Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:08:51 PM

Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:08:51 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: .......2 on January 16, 2008, 08:13:17 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:16:02 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: .......2 on January 16, 2008, 08:20:56 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:22:26 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

I see that you are unable to formulate a coherent response of more than two words.  Perhaps this was evident in your application package.

Hopefully law school will help you overcome this aversion, as intelligence and verbosity are important in the legal profession.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: .......2 on January 16, 2008, 08:24:15 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

I see that you are unable to formulate a coherent response of more than two words.  Perhaps this was evident in your application package.

Hopefully law school will help you overcome this aversion, as intelligence and verbosity are important in the legal profession.

I guess you don't watch South Park.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 16, 2008, 08:25:51 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

(http://media.movieweb.com/news/old/04_03/malibu.jpg)

PS: I guess according to TFM, I'm going to do really badly in law school, since I can only speak in images.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:26:26 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

I see that you are unable to formulate a coherent response of more than two words.  Perhaps this was evident in your application package.

Hopefully law school will help you overcome this aversion, as intelligence and verbosity are important in the legal profession.

I guess you don't watch South Park.

I spend my time studying the intricacies of the LSAT so I can break 170 and get into a top law school on my own merit.  I see cable has rotted your brain.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: .......2 on January 16, 2008, 08:30:06 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

I see that you are unable to formulate a coherent response of more than two words.  Perhaps this was evident in your application package.

Hopefully law school will help you overcome this aversion, as intelligence and verbosity are important in the legal profession.

I guess you don't watch South Park.

I spend my time studying the intricacies of the LSAT so I can break 170 and get into a top law school on my own merit.  I see cable has rotted your brain.

Good luck with that.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:32:31 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

I see that you are unable to formulate a coherent response of more than two words.  Perhaps this was evident in your application package.

Hopefully law school will help you overcome this aversion, as intelligence and verbosity are important in the legal profession.

I guess you don't watch South Park.

I spend my time studying the intricacies of the LSAT so I can break 170 and get into a top law school on my own merit.  I see cable has rotted your brain.

Good luck with that.

I was just wondering if you'd made the connection between your decisions and the AA policies at the respective decisions.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 16, 2008, 08:33:05 PM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?


Not really.

Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

I have no issues with URMs with fascinating soft factors who are accepted, but you clearly had little else to offer with your application if the schools prohibited from using blatant AA couldn't find room for you.

Race war!

I see that you are unable to formulate a coherent response of more than two words.  Perhaps this was evident in your application package.

Hopefully law school will help you overcome this aversion, as intelligence and verbosity are important in the legal profession.

I guess you don't watch South Park.

I spend my time studying the intricacies of the LSAT so I can break 170 and get into a top law school on my own merit.  I see cable has rotted your brain.

Listen, honeychild, you've just moved to a whole NEW level of ridiculousness.  I hope you enjoy the terrible LSAT karma you've got coming to you.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:36:03 PM
It's ridiculous to want to get into a school based on merit?  Why?

Good thing karma isn't a real thing.  Otherwise I'd be really scared.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: sunglee on January 16, 2008, 08:46:12 PM
why does this race convo always come up. It always seems like some non-URM gets pissed that an URM gets into a school that he/she does not. Maybe you should try to change the socio-economic system of America, that DOES disadvantage URM is many ways.

I think when the system does get transformed, then there can be equality in who gets admitted or not.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: .......2 on January 16, 2008, 08:47:26 PM
why does this race convo always come up. It always seems like some non-URM gets pissed that an URM gets into a school that he/she does not. Maybe you should try to change the socio-economic system of America, that DOES disadvantage URM is many ways.

I think when the system does get transformed, then there can be equality in who gets admitted or not.

Race war is easier?

 :P
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 08:49:51 PM
As I said, I have no issues with URMs who are AA admits numbers-wise but have other interesting factors.  If urMom had other interesting factors, she would have fared better at Michigan and UCLA.  Michigan particularly, since it's notorious for letting in interesting applicants even if they have iffy numbers.

I can't change the socio-economic system in any appreciable way.  So I complain.

Personally, I would feel that my accomplishments were being denigrated if I were admitted to a school based on the color of my skin.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: sunglee on January 16, 2008, 08:59:57 PM
As I said, I have no issues with URMs who are AA admits numbers-wise but have other interesting factors.  If urMom had other interesting factors, she would have fared better at Michigan and UCLA.  Michigan particularly, since it's notorious for letting in interesting applicants even if they have iffy numbers.

I can't change the socio-economic system in any appreciable way.  So I complain.

Personally, I would feel that my accomplishments were being denigrated if I were admitted to a school based on the color of my skin.

I half agree with you...but the fact is throughout American History the "color of skin" has meant so much...and getting into a particular law school or undergrad. is nothing compared to the impact/disadvantages that a person with darker skin has endured.

Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:02:30 PM
As I said, I have no issues with URMs who are AA admits numbers-wise but have other interesting factors.  If urMom had other interesting factors, she would have fared better at Michigan and UCLA.  Michigan particularly, since it's notorious for letting in interesting applicants even if they have iffy numbers.

I can't change the socio-economic system in any appreciable way.  So I complain.

Personally, I would feel that my accomplishments were being denigrated if I were admitted to a school based on the color of my skin.

I half agree with you...but the fact is throughout American History the "color of skin" has meant so much...and getting into a particular law school or undergrad. is nothing compared to the impact/disadvantages that a person with darker skin has endured.


Disadvantages can't be assumed merely by color of skin.  Herein lies the problem with AA.  This is a perfect example of how NYU (likely) considered nothing but urMom's heritage in her acceptance.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: sunglee on January 16, 2008, 09:10:31 PM
hhah "heritage line"=  race. BTW what is wrong with that, people have done it for years to keep URM away from places, now they are merely trying to right the wrongs...And she does have a 164, which is not like a 155.

Anyways, I could care less..if law schools want to admit peeps based on race, or LSAT, or GPA...none of these modes are fair, but hey, they have to do it some how.

I've argued earlier that the manner in which ppl get admitted is unfair, but what exactly is fair. I don't think that ppl with a 170 or higher should overwhelming get into yale, but they do, and so on and so forth....

Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:15:03 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:18:01 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: RedNinja on January 16, 2008, 09:19:31 PM
Haha, get over it dude. I'm sorry you were born white. It must be so difficult looking at the Congress, Supreme Court, or Board of Directors of any major company and finding so few white people to identify with. It must have been so difficult during History class learning about 43 US presidents, none of whom you could identify with.

How about opening your eyes and recognizing the white PRIVILEGE you were born with and have been shielded by your entire life? I did it a long time ago, you should to.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:20:00 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 

I fail to see how desiring a greater emphasis on proven predictors for law school success and less emphasis on skin pigmentation makes me insecure.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: sunglee on January 16, 2008, 09:20:15 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 
[/quote

...says the person with great numbers
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:22:29 PM
Haha, get over it dude. I'm sorry you were born white. It must be so difficult looking at the Congress, Supreme Court, or Board of Directors of any major company and finding so few white people to identify with. It must have been so difficult during History class learning about 43 US presidents, none of whom you could identify with.

How about opening your eyes and recognizing the white PRIVILEGE you were born with and have been shielded by your entire life? I did it a long time ago, you should to.

You can only identify with people the same skin color as you?  Is that a law?  *&^%, I guess I shouldn't have looked up to any black athletes.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:33:19 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 

I fail to see how desiring a greater emphasis on proven predictors for law school success and less emphasis on skin pigmentation makes me insecure.

They aren't proven predictors.  The LSAT has the best correlation we have to first-year success in law school, but it is still a poor correlation. 
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:34:50 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 

I fail to see how desiring a greater emphasis on proven predictors for law school success and less emphasis on skin pigmentation makes me insecure.

They aren't proven predictors.  The LSAT has the best correlation we have to first-year success in law school, but it is still a poor correlation. 

Heart transplants are the best treatment for heart failure, but they don't work every time.  We should probably stop performing them.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:38:31 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 

I fail to see how desiring a greater emphasis on proven predictors for law school success and less emphasis on skin pigmentation makes me insecure.

They aren't proven predictors.  The LSAT has the best correlation we have to first-year success in law school, but it is still a poor correlation. 

