation Office."
The psychology faculty has been barred from hiring tenured staff for two years as a result.
The UW report found that when five finalists for a tenure-track assistant professor position were selected in January 2023, they were due to be interviewed by the Women Faculty and Faculty of Color groups.
The report also said a member of the Faculty of Color did not want any white women at the meeting and complained that the interviews were "awkward" when there was a white candidate. The names of everyone involved are redacted from the UW report.
"As a person who has been on both sides of the table for these meetings, I have really appreciated them," the person wrote in an email. "Buuut, when the candidate is White, it is just awkward. The last meeting was uncomfortable, and I would go as far as burdensome for me. Can we change the policy to not do these going forward with White faculty?"
In 1998, Washington state passed a referendum banning race-based hiring in universities, which appears to have been ignored by the psychology department.
The report suggests that faculty members tried to hide the extent to which race was considered, including in the hiring report.
"I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [name redacted] noted)," one email read, according to the report.
An unnamed person wrote in another email, in March, that they were inclined to hold Faculty of Color meetings just for candidates of color.
This person also wanted some way around the then-pending 2023 case of Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race as a basis for college admission. The case was taken by a group of Asian-American students who had unsuccessfully applied to Harvard.
"My inclination is to hold these meetings only for POC [People of Color] candidates. I'm also mindful that our Provost is now getting anxious about anything that's directed to only some identity groups (i.e., they are getting worried about fallout from the pending Supreme Court affirmative action rulings)," this person wrote in an email.
"My read is that they'll get fearful of litigation and overcorrect into colorblindness. Maybe our committee can preemptively think our way around this type of future directive," the faculty member wrote.
The university's public record office had planned to release staff emails on December 14 to John Sailer, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning National Association of Scholars, an organization which campaigns against race-based admissions and hiring policies in universities.
In an email seen by Newsweek, the public records office informed Sailer that the requested records won't be released in full until April 26, 2024.
The UW spokeswoman told Newsweek on Thursday that "Mr. Sailer's first public records request on this was submitted on April 5, 2023.
"These requests are processed on a first-in, first-out basis and some are more complicated than others; his request was quite comprehensive, requiring significant review and redaction considerations, and as a result, it is still in progress. Mr. Sailer also has seven active records requests and these, again, are being processed on a first-in, first-out basis."
The university announced on its website that the psychology department is now "barred from conducting searches for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions" for at least two years, "subject to review by the Provost's Office."
It also said the department will "undergo a comprehensive review and revision of its hiring processes," and all department members "will receive training on how to conduct searches consistent with law and policy."
"The University is taking personnel action to address individual actions," the statement added. "These proceedings are confidential."
A substantial number of redacted emails are included in the university's report, which was released on October 31 and is published on its website.
Sailer told Newsweek the UW report "shows universities — professors and administrators alike — discriminate with a total sense of impunity. It's an egregious example, notable for how much is in writing, but it really is just one more example."
"This kind of discrimination in the name of "equity" is commonplace, even when blatantly illegal. And that's instructive in light of Students For Fair Admissions," he said.
"UW insists that its investigation had nothing to do with my public records request. I'm not so sure about that. After all, until its investigation, administrators from the university promoted the psychology department's hiring framework, which the university has now deemed to be in violation of its non-discrimination policy. That's a big reversal," he said.
On its website, UW's psychology department lists its first mission as promoting social equity "by investigating biased attitudes, inequities, and disparities... by redesigning organizational practice" and "by solving social justice issues."
How major university discriminated against white and Asian candidates
A Black candidate was given a tenure-track job above white and Asian applicants who were ranked higher in the selection process.
How The University of Washington Discriminated Against White And Asian Candidates
By Sean O'Driscoll, Senior Crime and Courts Reporter | Jan 04, 2024
The University of Washington has revealed that "an internal whistleblower" exposed discrimination against white and Asian job candidates in its psychology faculty.
An internal report found that a third-placed job applicant, who was Black, was given a tenure-track assistant professor job last April, above white and Asian candidates who were ranked higher in the selection process.
Other violations included excluding white staff from meetings with job candidates, deleting a passage from a hiring report to hide discrimination, and discussing ways to "think our way around" a Supreme Court ruling that barred affirmative action in colleges.
