Do you believe that anyone at all can get a law degree if they have top-notch professors ? Or is some level of innate ability required ?
I believe some level of innate ability is required. I would expect that someone who has got into law school in the first place has demonstrated some level of innate ability.
I also know of no scientific basis to suppose that legal reasoning capacity is correlated with melanin production.
Unlike some social disadvantages and the phenomenon of 'stereotype threat', both of which are correlated with melanin production, and both of which would clearly be capable of affecting performance in law school.
Addendum: At least 2 of the podcasts I listen to have, at different times, discussed how simply getting African-American students into colleges that they've historically not been at is not enough. There are whole support structures that they lack once they get there, in comparison to students who always expected to be in those places. Family support, financial support, peer support.
College/university is difficult, especially in these top schools, and the fact that you got in the door is just the start. Being a smart individual doesn't inherently prepare you for entering that space without a support network. If students of colour are struggling, it's not because they're inherently less able than their white counterparts, it's because success is not simply a question of innate ability.
Currently some UK universities use postcodes to target students from deprived areas. My eldest son received a letter from one uni to say his offer had been improved because of our address. We were initially baffled because we live in Cambridge but then realised it was because we live on a council estate. This approach meant my working class, mixed race niece, with single non-graduate parent, got an improved offer from Cambridge. However, she declined it, and this is apparently a big problem with Oxbridge offers to non-traditional applicants; they decline them because they don’t feel they will fit in.
The evidence of the upper classes is that a crammer and a bucket load of self-confidence can make up for a lot. There does appear to be some genetic components that make learning easier or harder but these can be overcome.
It's well-known that genes for walloping people over the head with sharpened pieces of metal while wearing heavy metallic clothing also enable strong performance in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.
I'm suggesting that of the subjects one could study in higher education, law is a relatively demanding one. And that if you relax the admission criteria for black people in the name of "affirmative action", then you will get some black students who've got what it takes and some who haven't. Leading to a cluster of under-performing black students at the bottom of the class.
Given my low opinion of law and lawyers, I don't share your premise. However, I do have some sympathy for your conclusion. Unlike, say, biochemistry, one's success as a lawyer may well hinge on how well you appear to reflect the mores of the upper class of your society. There is so little external truth underlying the enterprise -- it is substantially a reflection of how thoroughly one embodies the perceived social order. In such an enterprise, speaking, say, ebonics or cockney, may seriously undermine one's effectiveness. If your success in your field depends upon what happens in a test tube, such social stumbling blocks (while real and problematic) are much less endemic to the enterprise. Or so ISTM.
However, she declined it, and this is apparently a big problem with Oxbridge offers to non-traditional applicants; they decline them because they don’t feel they will fit in.
If people are turning down an Oxbridge offer because they don't think they have the right background, or the right accent, then that's a shame. And I know both universities have programs that try to combat that, and the numbers are shifting. In recent years, between 30 and 40% of undergraduates have come from public schools. That's a rather larger proportion than the 7% of children who are educated in public schools, but the perception that it's all about Brideshead and the Bullingdon Club is false.
That said, Oxford and Cambridge, and similar institutions in other countries, offer a rather more intense academic experience than some other universities, and that's not a good fit for everyone. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to be "bright enough" to get in to Oxford or Cambridge, but prefer a slightly more relaxed environment.
That said, Oxford and Cambridge, and similar institutions in other countries, offer a rather more intense academic experience than some other universities, and that's not a good fit for everyone.
And yet, the dull normals of the upper classes seem to glide through, untouched by any recognizable educational achievement. Go figure.
I'm suggesting that of the subjects one could study in higher education, law is a relatively demanding one. And that if you relax the admission criteria for black people in the name of "affirmative action", then you will get some black students who've got what it takes and some who haven't. Leading to a cluster of under-performing black students at the bottom of the class.
Given my low opinion of law and lawyers, I don't share your premise. However, I do have some sympathy for your conclusion. Unlike, say, biochemistry, one's success as a lawyer may well hinge on how well you appear to reflect the mores of the upper class of your society. There is so little external truth underlying the enterprise -- it is substantially a reflection of how thoroughly one embodies the perceived social order. In such an enterprise, speaking, say, ebonics or cockney, may seriously undermine one's effectiveness. If your success in your field depends upon what happens in a test tube, such social stumbling blocks (while real and problematic) are much less endemic to the enterprise. Or so ISTM.
Thank you for that thorough insult and caricature of my profession [/sarcasm]
I have a science degree as well as a law degree, by the way, majoring in biochemistry, so I'm familiar with "what happens in a test tube" as well. Though I think you'll find most biochemistry happens in living things and test tubes might not often be involved in studying it. Sounds more like something the inorganic chemists would be fiddling with, though even then it sounds more like another caricature, in films where you get all these bubbling coloured liquids.
Putting all THAT to one side, the premise that somehow social interactions disappear if you're working away in a lab bears little resemblance to the real world. Science happens in teams.
Comments
I believe some level of innate ability is required. I would expect that someone who has got into law school in the first place has demonstrated some level of innate ability.
I also know of no scientific basis to suppose that legal reasoning capacity is correlated with melanin production.
Unlike some social disadvantages and the phenomenon of 'stereotype threat', both of which are correlated with melanin production, and both of which would clearly be capable of affecting performance in law school.
College/university is difficult, especially in these top schools, and the fact that you got in the door is just the start. Being a smart individual doesn't inherently prepare you for entering that space without a support network. If students of colour are struggling, it's not because they're inherently less able than their white counterparts, it's because success is not simply a question of innate ability.
Given my low opinion of law and lawyers, I don't share your premise. However, I do have some sympathy for your conclusion. Unlike, say, biochemistry, one's success as a lawyer may well hinge on how well you appear to reflect the mores of the upper class of your society. There is so little external truth underlying the enterprise -- it is substantially a reflection of how thoroughly one embodies the perceived social order. In such an enterprise, speaking, say, ebonics or cockney, may seriously undermine one's effectiveness. If your success in your field depends upon what happens in a test tube, such social stumbling blocks (while real and problematic) are much less endemic to the enterprise. Or so ISTM.
If people are turning down an Oxbridge offer because they don't think they have the right background, or the right accent, then that's a shame. And I know both universities have programs that try to combat that, and the numbers are shifting. In recent years, between 30 and 40% of undergraduates have come from public schools. That's a rather larger proportion than the 7% of children who are educated in public schools, but the perception that it's all about Brideshead and the Bullingdon Club is false.
That said, Oxford and Cambridge, and similar institutions in other countries, offer a rather more intense academic experience than some other universities, and that's not a good fit for everyone. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to be "bright enough" to get in to Oxford or Cambridge, but prefer a slightly more relaxed environment.
And yet, the dull normals of the upper classes seem to glide through, untouched by any recognizable educational achievement. Go figure.
Thank you for that thorough insult and caricature of my profession [/sarcasm]
I have a science degree as well as a law degree, by the way, majoring in biochemistry, so I'm familiar with "what happens in a test tube" as well. Though I think you'll find most biochemistry happens in living things and test tubes might not often be involved in studying it. Sounds more like something the inorganic chemists would be fiddling with, though even then it sounds more like another caricature, in films where you get all these bubbling coloured liquids.
Putting all THAT to one side, the premise that somehow social interactions disappear if you're working away in a lab bears little resemblance to the real world. Science happens in teams.