Heart transplants are the best treatment for heart failure, but they don't work every time.  We should probably stop performing them.

Apples are red.  Oranges are orange.  We should probably learn to differentiate between the two.  Giving the LSAT to someone who needs a heart transplant probably won't save their life. 
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:42:07 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 

I fail to see how desiring a greater emphasis on proven predictors for law school success and less emphasis on skin pigmentation makes me insecure.

They aren't proven predictors.  The LSAT has the best correlation we have to first-year success in law school, but it is still a poor correlation. 

Heart transplants are the best treatment for heart failure, but they don't work every time.  We should probably stop performing them.

Apples are red.  Oranges are orange.  We should probably learn to differentiate between the two.  Giving the LSAT to someone who needs a heart transplant probably won't save their life. 

Perhaps you missed my point.  Is there a better predictor for 1L success than the LSAT?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 16, 2008, 09:42:57 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 
Testify!
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:44:10 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 
Testify!

Miss Beesly, your GPA is quite good and your LSAT is at least above the 95th percentile. 

Why did you ignore my response to this statement?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: tkm. on January 16, 2008, 09:45:33 PM
perhaps she didn't want to get involved
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:46:39 PM
Then why did she post?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:51:04 PM
If schools want to select their applicants arbitrarily, they're free to do so.  However, it's unfair that they should place such weight on GPA/LSAT combo for one portion of their applicants and not another.

170+ should absolutely have the best shot at Yale.  The LSAT is the best predictor we have for law school success.

And complaining about AA is the best predictor we have that someone is an insecure tool. 

I fail to see how desiring a greater emphasis on proven predictors for law school success and less emphasis on skin pigmentation makes me insecure.

They aren't proven predictors.  The LSAT has the best correlation we have to first-year success in law school, but it is still a poor correlation. 

Heart transplants are the best treatment for heart failure, but they don't work every time.  We should probably stop performing them.

Apples are red.  Oranges are orange.  We should probably learn to differentiate between the two.  Giving the LSAT to someone who needs a heart transplant probably won't save their life. 

Perhaps you missed my point.  Is there a better predictor for 1L success than the LSAT?

Perhaps you missed my point.  You said that LSAT and GPA are "proven predictors."  How accurate are they as predictors?  Not very.  Do we have a better system right now?  No.  Does that have anything to do with recognizing the value of diversity in a classroom setting?  No. 

(http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/CSK/CSK013/vintage-screwdrivers-~-ks8503.jpg)
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 16, 2008, 09:51:12 PM
I don't want to get involved. I'm just reading and laughing. Oh TFM, maybe you should be studying for the LSAT so an URM with a 125 doesn't steal your spot.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:51:52 PM
Miss Beesly, your GPA is quite good and your LSAT is at least above the 95th percentile. 

Why did you ignore my response to this statement?

Which statement? This^one? You're right, my numbers are decent enough, but don't forget my amazing ECs, LORs and PS.  ;)

No, my response to Ender's statement that you quoted.

I stated earlier in the thread that I have no issue with AA admits numbers-wise who have more to offer.  Since urMom was adversely decided upon by two lower ranked schools than NYU, it's likely she has little else to offer.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:53:12 PM
Perhaps you missed my point.  You said that LSAT and GPA are "proven predictors."  How accurate are they as predictors?  Not very.  Do we have a better system right now?  No.  Does that have anything to do with recognizing the value of diversity in a classroom setting?  No. 

(http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/CSK/CSK013/vintage-screwdrivers-~-ks8503.jpg)

I do not understand your screwdrivers.

What kind of value does color diversity add to a classroom?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:53:49 PM
Miss Beesly, your GPA is quite good and your LSAT is at least above the 95th percentile. 

Why did you ignore my response to this statement?

Which statement? This^one? You're right, my numbers are decent enough, but don't forget my amazing ECs, LORs and PS.  ;)

No, my response to Ender's statement that you quoted.

I stated earlier in the thread that I have no issue with AA admits numbers-wise who have more to offer.  Since urMom was adversely decided upon by two lower ranked schools than NYU, it's likely she has little else to offer.

And since I was admitted to Michigan and Virginia but held at Notre Dame, UM and UVA must have had some ulterior motive.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:56:27 PM
Perhaps you missed my point.  You said that LSAT and GPA are "proven predictors."  How accurate are they as predictors?  Not very.  Do we have a better system right now?  No.  Does that have anything to do with recognizing the value of diversity in a classroom setting?  No. 

(http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/CSK/CSK013/vintage-screwdrivers-~-ks8503.jpg)

I do not understand your screwdrivers.

What kind of value does color diversity add to a classroom?

I thought they would give you comfort, since they are also tools. 

Spending time with people who are different from you is good for you.  Are you going to enjoy the same benefits from being in a classroom with everyone of a different race?  Of course not.  Is the LSAT a perfect predictor?  Of course not.  Why do you worship at the altar of the one imperfect system yet scorn the other?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 16, 2008, 09:57:20 PM
And since I was admitted to Michigan and Virginia but held at Notre Dame, UM and UVA must have had some ulterior motive.

Obviously! People with pet birds are URMs too, you know!
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 09:57:44 PM
Miss Beesly, your GPA is quite good and your LSAT is at least above the 95th percentile. 

Why did you ignore my response to this statement?

Which statement? This^one? You're right, my numbers are decent enough, but don't forget my amazing ECs, LORs and PS.  ;)

No, my response to Ender's statement that you quoted.

I stated earlier in the thread that I have no issue with AA admits numbers-wise who have more to offer.  Since urMom was adversely decided upon by two lower ranked schools than NYU, it's likely she has little else to offer.

And since I was admitted to Michigan and Virginia but held at Notre Dame, UM and UVA must have had some ulterior motive.

Are "holds" now equal to "rejections"?

Are "holds" equal to "acceptances?"
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:58:20 PM
Perhaps you missed my point.  You said that LSAT and GPA are "proven predictors."  How accurate are they as predictors?  Not very.  Do we have a better system right now?  No.  Does that have anything to do with recognizing the value of diversity in a classroom setting?  No. 

(http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/CSK/CSK013/vintage-screwdrivers-~-ks8503.jpg)

I do not understand your screwdrivers.

What kind of value does color diversity add to a classroom?

I thought they would give you comfort, since they are also tools. 

Spending time with people who are different from you is good for you.  Are you going to enjoy the same benefits from being in a classroom with everyone of a different race?  Of course not.  Is the LSAT a perfect predictor?  Of course not.  Why do you worship at the altar of the one imperfect system yet scorn the other?

Again, as I stated earlier.  Law schools can choose their students as they see fit.  However, to place so much emphasis on GPA/LSAT for one set of applicants and much less emphasis on the same credentials for another set is unfair.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 09:58:44 PM
Could you be admitted to Notre Dame?  Yes.

Can urMom be admitted to Michigan? No.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 10:01:28 PM
Could you be admitted to Notre Dame?  Yes.

Can urMom be admitted to Michigan? No.

Can I send my seat deposit to Michigan now?  Yes.  Can I send my seat deposit to Notre Dame now?  No.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 10:02:21 PM
Could you be admitted to Notre Dame?  Yes.

Can urMom be admitted to Michigan? No.

Can I send my seat deposit to Michigan now?  Yes.  Can I send my seat deposit to Notre Dame now?  No.

I'm not sure why I even recognized this argument of yours, as I'm certain you realize how silly it is.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 16, 2008, 10:03:53 PM
Could you be admitted to Notre Dame?  Yes.

Can urMom be admitted to Michigan? No.

Can I send my seat deposit to Michigan now?  Yes.  Can I send my seat deposit to Notre Dame now?  No.

I'm not sure why I even recognized this argument of yours, as I'm certain you realize how silly it is.

You pointed out that holds are not the same as rejections.  I pointed out that they are not the same as acceptances.  I'm not sure what makes that silly, but whatevs. 
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: tkm. on January 16, 2008, 10:05:44 PM
This whole conversation was rather silly, though mildly entertaining.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 10:06:01 PM
Could you be admitted to Notre Dame?  Yes.

Can urMom be admitted to Michigan? No.

Can I send my seat deposit to Michigan now?  Yes.  Can I send my seat deposit to Notre Dame now?  No.

I'm not sure why I even recognized this argument of yours, as I'm certain you realize how silly it is.

You pointed out that holds are not the same as rejections.  I pointed out that they are not the same as acceptances.  I'm not sure what makes that silly, but whatevs. 

I meant that ND holding you was the equivalent of Michigan rejecting urMom.

Goodnight.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 16, 2008, 10:07:48 PM
Good night, Ender!
Perfect timing for ending this silly discussion. The Gossip Girl season pilot is playing.  ;)
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 16, 2008, 10:08:54 PM
I also don't understand why legitimate discussions concerning Affirmative Action are automatically dismissed as flames or as being silly.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: .......2 on January 16, 2008, 10:14:50 PM
I also don't understand why legitimate discussions concerning Affirmative Action are automatically dismissed as flames or as being silly.

Questioning someone's worth as a person is probably not the best way to start.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: RedNinja on January 16, 2008, 10:16:23 PM
Because this wasn't a legitimate conversation, you (tried to) isolate and target urMom to make her feel bad about her well earned acceptance to NYU. That makes you at tool. The only reason it didn't work is because urMom is awesome enough to know not to pay attention to you, and other people stood up to support her. You, on the other hand, are alone and pathetic. You won't do  well at ANY law school with that attitude because there's so much you just don't understand. 
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 16, 2008, 10:19:52 PM
Because this wasn't a legitimate conversation, you (tried to) isolate and target urMom to make her feel bad about her well earned acceptance to NYU. That makes you at tool. The only reason it didn't work is because urMom is awesome enough to know not to pay attention to you, and other people stood up to support her. You, on the other hand, are alone and pathetic. You won't do  well at ANY law school with that attitude because there's so much you just don't understand. 

RedNinja, you are awesome.   :)
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: sunglee on January 16, 2008, 10:47:59 PM
Because this wasn't a legitimate conversation, you (tried to) isolate and target urMom to make her feel bad about her well earned acceptance to NYU. That makes you at tool. The only reason it didn't work is because urMom is awesome enough to know not to pay attention to you, and other people stood up to support her. You, on the other hand, are alone and pathetic. You won't do  well at ANY law school with that attitude because there's so much you just don't understand. 




Why are you all talking about each others mothers..how rude!!

So the moral of this story is...

The UCLA waitlist board turned into race debates...I told you everything goes back to race

Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 05:56:01 AM
I also don't understand why legitimate discussions concerning Affirmative Action are automatically dismissed as flames or as being silly.

Questioning someone's worth as a person is probably not the best way to start.

You're correct.  That was in bad taste.  I apologize.

urMom, is your acceptance to NYU sufficient remuneration for the hardships you and your family have felt, particularly at your Ivy League University?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 05:57:50 AM
Because this wasn't a legitimate conversation, you (tried to) isolate and target urMom to make her feel bad about her well earned acceptance to NYU. That makes you at tool. The only reason it didn't work is because urMom is awesome enough to know not to pay attention to you, and other people stood up to support her. You, on the other hand, are alone and pathetic. You won't do  well at ANY law school with that attitude because there's so much you just don't understand. 

I hope she doesn't choose to ignore those who challenge her beliefs when she is an attorney.  She will have a short career.

Also, how can you speak for how urMom earned her acceptance?  Do you know her?  Did the NYU adcomm board send you information on how they made their decision?  My theory was based upon her other decisions, what is yours based upon?

Wonderful assumptions about me.  Spot on.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 05:58:41 AM
One other thing.  Why does everyone assume someone who opposes AA is white?  Is it impossible for minorities to dislike it?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 17, 2008, 06:05:46 AM
After catching up with this thread this morning...TFM, I think you're kind of disgusting and I hope we don't end up at the same law school.  Shoot for a 155!
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 06:18:58 AM
After catching up with this thread this morning...TFM, I think you're kind of disgusting and I hope we don't end up at the same law school.  Shoot for a 155!

Why am I disgusting?

If I get a 155 I'd have a decent chance at some of the schools you might end up at.  Never underestimate that URM boost.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 17, 2008, 06:51:30 AM
After catching up with this thread this morning...TFM, I think you're kind of disgusting and I hope we don't end up at the same law school.  Shoot for a 155!

Why am I disgusting?

If I get a 155 I'd have a decent chance at some of the schools you might end up at.  Never underestimate that URM boost.

Doubtful, except maybe at GW.  Better get back to studying!  Time's a-wastin!
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 07:06:16 AM
Like many have said, TFM, this is a thread about the UCLA waitlist. Start a new thread if you want to consistently talk about something else.

I think we have a valuable discourse here.

I do admire the audacity of you LSDers, shamelessly jumping to the defense of someone you've never met.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 07:54:28 AM
Like many have said, TFM, this is a thread about the UCLA waitlist. Start a new thread if you want to consistently talk about something else.

I think we have a valuable discourse here.

I do admire the audacity of you LSDers, shamelessly jumping to the defense of someone you've never met.

Not sure how that's audacious boss. You might want to learn to use words properly before you start up an indignant racist genuius schtick.

First of all, I used it properly.  Secondly, don't make spelling errors when trying to point out mistakes you think others have made.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: courtz1686 on January 17, 2008, 07:55:23 AM
OK, but that doesn't stop you from taking your "valuable discourse" elsewhere; I'm sure those who care will follow you. It's just annoying when helpful threads about admissions decisions get hijacked by pages of completely off-topic posts.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 07:58:20 AM
OK, but that doesn't stop you from taking your "valuable discourse" elsewhere; I'm sure those who care will follow you. It's just annoying when helpful threads about admissions decisions get hijacked by pages of completely off-topic posts.

Ah yes.  "I got waitlisted."  This is certainly one of the most helpful posts one can make in regards to admissions decisions.  Really, I imagine that millions upon millions of people's lives were changed by that post.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: courtz1686 on January 17, 2008, 08:00:40 AM
Or maybe it's, you know, helpful to know when people are getting such letters in the mail.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 08:02:11 AM
Or maybe it's, you know, helpful to know when people are getting such letters in the mail.

You're right.  That way if you get an envelope you'll know it might be a waitlist before you even open it.  Or you could, you know, just open it.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: courtz1686 on January 17, 2008, 08:04:09 AM
Good one.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 08:06:35 AM
Good one.

Thank you.  You failed to demonstrate the utility of this thread.  And resorted to a 5th-grade retort.

This thread is making me really excited for law school.  I hope my fellow students are comparably incapable of forming a coherent argument.  I see Order of the Coif in my future.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 17, 2008, 08:32:51 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: upwithmontana on January 17, 2008, 08:48:14 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.

That's very true.  Him making fun of where you'll end up has to be bad karma for the test.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 17, 2008, 08:53:50 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.

That's very true.  Him making fun of where you'll end up has to be bad karma for the test.

He doesn't believe in karma.  So he'll 180 it, I'm sure.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 17, 2008, 09:04:42 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.

That's very true.  Him making fun of where you'll end up has to be bad karma for the test.

He doesn't believe in karma.  So he'll 180 it, I'm sure.

Why are the two of you assuming I'm a male?  Because I'm assertive, intelligent and well-spoken?  How sexist.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: Slumdog Lovebutton on January 17, 2008, 09:17:11 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.

That's very true.  Him making fun of where you'll end up has to be bad karma for the test.

He doesn't believe in karma.  So he'll 180 it, I'm sure.

Why are the two of you assuming I'm a male?  Because I'm assertive, intelligent and well-spoken?  How sexist.


hahahahahahaha - s/he gets FUNNIER!!!!!!

TFM, this is actually how I picture you:

(http://mysite.orange.co.uk/journalspace/Transvestite.jpg)

It's just easier to simplify and call you a "he."
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist
Post by: indyguy7484 on January 17, 2008, 09:20:22 AM
As I said, I have no issues with URMs who are AA admits numbers-wise but have other interesting factors.  If urMom had other interesting factors, she would have fared better at Michigan and UCLA.  Michigan particularly, since it's notorious for letting in interesting applicants even if they have iffy numbers.

I can't change the socio-economic system in any appreciable way.  So I complain.

Personally, I would feel that my accomplishments were being denigrated if I were admitted to a school based on the color of my skin.

I've got it!  TFM is Clarence Thomas' online persona.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: 20+ Andrew Hill Albums on January 18, 2008, 06:21:08 AM
Just got the waitlist letter. I'm a little disappointed.

sorry Mom...but NYU!!  come ON!!  cheer up!

Oh, I'm not feeling too down. I'm so relieved I got into NYU early, it really is making the rest of my cycle much less stressful.

*reads NYU acceptance letter again*

You were accepted at NYU but rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA?

Does the fact that it's a clear AA admit make you feel like less of a person?

Stop hatin'.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 06:57:50 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.

That's very true.  Him making fun of where you'll end up has to be bad karma for the test.

He doesn't believe in karma.  So he'll 180 it, I'm sure.

Why are the two of you assuming I'm a male?  Because I'm assertive, intelligent and well-spoken?  How sexist.

How's it feel to fail at life, fuckhead?

Go let your mommy make it feel better. Go cry to her about the big, bad, ugly, unfair world. Go have her buy you a nice little pony, a vacation in Cancun, or whatever it is spoiled little shits like you get when life because just oh so oppressive - that tit must taste good.

Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 07:20:01 AM
I think the punchline of the joke that is theflyingmachine is that he's talking all this trash, and he hasn't even taken the LSAT yet!  :D  :D  :D

It makes me LOL.

That's very true.  Him making fun of where you'll end up has to be bad karma for the test.

He doesn't believe in karma.  So he'll 180 it, I'm sure.

Why are the two of you assuming I'm a male?  Because I'm assertive, intelligent and well-spoken?  How sexist.

How's it feel to fail at life, fuckhead?

Go let your mommy make it feel better. Go cry to her about the big, bad, ugly, unfair world. Go have her buy you a nice little pony, a vacation in Cancun, or whatever it is spoiled little shits like you get when life because just oh so oppressive - that tit must taste good.


Feel free to resort to puerile insults and name-calling.  I'm certain this will get you far in the real world.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 18, 2008, 11:11:17 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 11:13:18 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.

If you would be so kind as to quote where I said that, it would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 18, 2008, 11:19:28 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.

If you would be so kind as to quote where I said that, it would be much appreciated.

Quote
Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 11:21:52 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.

If you would be so kind as to quote where I said that, it would be much appreciated.

Quote
Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.



Did I use the word "crisis" or the phrase "that's what's wrong with America"?  I don't see it.  Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking for a Yale student.  It's a good thing they don't give grades there.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 11:25:45 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.

If you would be so kind as to quote where I said that, it would be much appreciated.

Quote
Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

Did I use the word "crisis" or the phrase "that's what's wrong with America"?  I don't see it.  Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking for a Yale student.  It's a good thing they don't give grades there.

so we're not allowed to make inferences based on what you say?

I think it's unfair to sensationalize my statements in order to make me seem irrational.  Maybe Galt was a journalist before he went to law school.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 11:27:35 AM

I think it's unfair to sensationalize my statements in order to make me seem irrational.  Maybe Galt was a journalist before he went to law school.
[/quote]

Maybe you were a tool even before you started flaming all over LSD.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 11:41:17 AM

Feel free to resort to puerile insults and name-calling.  I'm certain this will get you far in the real world.

Right.

I recommend you then reconsider your original post, asshat.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: techpers0n on January 18, 2008, 11:43:11 AM
Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)

Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 11:44:50 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.

Yeah, I also think that the staggering number of minorities in professional and political positions is really destroying our society.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 18, 2008, 11:46:51 AM
Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)



lol. To be fair, he's used a bit of ad hominem here and there:

Quote
Did I use the word "crisis" or the phrase "that's what's wrong with America"?  I don't see it.  Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking for a Yale student.  It's a good thing they don't give grades there.

Not to mention that his critique of urmom was based on faulty logic at best.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 11:47:24 AM
Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)



The @#!* it does.

There are a number of threads that go over this topic ad nauseum - he isn't saying anything new, he doesn't have ground to stand on, and he's simply trolling and/or being an a-hole.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 11:48:24 AM
Dammit, why do I always come into these juicy conversations late??

Oh and for the record, Flyingmachine is spot on. That's what's  wrong with America. All these minorities taking up all the precious few spots at elite law schools. It's just a crisis.

If you would be so kind as to quote where I said that, it would be much appreciated.

Quote
Good.  It shouldn't bother you that more qualified white folk are out of luck because NYU needed to fill a quota.

Did I use the word "crisis" or the phrase "that's what's wrong with America"?  I don't see it.  Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking for a Yale student.  It's a good thing they don't give grades there.

so we're not allowed to make inferences based on what you say?

I think it's unfair to sensationalize my statements in order to make me seem irrational.  Maybe Galt was a journalist before he went to law school.

Wow.

Have fun in litigation / trial.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 11:50:14 AM

The @#!* it does.

There are a number of threads that go over this topic ad nauseum - he isn't saying anything new, he doesn't have ground to stand on, and he's simply trolling and/or being an a-hole.

What he said.

It's not worth anyone's time to argue with TFM, so I'll just observe and laugh and post a sarcastic remark here and there.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 11:50:30 AM
How's it feel to fail at life, fuckhead?

Go let your mommy make it feel better. Go cry to her about the big, bad, ugly, unfair world. Go have her buy you a nice little pony, a vacation in Cancun, or whatever it is spoiled little shits like you get when life because just oh so oppressive - that tit must taste good.

it's fun to watch tj get pissed.  :D

oh and don't knock the rich.  we have problems too.  :P

I sympathize.

I wasn't knocking the rich so much as insulting this d00d's particular situation, financially and otherwise.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 18, 2008, 11:55:45 AM
Have fun in litigation / trial.

i don't think that he'll actually do really badly there.  (which is not to say he'll do well, just not really badly.)

the problem is you need to recognize that certain styles of argument are appropriate in some settings and other styles are appropriate in others. 

on an internet message board, sensationalizing a person's viewpoint to make him look irrational is a completely legitimate means of argumentation.

:D

Wait, though, (the bolded) doesn't happen in trial?

Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: techpers0n on January 18, 2008, 12:00:04 PM
Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)



The @#!* it does.

There are a number of threads that go over this topic ad nauseum - he isn't saying anything new, he doesn't have ground to stand on, and he's simply trolling and/or being an a-hole.

Ok first of all AA/anti-AA both have ground to stand on, one or the other may be right but that does not mean the other side does not even have any ground to stand on.

But secondly. Lets assume you are right and he indeed does not have any ground to stand on. In that case he is either
a) A troll
b) A person with a severe mental handicap

In either case why would you continue to engage him.


lol. To be fair, he's used a bit of ad hominem here and there
Not to mention that his critique of urmom was based on faulty logic at best.

Now I do agree with the first point but with all the ad hominem in this thread its difficult to hold him especially liable.
However on your second point I will grant you that 100%. There is really no reason to personally go after someone just to make a point. But that happened so long ago in this thread that i doubt most readers will go that far back.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: 20+ Andrew Hill Albums on January 18, 2008, 12:08:03 PM
Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)

I'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

I think where people like theflying go wrong is by viewing admission to law school as something the applicant "earns" or "deserves". Adcoms don't (or, at least, shouldn't imv) look at the applicant pool saying "Okay. Who deserves this?" or "Who has earned this?" They ask "Who will add value to our student body?" and they consider racial diversity and diversity in backgrounds in general highly valuable.

Now, they also consider high LSATs and high GPAs valuable of course, so it seems like they are accepting people on the merit of their past accomplishments.  This is an illusion, I think.  When it comes to the numbers, they are really accepting applicants based on the potential they show for adding value to the student body, law school community, and the legal professions in the world beyond law school, carrying that school's name with them.  It is not about past accomplishments.  It is about the promise of future accomplishments... (and a boost in the rankings too, for sure).  It is not merit for merit's sake.  It is merit as a demonstration of ability and potential.

Someone can reasonably disagree with the high value placed on racial diversity in relation to demonstrated potential in cases when the two would appear to be at odds.  All I would tell such a person, though, would be "Take it up with the schools. If you don't think racial diversity is that important, oller at the law school administrators and make your case."  

Picking fights with people who top law schools have decided would add value to their communities is pointless, douch-ious, and rather tool-ient.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: RexRegnat on January 18, 2008, 12:11:55 PM
Well said.

Wow. Tool or not you guys should probably know that over the last few pages theflyingmachine
has kept his cool and continued making arguments while a lot of other people have just resorted to name calling and sarcasm. If you are against him and/or what he is saying either respond to his argument or ignore him, the name calling actually makes it look like he is in the right. (not saying that he is, just saying thats what it looks like)

I'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

I think where people like theflying go wrong is by viewing admission to law school as something the applicant "earns" or "deserves". Adcoms don't (or, at least, shouldn't imv) look at the applicant pool saying "Okay. Who deserves this?" or "Who has earned this?" They ask "Who will add value to our student body?" and they consider racial diversity and diversity in backgrounds in general highly valuable.

Now, they also consider high LSATs and high GPAs valuable of course, so it seems like they are accepting people on the merit of their past accomplishments.  This is an illusion, I think.  When it comes to the numbers, they are really accepting applicants based on the potential they show for adding value to the student body, law school community, and the legal professions in the world beyond law school, carrying that school's name with them.  It is not about past accomplishments.  It is about the promise of future accomplishments... (and a boost in the rankings too, for sure).  It is not merit for merit's sake.  It is merit as a demonstration of ability and potential.

Someone can reasonably disagree with the high value placed on racial diversity in relation to demonstrated potential in cases when the two would appear to be at odds.  All I would tell such a person, though, would be "Take it up with the schools. If you don't think racial diversity is that important, oller at the law school administrators and make your case."  

Picking fights with people who top law schools have decided would add value to their communities is pointless, douch-ious, and rather tool-ient.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 12:31:46 PM
I'm glad you've all been kept busy by this thread.  I have real-life responsibilties so I don't have time to respond to each and every one of your posts.  I appreciate all of your kind thoughts and words.

I am a bit amazed by the inability of you all to have a civil conversation without resorting to name-calling.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 12:37:36 PM
My original critique of urMom, since it was called into question, was this:

She was accepted to NYU, despite being far below both of their 25th percentiles.  NYU is allowed to use blatant AA in choosing their class.

She was rejected at Michigan and waitlisted at UCLA, both schools that are not allowed to use blatant AA in admissions decisions.  Her numbers are closer the averages, though still below, for both of these schools.

Clearly, NYU saw something in her application that Michigan and UCLA did not.  It is my opinion that this deciding factor was her URM status, and not some worthless club or volunteer work she did while in college.  This seems to me to be a reasonable deduction.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 12:46:34 PM
Why does everyone assume theflyingmachine is a non-URM male?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

Clearly, NYU saw something in her application that Michigan and UCLA did not.  It is my opinion that this deciding factor was her URM status, and not some worthless club or volunteer work she did while in college.  This seems to me to be a reasonable deduction.

you want to argue that race played a factor in her acceptance? 

fine, whatever.

but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:00:42 PM
but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?

well that's the part that people objected to: the assumption that there's a white student who's more qualified and who's losing a seat.  your assessment of who's more qualified simply differs from the NYU admissions office's assessment of who's more qualified.  and the latter is ultimately what matters, is it not?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

perhaps they're confusing you with me.

Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 01:12:19 PM
but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?

well that's the part that people objected to: the assumption that there's a white student who's more qualified and who's losing a seat.  your assessment of who's more qualified simply differs from the NYU admissions office's assessment of who's more qualified.  and the latter is ultimately what matters, is it not?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

perhaps they're confusing you with me.

Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.

Oh, wow. Now you're reeeeeally blowing my mind. I can't handle it. (I am an URM, you know.)
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:13:05 PM
Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.

so when you say, "how does it feel to be taking a seat from a more qualified white student" or whatever it was you said to urmom, really all you're doing is saying, "how does it feel to be taking a seat away from a white student who i think is more qualified even though my opinion doesn't really count for much", right?

Did I not specify that I meant on the basis of LSAT and GPA?  I should have.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:14:10 PM
but then you went on to say that she was taking away a spot from a more qualified white student, did you not?  (and feel free to correct me if i'm misquoting you.  i'm doing this from memory.)

Yes.  Is that all?

well that's the part that people objected to: the assumption that there's a white student who's more qualified and who's losing a seat.  your assessment of who's more qualified simply differs from the NYU admissions office's assessment of who's more qualified.  and the latter is ultimately what matters, is it not?

Not only that, they seem to think I'm affluent as well.  It's perplexing.

perhaps they're confusing you with me.

Of course that's what matters.  Unless I'm an NYU adcomm who is secretly pissed that my fellow members decided to let her in.

Oh, wow. Now you're reeeeeally blowing my mind. I can't handle it. (I am an URM, you know.)

Have you noticed that no one has even acknowledged the little jokes you make?  Take a hint.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 01:18:01 PM

Have you noticed that no one has even acknowledged the little jokes you make?  Take a hint.

You just did, genius.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:22:07 PM
oh.  so you meant "how does it feel to be taking a seat from a white student whose LSAT/GPA combination is higher than yours"?

that's a little better. 

i still don't like the whole "taking a seat" language since the seats belong to the school and not the students and can be given away as the school pleases, but i'll let someone else argue that point.

Oh, wow. Now you're reeeeeally blowing my mind. I can't handle it. (I am an URM, you know.)

Have you noticed that no one has even acknowledged the little jokes you make?  Take a hint.

this amuses me.

She was beginning to annoy me, like a gnat that one can only ignore for so long before swatting.

I agree that it's not a perfect way to put it, but she likely beat out more than 100 white kids with objectively better numbers.  I think it's unfair that their hard work and dedication is ignored because of her skin color.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: 20+ Andrew Hill Albums on January 18, 2008, 01:25:34 PM
Dear Ms. Beesly and Mr. Archibald,

The Flying Machine has not yet responded to my post (#98), but I see that he is responding to your posts, even though your posts come after #98.  This is totally unfair.  

Clearly, the only reason why he is responding to your posts instead of mine is because your posts are so short while mine is long.  I think this is a fair deduction to make.  I hope your brevity serves you well in law school and in the legal profession. [sarcasm]

How does it feel to know that the only reason for his responses is the length of your posts?  Do you think that is fair?  How dare you take advantage of the incredible opportunities he is offering you by conversing with you knowing that an earlier, more deserving post goes ignored?  


Unkind regards,

20+AHA
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 01:27:35 PM

I agree that it's not a perfect way to put it, but she likely beat out more than 100 white kids with objectively better numbers.  I think it's unfair that their hard work and dedication is ignored because of her skin color.

Are you back on this "color of skin" issue again?
I think it's been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread that homogeneity of background and perspective is not beneficial to any group. Adcomms look beyond numbers for people who can contribute more than a 4.0 in poli. sci. to classroom discussion.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:30:34 PM
She was beginning to annoy me, like a gnat that one can only ignore for so long before swatting.

I agree that it's not a perfect way to put it, but she likely beat out more than 100 white kids with objectively better numbers.  I think it's unfair that their hard work and dedication is ignored because of her skin color.

so you admit that you lashed out at her a bit?  :D

and again, i understand that you feel it's unfair.  but fair is subjective, and the majority of the NYU admissions committee disagrees with you on what's fair.  who's to say that you're right and they're wrong?

If you can't go on the internet to female dog about life being unfair, then what is the internet good for?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 18, 2008, 01:45:27 PM
oh.  so you meant "how does it feel to be taking a seat from a white student whose LSAT/GPA combination is higher than yours"?

that's a little better. 

i still don't like the whole "taking a seat" language since the seats belong to the school and not the students and can be given away as the school pleases, but i'll let someone else argue that point.

Oh, wow. Now you're reeeeeally blowing my mind. I can't handle it. (I am an URM, you know.)

Have you noticed that no one has even acknowledged the little jokes you make?  Take a hint.

this amuses me.

She was beginning to annoy me, like a gnat that one can only ignore for so long before swatting.

I agree that it's not a perfect way to put it, but she likely beat out more than 100 white kids with objectively better numbers.  I think it's unfair that their hard work and dedication is ignored because of her skin color.

And 10-20 white kids beat out Asian kids with objectively better numbers. And 10 skydivers  beat out non skydivers with objectively better numbers. And 10 poor kids beat out 10 rich kids with objectively better numbers. And 10 really really rich kids beat out 20 middle class kids with objectively better numbers.