A UW spokeswoman told Newsweek on Thursday that the case was exposed when "the dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, responding to an internal whistleblower, requested an internal review of this process by what was then called UCIRO (University Complaints, Investigation and Resolution Office) and is now the Civil Rights Investigation Office."
The psychology faculty has been barred from hiring tenured staff for two years as a result.
The UW report found that when five finalists for a tenure-track assistant professor position were selected in January 2023, they were due to be interviewed by the Women Faculty and Faculty of Color groups.
The report also said a member of the Faculty of Color did not want any white women at the meeting and complained that the interviews were "awkward" when there was a white candidate. The names of everyone involved are redacted from the UW report.
"As a person who has been on both sides of the table for these meetings, I have really appreciated them," the person wrote in an email. "Buuut, when the candidate is White, it is just awkward. The last meeting was uncomfortable, and I would go as far as burdensome for me. Can we change the policy to not do these going forward with White faculty?"
In 1998, Washington state passed a referendum banning race-based hiring in universities, which appears to have been ignored by the psychology department.
The report suggests that faculty members tried to hide the extent to which race was considered, including in the hiring report.
"I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [name redacted] noted)," one email read, according to the report.
An unnamed person wrote in another email, in March, that they were inclined to hold Faculty of Color meetings just for candidates of color.
This person also wanted some way around the then-pending 2023 case of Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race as a basis for college admission. The case was taken by a group of Asian-American students who had unsuccessfully applied to Harvard.
"My inclination is to hold these meetings only for POC [People of Color] candidates. I'm also mindful that our Provost is now getting anxious about anything that's directed to only some identity groups (i.e., they are getting worried about fallout from the pending Supreme Court affirmative action rulings)," this person wrote in an email.
"My read is that they'll get fearful of litigation and overcorrect into colorblindness. Maybe our committee can preemptively think our way around this type of future directive," the faculty member wrote.
The university's public record office had planned to release staff emails on December 14 to John Sailer, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning National Association of Scholars, an organization which campaigns against race-based admissions and hiring policies in universities.
In an email seen by Newsweek, the public records office informed Sailer that the requested records won't be released in full until April 26, 2024.
The UW spokeswoman told Newsweek on Thursday that "Mr. Sailer's first public records request on this was submitted on April 5, 2023.
"These requests are processed on a first-in, first-out basis and some are more complicated than others; his request was quite comprehensive, requiring significant review and redaction considerations, and as a result, it is still in progress. Mr. Sailer also has seven active records requests and these, again, are being processed on a first-in, first-out basis."
The university announced on its website that the psychology department is now "barred from conducting searches for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions" for at least two years, "subject to review by the Provost's Office."
It also said the department will "undergo a comprehensive review and revision of its hiring processes," and all department members "will receive training on how to conduct searches consistent with law and policy."
"The University is taking personnel action to address individual actions," the statement added. "These proceedings are confidential."
A substantial number of redacted emails are included in the university's report, which was released on October 31 and is published on its website.
Sailer told Newsweek the UW report "shows universities — professors and administrators alike — discriminate with a total sense of impunity. It's an egregious example, notable for how much is in writing, but it really is just one more example."
"This kind of discrimination in the name of "equity" is commonplace, even when blatantly illegal. And that's instructive in light of Students For Fair Admissions," he said.
"UW insists that its investigation had nothing to do with my public records request. I'm not so sure about that. After all, until its investigation, administrators from the university promoted the psychology department's hiring framework, which the university has now deemed to be in violation of its non-discrimination policy. That's a big reversal," he said.
On its website, UW's psychology department lists its first mission as promoting social equity "by investigating biased attitudes, inequities, and disparities... by redesigning organizational practice" and "by solving social justice issues."
How major university discriminated against white and Asian candidates
A Black candidate was given a tenure-track job above white and Asian applicants who were ranked higher in the selection process.
It's an assembly line of fucking up. Start out by giving some unqualified people who check boxes important jobs for "diversity hire" points or whatever, then those people hire more like minded unqualified people, and then before you know it, they're running the show. You see this shit everywhere. Just a race to the bottom. What's the point or the end goal? I don't know.
