Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Oct '17 14:02
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/10/la-times-editorial-lower-the-cut-score-to-increase-diversity-of-the-bar.html

    According to this article, California will lower the standards to pass the bar exam in order to usher in more minorities into the law profession, which is over 80% white.

    Is this racist?
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Oct '17 14:19 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/10/la-times-editorial-lower-the-cut-score-to-increase-diversity-of-the-bar.html

    According to this article, California will lower the standards to pass the bar exam in order to usher in more minorities into the law profession, which is over 80% white.

    Is this racist?
    No.

    You may wish to believe that a high score equates to a more competent or intelligent lawyer but the evidence cited in this report says you would be wrong.

    You may also wish to believe that the reason this very high score (higher than other states) discriminates against non white candidates has to do with their intelligence or their suitability for the profession, but you would be unable to show us any evidence for that claim.

    When a test score fails to identify better lawyers but does have the effect of discriminating against non white candidates, then that test score is unhelpful and should be changed. Simple.

    The object is not to discriminate in favour or non white candidates but to stop discriminating against them with a test that has no evidence of a link with the quality of lawyers it provides.

    The current test is a spurious display of scientific measurement to convince idiots like you without meaning anything.
  3. 16 Oct '17 15:50
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    No.

    You may wish to believe that a high score equates to a more competent or intelligent lawyer but the evidence cited in this report says you would be wrong.

    You may also wish to believe that the reason this very high score (higher than other states) discriminates against non white candidates has to do with their intelligence or their suitability ...[text shortened]... spurious display of scientific measurement to convince idiots like you without meaning anything.
    I still don't understand.

    Whether or not a test score equates to competency has nothing to do with this The fact is, they watered down the scores in order to get more minorities into the profession.

    This to me screams racism
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    16 Oct '17 18:03
    Originally posted by @whodey
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/10/la-times-editorial-lower-the-cut-score-to-increase-diversity-of-the-bar.html

    According to this article, California will lower the standards to pass the bar exam in order to usher in more minorities into the law profession, which is over 80% white.

    Is this racist?
    Where in the article does it say this is being done to favor minorities? Can you quote the exact section, I read the article and don't see what you're claiming.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Oct '17 18:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I still don't understand.

    Whether or not a test score equates to competency has nothing to do with this The fact is, they watered down the scores in order to get more minorities into the profession.

    This to me screams racism
    You are just perverse. Removing a discriminatory practice which gives white candidates an unfair and arbitrary advantage over non white candidates is not at all the same as introducing a method of giving non white candidates any advantage over white ones. It is just obstinate racism on your part to misrepresent things the way you insist on doing here.

    What you seem to be advocating is that a discriminatory test, which does not in fact serve its stated purpose by separating out better from worse candidates for a legal career, and with a pass mark which is excessively high compared with practice in other states, should be retained, even though this would serve no good purpose and would in fact exclude non white candidates from the legal proofession for irrational and unjustifiable reasons.

    Put that more simply. You are angry that California wants to stop discriminating in favour of white candidates. You want to preserve white privilege. You are the racist and a pest on this forum with your persistent lies.
  6. 16 Oct '17 18:51
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    You are just perverse. Removing a discriminatory practice which gives white candidates an unfair and arbitrary advantage over non white candidates is not at all the same as introducing a method of giving non white candidates any advantage over white ones. It is just obstinate racism on your part to misrepresent things the way you insist on doing here.
    ...[text shortened]... eserve white privilege. You are the racist and a pest on this forum with your persistent lies.
    If California wants to lower its standards because it wants more attorneys, that's their prerogative. But there was no evidence presented that the test was in anyway discriminatory and if the goal, as implied was simply to get more minorities (regardless of whether they would be adequate attorneys) than it seems like an awfully bad idea.
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Oct '17 18:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    If California wants to lower its standards because it wants more attorneys, that's their prerogative. But there was no evidence presented that the test was in anyway discriminatory and if the goal, as implied was simply to get more minorities (regardless of whether they would be adequate attorneys) than it seems like an awfully bad idea.
    That post suggest you have literacy issues.

    The evidence of being discriminatory was firstly in the fact that a lower boundary would admit significantly more non white candidates and secondly that other states had a lower boundary and did indeed attract a better mix of candidates. Any procedure which favours white candidates over non white candidates is by definition discriminatory - it discriminates!

