4 ms·
I found the NYT article a bit persuasive in that, very few people end up going to elite institutions anyways. Regardless of race, it's a very small pool. You co
by 88913527 3y ago
I found the NYT article a bit persuasive in that, very few people end up going to elite institutions anyways. Regardless of race, it's a very small pool. You could allocate 100% of admission slots to one race (not a policy suggestion, but a mathematical exercise), and it wouldn't move the needle much because it's so few slots. We'd be better off trying to solve injustices in ways that broadly apply to everyone. Of course there are second-order effects of the top slots, so AA (or lack thereof) will have some impact. Like you, I think it's well-intentioned but practically there are better policy options for effectively addressing inequalities in a more direct, first-order way.
- massysett 3y agoBut the schools have huge impact beyond what their numbers suggest: for instance, it seems a Harvard or Yale education is a current prerequisite to sit on the US Supreme Court.
- remarkEon 3y agoFor reference below. Justice Thomas: Yale Law School (1971) Chief Justice John Roberts: Harvard Law School (1979) Justice Alito: Yale Law School (1975) Justice Sotomayor Yale Law School (1979) Justice Kegan: Harvard Law School (1986) Justice Gorsuch: Harvard Law School (1991) Justice Kavanaugh: Yale Law School (1990) Justice Barrett: Notre Dame Law School (1997) Justice Jackson: Harvard Law School (1996) So it's 7/9 at this point. Not a pure prerequisite, but quite close. I tend to not read too much into the whole Harvard/Yale thing though, because this is largely a function of networks and sorting mechanisms. It's not like a lawyer from Yale is THAT much better than a lawyer from the University of Michigan. Maybe that's your point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem...