In a revealing episode on social media, a would-be law school student attempted to air grievances about his application rejections, blaming an imaginary Black candidate for his lack of success. The saga unfolded on Twitter where, after receiving rejections, the individual took to the platform to attribute his failure to affirmative action, which he claimed took his ‘rightful’ place away.
This applicant’s frustration was underscored by a below-competitive LSAT score of 150. According to general admissions data, successful law school candidates typically present scores in the high 150s or above, complemented by a strong overall application package. A tweet from @_NOTtres succinctly captured the general sentiment: “Sidebar to note that GENERALLY, law applicants aren’t too competitive without an LSAT in the high 150s+ and a great applicant package” (source).
The conversation around this incident reflects broader discourses on affirmative action, entitlement, and meritocracy. A notable comment from @Universe__Lover pointed out the shift in discussions: “we’re laughing but this sucks man. The original affirmative action cases involved an essential coin flip where diversity gave the minority candidate the slightest edge” (source).
It raises the question of whether the applicant’s failure truly lay in external factors, or rather in personal shortcomings such as insufficient LSAT scores or inadequately robust application submissions. Notably, the heft of affirmative action’s role in this narrative appears questionable given the circumstances. The provocative nature of this incident and its commentary highlights ongoing tensions surrounding diversity and perceived merit in educational environments.
For a detailed recount of these events, visit Above the Law.