The system is the way it is. In resource distribution, you make tough decisions on how to allocate those resources. You'd allocate those resources in a different way than most and that is ok. That is a valid opinion, one worth arguing and fighting for. What is despicable is calling out another poster, using faulty logic to undermine her success and then spending 10 pages trying to defend what are objectively pretty silly thoughts on your part.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:46:21 PM

I agree that it's not a perfect way to put it, but she likely beat out more than 100 white kids with objectively better numbers.  I think it's unfair that their hard work and dedication is ignored because of her skin color.

Are you back on this "color of skin" issue again?
I think it's been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread that homogeneity of background and perspective is not beneficial to any group. Adcomms look beyond numbers for people who can contribute more than a 4.0 in poli. sci. to classroom discussion.

I've never seen any evidence that pigment diversity increases the value of a classroom discussion.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:47:32 PM
If you can't go on the internet to female dog about life being unfair, then what is the internet good for?

going after other people who are bitching about life being unfair with name-calling and sarcasm?

I am personally averse to name-calling because I find it immature and unnecessary.  However, it seems to be the primary way people on this board express frustation.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:50:03 PM
oh.  so you meant "how does it feel to be taking a seat from a white student whose LSAT/GPA combination is higher than yours"?

that's a little better. 

i still don't like the whole "taking a seat" language since the seats belong to the school and not the students and can be given away as the school pleases, but i'll let someone else argue that point.

Oh, wow. Now you're reeeeeally blowing my mind. I can't handle it. (I am an URM, you know.)

Have you noticed that no one has even acknowledged the little jokes you make?  Take a hint.

this amuses me.

She was beginning to annoy me, like a gnat that one can only ignore for so long before swatting.

I agree that it's not a perfect way to put it, but she likely beat out more than 100 white kids with objectively better numbers.  I think it's unfair that their hard work and dedication is ignored because of her skin color.

And 10-20 white kids beat out Asian kids with objectively better numbers. And 10 skydivers  beat out non skydivers with objectively better numbers. And 10 poor kids beat out 10 rich kids with objectively better numbers. And 10 really really rich kids beat out 20 middle class kids with objectively better numbers.

The system is the way it is. In resource distribution, you make tough decisions on how to allocate those resources. You'd allocate those resources in a different way than most and that is ok. That is a valid opinion, one worth arguing and fighting for. What is despicable is calling out another poster, using faulty logic to undermine her success and then spending 10 pages trying to defend what are objectively pretty silly thoughts on your part.

Unfortunately, none of those disparities are as easily quantifiable as the boost that URMs get in the application process.  Do skydivers automatically get 10+ points added on their LSAT?  I don't think so.  Do rich kids?  I don't think so.  Do blacks?   According to many respected admissions consultants they do.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 01:53:03 PM
If you can't go on the internet to female dog about life being unfair, then what is the internet good for?

going after other people who are bitching about life being unfair with name-calling and sarcasm?

I am personally averse to name-calling because I find it immature and unnecessary.  However, it seems to be the primary way people on this board express frustation.

well there are people who are personally averse to bitching about life being unfair because they find it immature and unnecessary.  so...

I maintain that I have avoided bitching and attempted to have a rational conversation.  At least since my first post, which was admittedly in poor taste.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 01:59:33 PM
Dear Ms. Beesly and Mr. Archibald,

The Flying Machine has not yet responded to my post (#100), but I see that he is responding to your posts, even though your posts come after #100.  This is totally unfair.  

Clearly, the only reason why he is responding to your posts instead of mine is because your posts are so short while mine is long.  I think this is a fair deduction to make.  I hope your brevity serves you well in law school and in the legal profession. [sarcasm]

How does it feel to know that the only reason for his responses is the length of your posts?  Do you think that is fair?  How dare you take advantage of the incredible opportunities he is offering you by conversing with you knowing that an earlier, more deserving post goes ignored?  


Unkind regards,

20+AHA

20+AHA,

Some people find it easier to respond to shorter, sarcastic posts that have less to offer the discussion than longer posts, which make points they are unable to refute. Do I feel like less of a person because TFM responded to mine and not yours? No, because TFM rates response-worthiness with his/her own set of rules, which we are not privy to. I admit that I feel a little guilty about it, but it's not my fault I was blessed with brevity and you weren't; those are just the backgrounds we were raised in. Maybe if you want to be as competitive on LSD, you should work harder at making your posts shorter, but I'm sure some other poster will reply to you eventually.

Lots of love,

Pam Beesly

 :D
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 18, 2008, 02:04:24 PM
'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

You didn't bother to read the whole thread, I couldn't be bothered to reply to your post.  I'm sorry you felt sleighted that your post on the internet went ignored.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: 20+ Andrew Hill Albums on January 18, 2008, 02:27:32 PM
'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

You didn't bother to read the whole thread, I couldn't be bothered to reply to your post.  I'm sorry you felt sleighted that your post on the internet went ignored.

Denied?

O!  >:( I just feel like slappin the mess out a brief poster!


* goes off to pick an e-fight with the next person who posts "TITCR" in the Where should I go next fall? subforum *
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Pam Beesly on January 18, 2008, 02:40:19 PM
'll shoot, though I haven't read the entire thread.

You didn't bother to read the whole thread, I couldn't be bothered to reply to your post.  I'm sorry you felt sleighted that your post on the internet went ignored.

Denied?

O!  >:( I just feel like slappin the mess out a brief poster!


* goes off to pick an e-fight with the next person who posts "TITCR" in the Where should I go next fall? subforum *

Too funny.
I'm done with this thread and won't be clogging it up with my pointless, albeit brief, remarks.
Bye, everybody.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 01:58:17 PM
Whoa, I didn't realize this discussion was still going on.

Like most AA discussions, this one was a waste of time.

I'm excited for the shitshow that will go down if I get into HYS.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 02:14:52 PM
Whoa, I didn't realize this discussion was still going on.

Like most AA discussions, this one was a waste of time.

I'm excited for the shitshow that will go down if I get into HYS.


I'm sure your time was better spent watching South Park.

Don't worry.  You won't, unless they're really hurting for minorities this year.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t L on January 19, 2008, 02:23:44 PM
How can you just assume she was an AA admit at NYU just because she didn't get into Michigan?

I got into Michigan and not NYU.  The exact opposite of her decisions.  Your theory isn't rock solid.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 02:25:33 PM
Whoa, I didn't realize this discussion was still going on.

Like most AA discussions, this one was a waste of time.

I'm excited for the shitshow that will go down if I get into HYS.


I'm sure your time was better spent watching South Park.

Don't worry.  You won't, unless they're really hurting for minorities this year.

And you wonder why people *&^% on anything you have to say.

How your mother's tit doing? You growing into a big, strong boy?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: MHLM on January 19, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
How can you just assume she was an AA admit at NYU just because she didn't get into Michigan?

I got into Michigan and not NYU.  The exact opposite of her decisions.  Your theory isn't rock solid.

To be fair, tL, you will get into NYU.  ;)
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 02:27:47 PM
How can you just assume she was an AA admit at NYU just because she didn't get into Michigan?

I got into Michigan and not NYU.  The exact opposite of her decisions.  Your theory isn't rock solid.

I outlined my logic numerous times.  While not flawless, I think it has some merit.

And you wonder why people poo on anything you have to say.

How your mother's tit doing? You growing into a big, strong boy?

There you go again assuming I'm a male.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 02:32:45 PM
How can you just assume she was an AA admit at NYU just because she didn't get into Michigan?

I got into Michigan and not NYU.  The exact opposite of her decisions.  Your theory isn't rock solid.

I outlined my logic numerous times.  While not flawless, I think it has some merit.

And you wonder why people poo on anything you have to say.

How your mother's tit doing? You growing into a big, strong boy?

There you go again assuming I'm a male.

Frankly I don't give a *&^% if you're male or not. While there may be something to the recurring assumption that you are male (although I do think your tone suggests patterns that are typically male), there has yet to be anything demonstrated that you aren't a complete f-ing tool, or that you have yet to say something interesting.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 02:48:39 PM
How can you just assume she was an AA admit at NYU just because she didn't get into Michigan?

I got into Michigan and not NYU.  The exact opposite of her decisions.  Your theory isn't rock solid.

I outlined my logic numerous times.  While not flawless, I think it has some merit.

