Affirmative Action in Law Schools - Are the Curtains Being Pulled Back?

In today's society here in the USA, all practicing attorneys had to first get into a law school, then complete the course of study, typically three years, to obtain a Juris Doctor degree. Upon graduating from law school, a prospective attorney had to then apply to take a written bar examination, passing a stringent "moral character" background check.  If all went well, then the prospective attorney got to sit for a three day written bar exam.  The test results are released several months later.  If a test taker passes the exam, then the prospective applicant is sworn into the practice of law, pays a yearly fee, and voila, an attorney is born.  There is no requirement for residency, or apprenticeship, or anything similar.  Passing the bar exam = licensed attorney, simple as that.
 
But, like everything, not all attorneys are the same, duh.  Like anything else, there is a pecking order amongst the practicing attorneys.  Like college football, the better prospects are coveted by the better teams, and there is a ranking order among them all.  
 
Same for law school graduates.  The biggest and best law firms out there, seek out the graduates from the top law schools, which costs upwards of a hundred thousand dollars to attend, if not substantially more.  They do so because the big firms can charge their big clients big hourly rates based on the near slave-like work conditions expected out of those worker-bee big firm lawyers.  Think of the lawyers defending JPM.  Those lawyers are from the elite schools, the Ivy League, Harvard, Yale, etc.  No big firm hiring partner is looking for an attorney from a tiny, regional state run law school.  No way.  And so it goes.
 
While anyone who passes the bar exam can become an attorney, not every law school is geared to producing journeyman level, worker bee, yeoman-like attorneys to do the basics, like family law, custody, divorces, basic criminal cases, personal injury, wills, contracts, etc.
 
Breaking Bad's "Better Call Saul" was no Harvard Graduate, see what I mean?
 
Some law schools only want the best of the best, for prestige reasons, and because those graduates from those big schools will get top jobs, and go on and perpetuate the cycle.  There is immense pressure on law students at the big, elite law schools, to both perform in school, against the best of the best, and to then pass the bar to keep the schools' bar passage rate high in order to generate nationwide high rankings among the list of elite schools.  The lower the bar passage rate, then the lower the ranking, generally.  
 
The higher ranked the law school, the more likely the school is to attract a higher quality student, from an elite undergraduate school, having perfect grades or damn near perfect, with a very high law school admission test score, who rightfully believes that upon payment of a quarter million dollars and matriculation and bar passage, the higher likelihood exists for that graduate to go on to a lucrative position right out of law school.  That is simply a fact.
 
And then there is the other, hidden agenda at the elite schools and law firms.  There is the silent tyranny of soft expectations.  Those elite schools also want to look good on the racial and demographic metrics, and as such, they actively recruit "disadvantaged" minority applicants for "diversity" purposes.  There is no effort at all to recruit for diversity of viewpoint, and the basic premise of the progressives is that without affirmative action, then the elite schools would be out of reach for most minorities for many reasons.  So, the big, elite schools recruit minorities, give them scholarships, and push them through the system.  
 
But, is this approach even helping those minorities that the elite schools are trying to help?  Is there an unintended consequence?  Some scholars think so.
 
A fascinating story is underway in California.  The article cite is here:
 
 
The premise is simple enough: a scholar wants demographic data from law schools to study whether affirmative action is harming minority students.  According to the scholar, the research to date tends to suggest that admission of minorities to the big elite schools due to affirmative action is actually harming those kids because: “affirmative action hurts the very students it's supposed to help by placing them in elite schools where they struggle to succeed.”
 
Wow, would you look at that?  Unheard of.  Simply astounding.  The emperor is naked, look there! some would say.  I say ask more questions.
 
I say it is time to ask hard questions and press for answers, as the fiat scheme is literally careening out of control like the guests at a Kennedy-compound party at 1:00 a.m.
 
Are these the unintended consequences of the progressive policy of affirmative action, or are they instead the intended consequences?  Think about it?
 
Many commentators argue that without affirmative action, traditionally economically repressed minorities could never attain admission to law schools at the upper tier, thereby harming them as a group and perpetuating the dynasty of the old, white elitists.  They say that affirmative action gives minorities entrance into this elite society, breaking down barriers, and creating equality despite racial differences.  It is a laudable goal to be sure, some say.  Others have suggested that affirmative action actually harms minorities, as the article notes, and that treating folks differently because of race ultimately creates resentments and further deepens the cultural divide and race animosity.  Who is right?  Who knows?  I am not a minority.  Nor did I go to an elite law school.  How can I possibly relate to the question posed?  I am a journeyman lawyer, have been so for two decades, and hope to do so for the next two or three decades.  I know plenty of skilled attorneys from all walks of life, different races and ethnicities, and I find that it is not the school one attended that matters, it is one's innate value system and effort and experience that matter the most.  A skilled lawyer is a skilled lawyer.  That only comes from years and years of practice and experience, not from a sheepskin from an elite school.  But enough of that.
 
What I find more compelling is not that there is an argument to be made for either position.   Instead, it is fascinating to see that the curtain is being pulled back, by an insider elitist, to examine the very premise upon which one of the pillars of the progressive movement rests: affirmative action to redress past wrongs.  Who here thinks it is okay to condition rewards or benefits simply because of one's skin color or heritage?  Are we still in the era of redress of past wrongs, or have we gotten to the point of a color blind society?  Arguments can be made eloquently, and persuasively on both sides.  
 
But the elites fighting the elites is a whole new form of warfare and I am keenly watching the battles play out.
 
Is this the beginning of the eventual cannibalism amongst the progressive elites who finally begin to question their very core beliefs and then tell the truth about their progressive policies that actually harm people from the condescending, central control mindset?  Has the fiasco of Obombya care finally exposed the fallacy of infinite redistribution of wealth with no societal cost?  Are the elites beginning to have any introspection at the havoc they have wrought? When is Krugman going to admit he is and was wrong?  Is the great curtain finally being pulled back for the masses to see what is truly occurring?
 
One can only hope.
Enhanced by Zemanta

36 Comments

donnojackshit's picture

This would be a first?

This would be a first?

Strongsidejedi's picture

Second amendment

For all those "lawyers of good character" and even those who are not of good character...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

Speaking of scandalous research...how about the second amendment and the origination of JP Morgan Bank?

For those unfamiliar with Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton's duel, here's some research that should raise hairs:

Aaron Burr

  • outsider to the central core of leadership involved with the foundation of the United States
  • Sort of a lone wolf who did things for his own aggrandizement.
  • Somewhat of a ladies man who had a reputation for sleeping with the women of other men.
  • An attorney of "good repute" in New York City.
  • Founder of the first bank other than the Bank of the United States and the Bank of New York.
  • Burr shoots Hamilton after Hamilton refuses to support Burr's candidacy for Governor of New York causing Burr to lose support and lose the election.
  • Eventually involved with allegations of treason against the United States when Burr goes west and attempts to set up a new nation in the west.
  • After being found not guilty of treason, leaves the US and goes to London.
  • He appears to be involved and living in London when the political process for the British to start the War of 1812 occurs.  I have wondered if Burr could trace some of his political power to the British monarchy and the financiers of the Stuart royal line.

Alexander Hamilton

  • Key thinker in the work to form the United States of America and the core principles of the US federal government. 
  • Served in the Revolutionary War under Washington's command
  • Officer at Yorktown commanding three units that displaced and forced surrender of British forces
  • Author of the Federalist Papers
  • First Secretary of the US Treasury
  • Congressional author of bill creating the first Bank of the United States
  • Founder and board of director member in creation of Bank of New York.
  • Founder and board of director member in creation of Manhattan Corporation (precursor to JP Morgan Chase)
  • Congressional sponsor of the bill to create the United States Mint
  • Congressional sponsor of the bill to mint the first United States $10 gold coin

From:  http://raglinen.com/2010/01/16/the-12-letters-preceding-the-burr-hamilton-duel/

______________________________________________

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-03/the-violent-scandalous-origins-of-jpmorgan-chase.html

Americans like to imagine that the Founding Fathers were virtuous and civic-minded giants bestriding the continent. But many of them kept a sharp eye on the main chance, alert to opportunities for personal profit.

The birth of the mega-bank JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) may be traced to two such figures: Aaron Burr, the dark star of America’s early years, and his longtime nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury.

In the 1790s, New York was emerging as the nation’s commercial center, but it had only two banks: the Bank of New York and a branch of the Bank of the United States. Both were dominated by wealthy Federalist merchants. Republicans such as Burr often found the banks’ credit windows closed tightly against them.

A gifted lawyer, Burr pondered the problem at length. A new bank would require a formal charter from the New York legislature. Controlled by Federalists, the legislature would never knowingly approve a bank that would benefit Burr and his allies.

The Water Scheme

So Burr developed a subterfuge. The city’s well water was a scandal -- foul to the taste, vile-smelling and suspected of carrying disease. An outbreak of yellow fever in 1798 raised demands for clean, healthy water.

