In class last week we discussed certain quotas in regards to admissions and law schools. I was wondering what the general consensus was on the idea of a quota? Do you think it is fair? Should we or shouldn't we have them?
I think my own personal belief mirrors that of someone in class (I forget who mentioned it), that is, I think by time one reaches law school it ought to be the best individuals selected for admission, whether they be all white, all black, all female, or all male; in other words, I am not partial toward the idea of a quota. While I do believe different minorities, genders, and races need to be represented in a law school to have some type of diversity in outlook and disposition, I think is more important to have quality candidates, individuals who are "the cream of the crop" so to say. Perhaps this is merely a personal opinion I hold, but I think the prevalence of racism and prejudice (while it may never fully disappear) have been mitigated by a changing, more accepting generation that we call our own. Think about it: We have an African-American President! The times are changing.
As previously mentioned I do believe minorities, genders, and races deserve a voice within a classroom. But perhaps issues like quotas should be had with lower levels of eduction, something more along the lines of undergraduate admissions. Basically, I think by the time one reaches law school--which is usually around 22,23 assuming you enroll upon completion of undergraduate education--things like race and gender should not matter; instead areas like GPA, the LSAT, and activities/work experience should matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree to an extent with your post. I believe that law school and grad school admittance should not have anything to do with someone's race or gender, but should rather reflect on the level of work that they have done to prepare themselves for the next step in their education. On the other hand, I do not believe that these factors should be considered when admitting undergraduates either. Too often a student who has the same grades and credentials as a student who is a minority will not be offered the same admittance. This is due to university's attempts to "diversify" their campuses. In my mind, a university should consist of students with similar levels of education and intelligence and admittance should have nothing to do with one's gender or race.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you're saying: the best and brightest should be admitted, regardless of race. Ethnicity and cultural background are interesting and important parts of a person, and those should be considered when admitting a person, but there should not be quotas for certain numbers of people of certain races. Should there be a certain amount of overweight people and underweight people, of tall people and short people, of gay people and straight people? Definitely not! The same goes for race.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a point when quotas become reverse racism. I do not support the idea that a lesser-qualified person can have an opportunity that the better-qualified person doesn't. However, it is clear that something must be devised to help more people who are minorities become more qualified. I think it needs to start long before the person reaches college.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go with what Chris Rock says about affirmative action: "I don't think I should get into a better school than a white person if I get a worse grade on a test. I don't think I should get a better job than a white person if I get a lower grade on a test. But if there's a tie... fuck 'em. You had a 200 year head start." He's pretty much right. A lot of minorities are so disadvantaged compared with whites that if there's a tie, it means they actually won. May the best man win.
ReplyDelete