    Beyond that the source given by whodey asks if the test discriminates in order to select better candidates and found that is not the case. Indeed, it asked for evidence, not yet available, that this test was anything other than an arbitrary procedure without merit.

    So it is discriminating and it has no justification.

    What more do you want? I can answer this one - no amount of factual or reasoned evidence will make the least dent in your white supremacist walnut sized brain.
  8. 16 Oct '17 19:12
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Where in the article does it say this is being done to favor minorities? Can you quote the exact section, I read the article and don't see what you're claiming.
    More specifically, the unusually high cut score — the term that the testing establishment gives to the line that separates those who pass from those who don’t — means California’s bar is disproportionately white.

    A study of the July 2016 exam showed that reducing California’s cut score from 1440 to the national median of 1350 would have increased the number of successful African American exam-takers by 113%. There would have been a 75% increase in success for Latinos, and 58% for Asians. Of course more white exam-takers would have passed using the national median as well – 42% more. But the ranks of lawyers in this state would have been a bit more representative of the population that enters and graduates from law school, and the population of clients who need legal counsel
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    16 Oct '17 19:19
    Originally posted by @whodey
    More specifically, the unusually high cut score — the term that the testing establishment gives to the line that separates those who pass from those who don’t — means California’s bar is disproportionately white.

    A study of the July 2016 exam showed that reducing California’s cut score from 1440 to the national median of 1350 would have increased the numb ...[text shortened]... that enters and graduates from law school, and the population of clients who need legal counsel
    So your OP about the exam being lowered and minorities is misleading. You made it seem like it's being lowered *because* they want more minorities.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-09-07/california-supreme-court-to-decide-bar-exam-passing-score

    The article shows that the test is being lowered simply because not enough people are passing. Nothing about minorities.
  10. 16 Oct '17 19:26
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    That post suggest you have literacy issues.

    The evidence of being discriminatory was firstly in the fact that a lower boundary would admit significantly more non white candidates and secondly that other states had a lower boundary and did indeed attract a better mix of candidates. Any procedure which favours white candidates over non white candidates ...[text shortened]... tual or reasoned evidence will make the least dent in your white supremacist walnut sized brain.
    As long as you are being obnoxious, I'll point out that your post shows that you are both illiterate and unable to reason.
    It appears in California that a disproportionate (and somewhat) staggering percentage of the minorities who take the bar are unable to pass the test so much so that decreasing the score would increase African American by 113%, 75% for Latinos, and 58% for Asians while only increase whites by 42%. It would make far more sense to (1) determine if the test is or isn't appropriate (2) determine if California wants or doesn't want to have more attorneys if it does so by lowering its standards.
    When you need an attorney you need a good one, not one of a particular skin color.
  11. 16 Oct '17 19:39
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    No.

    You may wish to believe that a high score equates to a more competent or intelligent lawyer but the evidence cited in this report says you would be wrong.

    You may also wish to believe that the reason this very high score (higher than other states) discriminates against non white candidates has to do with their intelligence or their suitability ...[text shortened]... spurious display of scientific measurement to convince idiots like you without meaning anything.
    What we really need to do is get rid of testing altogether.
  12. 16 Oct '17 19:45
    Originally posted by @eladar
    What we really need to do is get rid of testing altogether.
    You don't think tests ever show whether someone has certain qualifications or credentials?
  13. 16 Oct '17 19:47
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    You don't think tests ever show whether someone has certain qualifications or credentials?
    I think we need to make up our minds if we care about qualifications or not. If you want to lower scores for racist reasons, then why have it at all. Obviously the test wasn't needed to begin with and is only preventing people from working.
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Oct '17 19:52
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I still don't understand.

    Whether or not a test score equates to competency has nothing to do with this The fact is, they watered down the scores in order to get more minorities into the profession.

    This to me screams racism
    For the minorities my guess is it screams OPPORTUNITY.
  15. 16 Oct '17 20:06
    Originally posted by @vivify
    So your OP about the exam being lowered and minorities is misleading. You made it seem like it's being lowered *because* they want more minorities.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-09-07/california-supreme-court-to-decide-bar-exam-passing-score

    The article shows that the test is being lowered simply because not enough people are passing. Nothing about minorities.
    This is the heading of the article.

    L.A. Times Editorial: Lower The Cut Score To Increase Diversity Of The Bar

    Now who is being misleading?