Burr wheeled out his brother-in-law, Dr. Joseph Browne. Browne proposed incorporating a private firm to pipe fresh water from the Bronx River to the city’s residents, who were clustered at the lower tip of Manhattan. The city’s Common Council adopted the proposal. In early 1799, it sought state permission to undertake the job itself.

Burr countered with a committee of six prominent New Yorkers who argued for a private-company solution, stressing the city’s lack of funds. Half the committee members were Federalists, including none other than Hamilton, who had resigned from the Treasury in 1795.

Confronted by such worthies, the city reversed itself and embraced the private approach. At the tail end of the 1799 legislative session, Burr arranged for an ally to submit the bill chartering a water company.

But Burr’s bill included a gaping loophole. The water business, to be called the Manhattan Company, could use its “surplus capital” to buy stock or invest “in any other monied transactions or operations not inconsistent” with law, “for the sole benefit of the company,” the bill said.

In late March, New York’s legislators averted their eyes from this loophole and approved the bill on voice votes, without dissent. Under New York’s constitution, one more step remained. The Council of Revision, consisting of the governor and senior state judges, had to approve the law.

Chief Justice John Lansing objected. Burr’s open-ended clause, he insisted, was an outrage. But Lansing’s dissent was a lonely one. No one joined him, certainly not Chancellor Robert Livingston, who held an option on 2,000 shares in the new company.

Burr’s new Manhattan Company opened in 1799. It sold its shares for a mere $50, within the reach of smaller merchants and professional men who had never been welcome at Federalist banks. Over the next five years, its thriving business included loans to Burr of more than $60,000.

New York’s water supply fared less well. The Manhattan Company never piped in water from the Bronx River. Instead, it dug new wells in Lispenard’s Meadow, near where Spring Street and Broadway cross in what is now SoHo. By 1840, the water system was obsolete and shuttered.

The Manhattan Company, however, grew through several name changes to become JPMorgan Chase & Co., now the largest and most profitable bank in the U.S.

Dueling Pistols

But its opening chapter included a final macabre element. The company’s original 12 directors included Burr and Hamilton’s brother-in-law, John Barker Church, an Englishman with a yen for financial speculation. At a private dinner, Church alleged that Burr had been bribed in connection with a frontier land development. Burr demanded a duel and Church swiftly accepted.

On the day after the bank opened, the two men faced off at the riverside dueling grounds in Weehawken, New Jersey. When both men missed their first shots, Church ended the dispute by expressing regret for his “indiscreet” remark.

Five years later, Burr and Hamilton squared off at the same spot. Their duel was triggered by Hamilton’s assertion that he deemed Burr “despicable,” a term that then implied sexual irregularity. The men took up pistols owned by Church. On this second journey to Weehawken, Burr’s aim was better. Hamilton died the following day.

In a final symmetry, Church’s granddaughter sold his pistols to the bank that Burr had created. JPMorgan Chase still owns them.

NW VIEW's picture

@ C.L.

Well those terms like "disadvantaged, diversity and quotas"  are a stumbling block for the majority.  We should have come to a place in America by now where these terms were only known by old baby boomers.

My first view of this movement was over 40 years ago in Tacoma Wa.. I had graduated with an engineering degree and worked with the state highway dept. on a new bridge project.   This was in the days without computers or calculators.   We had to do all the math with a pad and pencil.  The state brought in several inner city minority young men to work on our engineer crew and at equal pay. It did not work for them or the state (they could not do the work).

Being qualified to work at a skilled job does not seem to matter as long as the quotas are correct.  If we applied quotas to football, basketball, track, and baseball , there would be a lot of non-minority positions available for 80% of the starting professional teams.    One would scream "but the 80% would not be the most qualified" and how true. 

I know this:   If I need an attorney, I want one who is qualified.  If I want to have an upper end home built, give me a builder with a quality track record.  If I need brain surgery, give me the best and I do not care if it is a she or he and who cares about their race?  If I am seeking spiritual help, give me a true prophet of God who is not just practicing their gifts.   jmo

ata's picture

O-BOOM-A-CARE

Baby BOOM-er's to be issued with handguns on retirement and encouraged to shoot on sight.  images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPjsj1m13DQ5z6AXKNJOv                                                                                   polish handgun

ata's picture

Special order

I asked if I could get a customized one but they said it would cost $600 million to do the website for my order                                                                 Photobucket

Strongsidejedi's picture

@CL - race based policy is idiotic

Racial definition by government is inherently flawed.