And you wonder why people poo on anything you have to say.

How your mother's tit doing? You growing into a big, strong boy?

There you go again assuming I'm a male.

Frankly I don't give a poo if you're male or not. While there may be something to the recurring assumption that you are male (although I do think your tone suggests patterns that are typically male), there has yet to be anything demonstrated that you aren't a complete f-ing tool, or that you have yet to say something interesting.

Now you're a gender expert as well as a law student?  Excellent.

I find it fascinating that my life is so inconsequential that you couldn't be concerned with my gender, yet you take the time out of your (clearly very busy) day to respond to me.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 02:50:35 PM
I find it fascinating that my life is so inconsequential that you couldn't be concerned with my gender, yet you take the time out of your (clearly very busy) day to respond to me.

so are you male or female?

Is it relevant?
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 02:54:38 PM
I find it fascinating that my life is so inconsequential that you couldn't be concerned with my gender, yet you take the time out of your (clearly very busy) day to respond to me.

so are you male or female?

Is it relevant?

Lulz.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
I find it fascinating that my life is so inconsequential that you couldn't be concerned with my gender, yet you take the time out of your (clearly very busy) day to respond to me.

so are you male or female?

Is it relevant?

you seem to think so.  otherwise when people referred to you as a male, you would ignore it because it was not relevant.  if it's noteworthy enough to comment on, why not just take the issue off the table?

I'm merely making a sociological observation that other posters are assuming I'm male.  I think it says something about this board as a whole.  I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 02:58:49 PM

I'm merely making a sociological observation that other posters are assuming I'm male.  I think it says something about this board as a whole.  I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Lulz x 2.

Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t L on January 19, 2008, 02:59:41 PM

To be fair, tL, you will get into NYU.  ;)

Thanks.  I need the vote of confidence.  :-\
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:00:01 PM
I'm merely making a sociological observation that other posters are assuming I'm male.  I think it says something about this board as a whole.

that the default assumption is that you're a white male?  i don't think that's surprising or noteworthy.

Why not?
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:00:44 PM

I'm merely making a sociological observation that other posters are assuming I'm male.  I think it says something about this board as a whole.  I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Lulz x 2.



I'm glad that my desire to buck conventional trends is entertaining to you.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: MHLM on January 19, 2008, 03:01:52 PM
I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:06:15 PM
I'm merely making a sociological observation that other posters are assuming I'm male.  I think it says something about this board as a whole.

that the default assumption is that you're a white male?  i don't think that's surprising or noteworthy.

Why not?

because it's the simplest category to imagine a person belonging to.

that was terrible grammar.


Maybe I meant that it shows this board lacks imagination.

I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.

Except tfm has clearly expressed that he/she disagrees with a policy of letting one's URM status give one a boost in admissions.

In my applications, I chose not to highlight my gender ambiguity.  I prefer to be judged on factors other than my physical appearance, unlike some on this board.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: MHLM on January 19, 2008, 03:07:25 PM
I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.

Except tfm has clearly expressed that he/she disagrees with a policy of letting one's URM status give one a boost in admissions.

Yes, but I got the sense that tfm (will not use "s/he" as a pronoun per the subject's request) was the type who didn't like AA only because tfm is not a beneficiary of the policy. Maybe a boost for tfm would change tfm's view...?
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:08:47 PM

In my applications, I chose not to highlight my gender ambiguity.  I prefer to be judged on factors other than my physical appearance, unlike some on this board.

Yet you judge other people on their physical appearance?

And anyway, the world does as well, which is (partly) why you're wrong.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:09:24 PM
I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.

Except tfm has clearly expressed that he/she disagrees with a policy of letting one's URM status give one a boost in admissions.

Yes, but I got the sense that tfm (will not use "s/he" as a pronoun per the subject's request) was the type who didn't like AA only because tfm is not a beneficiary of the policy. Maybe a boost for tfm would change tfm's view...?

See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:10:29 PM
Maybe I meant that it shows this board lacks imagination.

or that it expends its imagination judiciously.  or that it has a thing for white males and is secretly hoping that every new poster that comes along is one.  or that it hates white males and that it secretly hopes that anyone who comes along who disagrees with it is one.

i could come up with more possibilities, but there's a few so why don't you pick which one you like best?

:D :D

I'm just lazy.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:10:50 PM

In my applications, I chose not to highlight my gender ambiguity.  I prefer to be judged on factors other than my physical appearance, unlike some on this board.

Yet you judge other people on their physical appearance?

And anyway, the world does as well, which is (partly) why you're wrong.

In highlighting their URM status in their LawSchoolNumbers profiles, they have classified themselves.  It is their judgment, not mine.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:11:34 PM
Maybe I meant that it shows this board lacks imagination.

or that it expends its imagination judiciously.  or that it has a thing for white males and is secretly hoping that every new poster that comes along is one.  or that it hates white males and that it secretly hopes that anyone who comes along who disagrees with it is one.

i could come up with more possibilities, but there's a few so why don't you pick which one you like best?

I personally find it interesting that this board assumes I'm a white male.  If you do not, that is fine.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:11:49 PM
I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.

Except tfm has clearly expressed that he/she disagrees with a policy of letting one's URM status give one a boost in admissions.

Yes, but I got the sense that tfm (will not use "s/he" as a pronoun per the subject's request) was the type who didn't like AA only because tfm is not a beneficiary of the policy. Maybe a boost for tfm would change tfm's view...?

See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.

Good luck defining "merit."

Although I'm already convinced your definition is quite different from that of the admissions offices of most law schools. Which has been stated previously in that earlier post you so obviously chose not to respond to.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:12:19 PM

In my applications, I chose not to highlight my gender ambiguity.  I prefer to be judged on factors other than my physical appearance, unlike some on this board.

Yet you judge other people on their physical appearance?

And anyway, the world does as well, which is (partly) why you're wrong.

In highlighting their URM status in their LawSchoolNumbers profiles, they have classified themselves.  It is their judgment, not mine.

Lulz x 3.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: MHLM on January 19, 2008, 03:13:21 PM
I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.

Except tfm has clearly expressed that he/she disagrees with a policy of letting one's URM status give one a boost in admissions.

Yes, but I got the sense that tfm (will not use "s/he" as a pronoun per the subject's request) was the type who didn't like AA only because tfm is not a beneficiary of the policy. Maybe a boost for tfm would change tfm's view...?

From where did you get this feeling?

No quote for that one...just a feeling I got from the original post. I think many--if not the majority--of those who rail against AA are those that do not benefit from it. Am I wrong on this?
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t L on January 19, 2008, 03:14:09 PM
See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.

urMom has a 3.5 from Princeton with a LSAT score in the 95%.  I'm sure she was chosen on merit and not pity.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: tkm. on January 19, 2008, 03:14:54 PM
don't bother tL...lost cause
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:15:24 PM
See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.

urMom has a 3.5 from Princeton with a LSAT score in the 95%.  I'm sure she was chosen on merit and not pity.

90th percentile actually. Good enough for me.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:16:14 PM
Although I'm already convinced your definition is quite different from that of the admissions offices of most law schools. Which has been stated previously in that earlier post you so obviously chose not to respond to.

actually, she already acknowledged that it essentially boiled down to her definition of merit differing from the definition used by the nyu adcomms.  so she did respond to a similar thing.

Then why continue the discussion?

And besides, I'm really only interested in flaming here, so...
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:17:25 PM
See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.

urMom has a 3.5 from Princeton with a LSAT score in the 95%.  I'm sure she was chosen on merit and not pity.

Exactly. She has a 3.5 from a grade-inflating Ivy.  Her LSAT score is positively mediocre by NYU's standards.

I will not even get into the role her URM status likely played in her admission to Princeton.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:18:36 PM
Although I'm already convinced your definition is quite different from that of the admissions offices of most law schools. Which has been stated previously in that earlier post you so obviously chose not to respond to.

actually, she already acknowledged that it essentially boiled down to her definition of merit differing from the definition used by the nyu adcomms.  so she did respond to a similar thing.

Thank you.

Although I'm already convinced your definition is quite different from that of the admissions offices of most law schools. Which has been stated previously in that earlier post you so obviously chose not to respond to.

actually, she already acknowledged that it essentially boiled down to her definition of merit differing from the definition used by the nyu adcomms.  so she did respond to a similar thing.

