This bit seems a bit unclear to me. Care to elaborate? Seems like a bit of a jump to say that women's studies majors and art degree (also, what kind of art? Like fine arts or arts more broadly, including English, History, etc) students are white and therefore able to afford law school. I'm sure some white students have wealthy families who are independently wealthy and able to afford an expensive law school, but I'm not sure that at least SOME non-white students don't have similar resources. I don't have those kinds of resources, and I have two English degrees. None of my classmates had those resources either.
Another thing: why is there a distinction between white (anglo-saxon) and white (other)? That seems a bit pedantic. Self-reporting race is always tricky. Does anybody ever know for certain. Are we going to stick with blood quantum laws? If so, I'm indigenous. If not, I'd say I'm white. I would self-report as either white or white and indigenous if given the opportunity, but that's not going to assist me in anything because reporting as indigenous in most schools requires status or proof of involvement in the indigenous community.
Perhaps if you were to approach this from a perspective of "Why do minority students, mixed race students, etc (those who are 'passably white' but might better fit into a category of "it's complicated" when it comes to race) sometimes incorrectly report their race when self-reporting?" I know that my brother refused to self-report as indigenous in any college application because he was afraid that it would have some negative effect on him. My cousin, on the other hand, made sure to self-identify because he didn't see any possible downside to self-reporting. I have always preferred to find a way of saying "it's complicated."
I got a little off track, but some clarity to your post would be great. Otherwise it's just leaving confusion and a sour taste in my mouth.
And as an aside: one year's statistics do not make proper statistics, and even then, admission statistics must be viewed with some grain of salt. It's a partially subjective subject, admitting only approximately 200 students per year of the approximately 2000 who apply. 10% of the applicants are accepted and attend the school, not including those who reject offers, which makes for incredibly fuzzy statistics. UofT also caters to a different crowd, likely servicing more Ontario students than out of province students, some have to be international students, as well, which means there's a specific skew to UotT class demographic statistics which must be considered. No matter what you're considering (race, economics, undergrad degree, etc), you have to consider trends and multiple years of statistics over 1 or 2 years. Fewer white students from one year to another does not necessarily mean we need to address the issue. Yes, look at the issue, maybe determine if it is an "issue," but an immediate response to one year's variation is premature. Look at the past 5 or 10 years. Are trends going in a more representative direction?
i never said or alluded that there is a white problem at U of T that so many on this thread keep trying to make happen. i never said it was an issue. never said it was something that needed to be rectified. never suggested that there needs to be more visible minorities. do not try to pin that on me. in fact, the use of the term diversity did not single out skin colour, race, or ethnicity. it could be diversity of undergraduate program. diversity of languages spoken. diversity of places born. diversity of accessibility. diversity of household upbringing. click the link and observe for yourself. i only highlighted any major increases or decreases of the person profiles as points of consideration. i don't appreciate being zeroed in for one aspect that i never flat out said, and i absolutely do not appreciate having others project their interpretation of my intentions against me.
let's not act shocked that many of the women's studies degrees and social science degrees that are conferred are done so mainly by students who self-identify as white. I, myself included. STEM degrees and even to some extent business/economic degrees tend (emphasis on "tend") to be pursued by students who are not white or come from immigrant (either as first or second generation) backgrounds. Of course there are exceptions, but broadly speaking, families of non-white students encourage their children to pursue these types of degrees.
And since we are on the topic, there does tend to be a distinction between anglo-saxon white and "other" white. In my experiences, some Italians consider themselves as people of colour, and even friends of mine who are Russian/Polish consider themselves Slavs and not white. So yes, there can be a distinction between the two, which is why I speculated that perhaps the term "white" refers to a social standing. Again, I'd like to highlight that I never said that students incorrectly self-identify. I myself acknowledge (and am arguing for the position) that the criteria itself is complicated since white can be understood as a geographic place of origin, skin colour, social standing, and/or even cultural practices. I think your cousins', brother's, and your own experiences are an example of this and how you interpret your identity in relation to society. Another instance can be a student from Israel, whose parents speak Hebrew but they do themselves do not (true story). Geographically, they can be considered middle eastern. However, culturally, because English is their first language, they may perceive themselves to be white instead. All this to say that maybe "white" is used as a catch-all term for living a Westernized lifestyle, which itself is a social standing, for students that can be categorized as european (excluding anglo-saxons), middle eastern, and asian. In fact, maybe it would be better if student profiles were not reduced to such ambiguous terms like white, asian, and middle eastern, since these terms encompass countries that overlap and rely on the student to make interpretations that skew the results. Maybe the it wouldn't be better. Maybe someone of Iranian descent at U of T falls into the white category because of their perceived social standing and upbringing vs someone of Iranian descent at Oz.
The next point I want to address is your understanding and interpretation of the word "afford" and "resources" and your false equivalence of those terms to be synonymous with "money." Yes, I alluded that white students (white as in social standing) likely come from backgrounds that have the financial means to financially afford classes for LSATs, maybe even private tutors, etc. But what you didn't pay attention to was the mention of SOCIAL wealth (or social capital). Having parents who are aware of the pathways to law school, having parents who know that LSAT courses even exist in the first place, having parents that enrolled their children in music class or soccer, or hockey. Parents who know someone who knows someone that can get you hired at a government office or at a small firm, or an internship. Parents who even know what internships are in the first place. Of course not all white students have these advantages, I'm not a dumb-dumb. I myself do not have all these advantages. I am aware that non-white students can come from backgrounds where they do have these advantages financially and socially. My point was never that the colour of one's skin is proportional to their financial wealth and therefore U of T was more likely to accept them. If anything, perhaps (again, a generalization and not a definite) students who come from families of high capital are more likely to set their sights on U of T. Will they be better lawyers? Maybe. Will they be more likely to have greater opportunities? Maybe.
Nothing I said or intended was about race or ethnicity. I can't control how people understand the word diversity and marginalized to mean. They clearly mean different things to me than they do to those who have tried to attack me on this thread based on the reactions. Maybe it's an age difference thing. I would have hoped that people would actually click on the link and observed the data for themselves but of course it's much easier to assume that once the words diversity and white are uttered that it's an automatic cry for sexism and racism.
I also don't know why you have a sour taste in your mouth when you interpreted my posts based on your own biases and narrow thinking. Sometimes when you're trying to find something to be offended by, you'll create your own narrative and understanding to fulfill that prophecy. Maybe a third English degree is necessary?
Whatever I have extrapolated regarding U of T's student profile favouring students of high social status can be inferred from the link and the data within it. I wish is that the high schools of their students were provided publicly (university transcripts indicate the high school that each applicant graduated from) in order to get a bigger picture of the role of social capital in the admissions process. I also hope that other schools provide student profile data so that law schools can be compared on the type of student body that is likely to to fill its seats.
As my brother-in-law, a U of T law alumni, more than once jokingly said: "How else would alumni donations be made if we didn't choose the kinds of people who will be making them?"