At one time when transportation was by foot or horse driven carriage, communities were separate as were races.

But, in this nation now, with 747s and 380s crossing continents, cars & highways connecting cities, and people talking via smart phone, the ethnicities are not so separate.

While opportunity is clearly driven by economics and while economics is clearly impacted by ethnicity, opportunity is not ethnically defined.

Language clearly impacts who people take advantage of educational opportunities and subsequent job situations.

However, a situation where government tracks educational policy by race is ridiculously flawed from a statistical standpoint.  The flaw is in the bias created by researchers when classifying groups of people.  That definition of the people (based upon one ethnic group or another) is clearly of less specificity when ethnic lines are blurred by either interethnic / multiracial marriage.

But, with the LGBT community gaining leverage for LGBT standing in civil rights matters, will there be distinction in law schools drawn by LGBT standing as a minority group?

El Gordo's picture

Is this example not the same everywhere?

This same affirmative action scenario plays out across the employment/business spectrum.  I would be interested in seeing the statistics as to how many of these preferences wound up in government jobs rather than in the private sector.  The big problem that I have with all programs promoted as requiring "equal" treatment for various protected classes is that they invariably wind up offering "special" treatment for them.  I suspect that an extreme end result could be that we could an incompetent President and install  an executive branch full of ideological, intellectual midgets who would lead us off the world stage if we weren't careful.   Oh wait......

AlienEyes's picture

C.L.

For the record, I know of at least one state where it is only necessary to pass the state bar in order to practice law.

A JD degree is not required. This was decided years ago to give brilliant and talented persons, that were not from a wealthy family, the chance to practice law. That state is also home to the world's largest employer.  wink

JY896's picture

Incentives & elites

It's always great to be able to log on in the evening to such worthwhile reading, thanks CL (and SSJ).

The way I see it, schools might pursue selective bias in favor of a group for much the same reason any institution would: money & continued survival. State/local schools and some private schools are to a degree dependent on funding contingent on the presence of an affirmative action program. Some schools are increasingly dependent on the advertising and broadcasting revenues brought in by semi-professional athletic leagues -- so they pursue a selective bias for athletes vs. good academic candidates.

Another interesting angle/blowback -- this is a bit dated, but I think it applies today as well:

"A study released this year put numbers on the trend. Among students at 28 top U.S. universities, the representation of black students of first- and second-generation immigrant origin (27 percent) was about twice their representation in the national population of blacks their age (13 percent). Within the Ivy League, immigrant-origin students made up 41 percent of black freshmen." -- WaPo/AP April 30, 2007

Another example, with some more on the research into the topic mentioned in the post, from Science. Prof. Sander is the one petitioning the release of law school and bar exam data:

"One of the unintended consequences of such measures, write authors Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., is to steer minority students away from majoring in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This happens, they argue, because large preferences encourage students to attend colleges where their academic credentials place them toward the bottom of their college classes. Science majors, however, overwhelmingly come from the upper end of their college classes, regardless of where they go to college. Students admitted with large preferences--as many African American and Hispanic students are--are therefore deprived of the realistic opportunity to earn STEM degrees."

_______________________________________________________________________

There is a much more insidious side to admissions, in the case of elite universities, however. Most of them actually do away with racial quotas (no need/incentive) and go for a diversity/balanced policy approach. The affirmative action is much more subtle, and their desirability as sheepskin-issuers guarantees a highly capable applicant pool, regardless of race. Their 'elite university' status also gives them a power kinda like the Fed, if you think about it -- the value of the degree obtained derives from fiat, the edict of the University that its holders are worthy to enter the elite workforce. They cater to and 'certify' the elite -- but they are dependent on them, beholden to them. So, if you want to tilt the scale towards the hand that TRULY feeds you, what do you do?

"Princeton and Harvard in recent years have admitted approximately 40 percent of their legacy applicants - four times the admissions rate for non-legacies, but still much more competitive than even many upper-middle-level colleges and universities. Six in ten legacy applicants are rejected, and many of these rejected legacies are far better prepared than some of the recruited athletes and black students that Harvard and Princeton routinely admit." -- Minding the Campus

As for WHO, exactly these are:

"Harvard University features 10 ancestry and residency scholarships for undergraduates. Specific awards are available for the direct descendants of certain alumni. In addition, some scholarships are offered for students who have a particular surname regardless of their ancestry. Such surnames include Downer, Hudson and Baxendale. Scholarships are also available for students who are descendants of members of specific graduating classes, such as the Class of 1902. The William Pennoyer Bequest provides scholarships for descendants of the benefactor as well as for residents of New Haven, Connecticut." -- eHow.

In a not so subtle way, the questionnaire on these 'are you related to or a direct descendant of' questions used to be on the front page of the admission form, right under 'name & address' as recently as the 1990's. I shit you not, though I have not been able to find documented proof on the internet yet. There may or may not have been a sentence about William III of Orange, or some historical figure equally outrageous (for its presence on such a form).

There may not be moral or legal justification for requiring schools NOT to give preference to the offspring of its donors -- yet this to me is a much more corrupting practice in its outcome: propagating aloof, amoral, bankster-minded uber-class of management/financiers/lawyers/leaders. I'm afraid it's too soon to hope for this system becoming unglued -- if anything, this may be one of the things that DOES survive all but the most brutal collapses.

ata's picture

The French Connection

139186 600 Eavesdropping cartoons

Hammer's picture

Democracy has been suspended ?

I Run Bartertown's picture

It's corrosive

Different groups of people are different. Period.

The problem arises when you force them together with integration at gunpoint and 'equality' by dictate.

Africans, everywhere in the world where they are regardless of economic status (just one example - http://topconservativenews.com/2013/09/affluent-black-children-still-score-lower-than-poor-white-children-on-ohio-achievement-tests-white-people-blamed/) , score lower educationally. The decent and sensible thing to do would be to acknowledge it and stop trying to pound millions of round pegs into square holes. It's not tragic that different groups have different aptitudes on the whole. It only becomes tragic when simple facts like these turn into blaming one group (White) for the lower scores, saturating the other group in grievance mentality, and pulling out all the stops to 'close the gap' (primarily just by lowering the bar for all...corrosive to society). Similarly, African-descended people have a lower life span (they also age more quickly at each stage and hit puberty earlier). That's nature. But when it comes time to discuss healthcare, that's an evil plot by whitey and the full power of the government gets brought in to, once again, 'close the gap'. Everywhere in the world they are, regardless of economic circumstances, they commit vastly more violent crime than their fellow citizens. One need not be hateful to notice that a seagull is more aggressive than a bluejay. And one need not be hateful to acknowledge the (Human Genome confirmed) propensity to violence is stronger in some races. But in a MultiKult like ours, the focus is not on protecting people from crime, but on protecting a certain group from being perceived as they really are. Hence, we hear about the massive ongoing crime wave by "youths", "teens", and "young people"...all media code for black.

CALawyer, here is one lawyer's explanation that, while blacks might not always excel IN the legal profession, they (as a group) are quite a boon TO the legal profession:

""Most people do not realize this, but outside the world of corporate or securities law, in any big city the legal profession is to a large degree fueled by the pathologies of blacks and other Third-World people. Of course, whites hire lawyers, but in any city, especially one with a good-sized black population, most of the people who need lawyers are black. In this respect, lawyers are like police officers or social workers — they rarely deal with ordinary white people."

http://www.amren.com/ar/2003/09/index.html#cover

Bollocks's picture

the elites

Bollocks's picture

Gold hits $5000 an ounce...

Gold and silver Kilo coins

A gold coin commemorating London's 2012 Olympics, designed by eminent sculptor Sir Anthony Caro, has been revealed by the Royal Mint at London's Royal Academy of Art.

The UK's first Kilo coin - one of just 60 to be produced - is worth £100,000 as it contains 1kg of fine gold.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15843315
-------

Numbskulls.

 

achmachat's picture

huh?

Why do I have this strong and persistent image of 17th century Dutch tulips when I look at Bitcoin today?

achmachat's picture

Bollocks

wow, you guys in the UK are well advanced.

Price over there is already 3£ per gram for silver!?

http://www.royalmint.com/shop/The%20London_2012_Silver_Kilo

Hammer's picture

Didn't Caro pass away today ?

Didn't Caro pass away today ? Premium

Hammer's picture

Yup http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

AGAU's picture

Bollocks

Best "royals" pic I have seen of the new "prince" made my day ha ha 

Urban Roman's picture

achmachat,

Unlike the tulips, the bitcoins will not multiply. Therein lies their beauty.

However, the future of these things is clouded by competing schemes -- we now have Litecoin, Feathercoin, P2Pcoin, and a whole lot of copycat virtual currencies. That's the sort of dilution which may affect bitcoin.

Right now, I'd say it's a better proxy for 'fear' than the VIX.

sierra skier's picture

Policies being correct

Many folks have great ideas on how things should work and the power or connections to put these ideas to work. Some of these ideas are functional and others not so much. When these ideas are put into policy the ones that are correct and fit well can be very successful while those that that are flawed create in balances.

Back in the early 1900s those in charge of our forests and wilderness decided that wildfire should be suppressed, controlled and extinguished ASAP. This policy seemed to be the correct way to manage and protect our forests and it persisted for over 100 years. Instead of letting nature take her path of naturally thinning the forests of brush and debris on a regular basis we suppressed these fires and 'protected' our wild lands from fire. Over the decades of control our forests gradually built up unnatural loads of brush and debris on the forest floors.

Before the white man became involved the forests had a natural balance and were also managed by the local populations who understood how man and the forests interacted to mutual benefit. The Indians who populated the forests during the summers relied on the wildlife to provide for their living took the liberty of setting fire to the forest floor in the fall when leaving for their winter hunting grounds. This would burn the underbrush and annual debris with low intensity wildfire and provide a fresh forest floor for wildlife to forage on the coming spring. By letting the forest clean up it's annual brush and debris a healthy and more natural balance was attained for the forest, wildlife and man to interact in a symbiotic manner.

When white man began his control of wildfire he lost this healthy balance and after decades of brush and debris build up when fires happened the high intensity of fire fed by the accumulated growth devastated the forest and destroyed the trees as well leaving but a blackened landscape.

Some ideas create good policy and some fail. As well meaning as folks would think it is, Affirmative Action is one of those policies that has not worked out as good as might be expected. Even though well meaning when a policy is recognized to not work as intended it should be modified or changed. The Forest Service has recognized the faults of their fire suppression policy and changed it to a more let it burn out naturally where we can. This new policy has began to provide a more healthy and balanced forest. Perhaps the Affirmative Action policy could learn form our wildfire policy change. Not all ideas that turn into policy are necessarily the best way to do things.

Thanks CL for your thoughts on this subject.

Hammer's picture

Ah, Les Francais Footy

Ah, Les Francais Footy players to strike over 75%   tax

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24656110

Bollocks's picture

achmachat

and they've sold out of that silver coin! Jeez, what a rip-off.

AGAU  yes

Patrancus's picture

Dueling Pistols

Had Alexander chosen swords over pistols, which was his dueling weapon of choice, the outcome of this duel would likely have been the opposite of what history accounts. What I would really like to know is when accepting the challenge why he chose pistols over the sword. anybody out there?

Patrancus's picture

Quote of the day

“ Young men are fitter to invent than to judge; fitter for execution than for counsel; and fitter for new projects than for settled business. ”
— Francis Bacon

achmachat's picture

Patrancus

You're never wrong with Bacon!

Bollocks's picture

Did someone mention bacon?

Mantis's picture

corrosive

Not disagreeing that racial difference exist but that comment painted a distinct picture of whites being superior which left me feeling uncomfortable.

---

Bitcoins arent in a bubble yet, they've just had a much needed correction after a relentless price increase though. Wait until the proper bubble gets going.

I think it goes like this,

  • Gold is a safe store of value (but is volatile though)
  • Silver is much more volatile but potential gains are bigger (not for the squeamish)
  • Bitcoins make silver look tame, more risk, potential gains much bigger still.

I'm hedged in all three holding more gold than silver (by dollar value) and more silver than bitcoins

To be honest I don't know why bitcoins are looked so unfavorably here. Is this not the end of the fiat keynsian experiment??? The monetary system is dying. To ignore a game changing type of money which has just been concieved seems like a big ommission.

Urban Roman's picture

Mantis,

I actually still have the bulk of my savings in dollar-denominated accounts. Some of them are heavily into things like PSLV and AGQ, however. One thing that impedes conversion is that they are retirement accounts, which would be taxed as ordinary income if I closed them. Still haven't decided to do that, and don't have any buy-in from the family. Been wrong about Ag for a couple years, and it's hard to convince them.

But I swapped my bitcoins for litecoins several months ago, on the speculation that MtGox would launch a litecoin exchange. That hasn't worked out, so far :-(

Patrancus's picture

Bitcoin maybe just the beginning

Heard a message last night that another species of Bitcoin is on the way to startup, hope it gets here soon. Their is demand out here in flyover country for options and alternatives to legally withhold your hard earned prosperity from the marxist progressive gooberment political cultures in both parties of the elected United Stateus elitists.

Syndicate contentComments for "Affirmative Action in Law Schools - Are the Curtains Being Pulled Back?"