Then why continue the discussion?

And besides, I'm really only interested in flaming here, so...

At this point, I'm only responding to others.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:18:42 PM
See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.

urMom has a 3.5 from Princeton with a LSAT score in the 95%.  I'm sure she was chosen on merit and not pity.

Exactly. She has a 3.5 from a grade-inflating Ivy.  Her LSAT score is positively mediocre by NYU's standards.

I will not even get into the role her URM status likely played in her admission to Princeton.

You're really quite excellent at this.

Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:19:56 PM
See my post just above yours.  I would like to succeed on merit, not pity, which it seems to me is the essence of AA.

urMom has a 3.5 from Princeton with a LSAT score in the 95%.  I'm sure she was chosen on merit and not pity.

90th percentile actually. Good enough for me.

That's what I love.  The irrepressible desire to be the best.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: MHLM on January 19, 2008, 03:21:36 PM
I choose not to identify with society's common gender distinctions.

Hey, this probably qualifies you as a URM...perhaps you could use it to get a boost in admissions.

Except tfm has clearly expressed that he/she disagrees with a policy of letting one's URM status give one a boost in admissions.

Yes, but I got the sense that tfm (will not use "s/he" as a pronoun per the subject's request) was the type who didn't like AA only because tfm is not a beneficiary of the policy. Maybe a boost for tfm would change tfm's view...?

From where did you get this feeling?

No quote for that one...just a feeling I got from the original post. I think many--if not the majority--of those who rail against AA are those that do not benefit from it. Am I wrong on this?

I think so. There are a number of people of are against AA who are minorities and therefore might benefit from it. I am part native-American, but have never advertised this on any application, ever.

Hm...well, as I said, it's more of a visceral sense about who AA opponents tend to be--no statistical proof or anything. Your point is definitely noted though; I find it quite interesting.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:22:29 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile for the LSAT or being a middle of the road Princeton student.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
At this point, I'm only responding to others.

are you responding to all posts in general?  because i'm sorely tempted to change the subject. 

for example, we could talk about whether we will see any upsets tomorrow.

Packers by at least 14.  Patriots may not cover, but will win.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:24:13 PM
At this point, I'm only responding to others.

are you responding to all posts in general?  because i'm sorely tempted to change the subject. 

for example, we could talk about whether we will see any upsets tomorrow.

Packers by at least 14.  Patriots may not cover, but will win.

I agree with both.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:24:34 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 03:25:37 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.

NYU obviously disagrees.

Hope that f-ing helps.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:27:33 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:27:55 PM
At this point, I'm only responding to others.

are you responding to all posts in general?  because i'm sorely tempted to change the subject. 

for example, we could talk about whether we will see any upsets tomorrow.

Packers by at least 14.  Patriots may not cover, but will win.

I agree with both.

same here, but i'm still holding out hope for the giants.  on the other hand i wonder if it would make more sense to want the packers to win since they probably have a better shot at taking down the pats.

Eli has admitted publicly that he detests playing in cold weather.  Are you really expecting him to play well for three games in a row?  He's a Manning.

My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.

NYU obviously disagrees.

Hope that f-ing helps.

We have established this already.  Please try to keep up.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:29:23 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.


But I should also add, I'm fine with being average in general. I don't derive my self-worth from getting the highest GPA/LSAT score or going to the most prestigious schools. Its nice, but its really not all its made out to be.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:30:35 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.

I'm not  :-\


Hah, I got over that feeling very quickly freshman year.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:30:43 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.

That's a rather silly statement.  In the infinite expanse of the universe, there is likely a much better educational institution than Princeton.

Out of curiousity, what was your SAT score?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:31:29 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.


But I should also add, I'm fine with being average in general. I don't derive my self-worth from getting the highest GPA/LSAT score or going to the most prestigious schools. Its nice, but its really not all its made out to be.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of 3 minutes.  I'm confused.  Are you proud of being average at Princeton, or is it meaningless to you?
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:32:50 PM
same here, but i'm still holding out hope for the giants.  on the other hand i wonder if it would make more sense to want the packers to win since they probably have a better shot at taking down the pats.

Eli has admitted publicly that he detests playing in cold weather.  Are you really expecting him to play well for three games in a row?  He's a Manning.

you see, if we were in a food fight, this would be a perfect time for me to throw out a reading comprehension jab.  :D  ;)

but to answer your question, absolutely not.  i fully expect the giants to lose.  but can't blame a guy for hoping, can you?

Poor choice of words.  I'm sorry.  I'm looking forward to seeing Manning Face Jr. tomorrow.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:34:05 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.


But I should also add, I'm fine with being average in general. I don't derive my self-worth from getting the highest GPA/LSAT score or going to the most prestigious schools. Its nice, but its really not all its made out to be.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of 3 minutes.  I'm confused.  Are you proud of being average at Princeton, or is it meaningless to you?


Oh, I'm definitely proud of it. To clarify: I'm proud of being average at Princeton and I'm ok with being average in general.


My SAT was 1540.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:34:46 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.


But I should also add, I'm fine with being average in general. I don't derive my self-worth from getting the highest GPA/LSAT score or going to the most prestigious schools. Its nice, but its really not all its made out to be.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of 3 minutes.  I'm confused.  Are you proud of being average at Princeton, or is it meaningless to you?


Oh, I'm definitely proud of it. To clarify: I'm proud of being average at Princeton and I'm ok with being average in general.


My SAT was 1540.

Why did you underperform on the LSAT?  You also said you don't derive your self-worth from being a Princeton student.  You are confusing me.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:36:54 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.


But I should also add, I'm fine with being average in general. I don't derive my self-worth from getting the highest GPA/LSAT score or going to the most prestigious schools. Its nice, but its really not all its made out to be.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of 3 minutes.  I'm confused.  Are you proud of being average at Princeton, or is it meaningless to you?


Oh, I'm definitely proud of it. To clarify: I'm proud of being average at Princeton and I'm ok with being average in general.


My SAT was 1540.

Why did you underperform on the LSAT?

Nerves? I was testing in the low 170's.

Or maybe its just because I'm dumb.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:37:48 PM
My GPA and LSAT are the averages for Princeton students. I'm an average Princeton student (regardless of race).

I don't want to be the best. I just want to do as well as I can, whatever that is. I am not ashamed of being in the 90th percentile.

There are so many things wrong with this statement.  You're satisfied with average?  You don't want to be the best?

90% on the LSAT is great.  It's just not NYU-great.


I did say average at PRINCETON (which in my honest opinion is the greatest institution of higher education in the universe).

And yeah, I am ok with being average here. My peers are amazing and I'm honored to be included amongst them.


But I should also add, I'm fine with being average in general. I don't derive my self-worth from getting the highest GPA/LSAT score or going to the most prestigious schools. Its nice, but its really not all its made out to be.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of 3 minutes.  I'm confused.  Are you proud of being average at Princeton, or is it meaningless to you?


Oh, I'm definitely proud of it. To clarify: I'm proud of being average at Princeton and I'm ok with being average in general.


My SAT was 1540.

Why did you underperform on the LSAT?

Nerves? I was testing in the low 170's.

Or maybe its just because I'm a dumb spic.

Please.  I have never once resorted to the use of an ethnic slur in this conversation.  Do not try to make it seem like I have.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 03:39:13 PM
Why did you edit out the ethnic slur you used?
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: .......2 on January 19, 2008, 03:39:42 PM
I was worried you would think I was attributing it to you. I definitely was not. That's why I edited.

I got called that for the first time after getting into Princeton. Sadly, this is what this whole debate has reminded me of.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: OnTheRoad on January 19, 2008, 03:50:02 PM
Um, I really hate to give this idiot one more hit, but I would like to point out that this white boy got WL at UCLA and Michigan, and in at NYU.

If you have anything else to say about race, I'd be happy to meet you in person so you can say it to my face.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: theflyingmachine on January 19, 2008, 04:01:05 PM
Um, I really hate to give this idiot one more hit, but I would like to point out that this white boy got WL at UCLA and Michigan, and in at NYU.

If you have anything else to say about race, I'd be happy to meet you in person so you can say it to my face.

I appreciate your macho posturing on the internet.  It makes me smile.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Ender Wiggin on January 19, 2008, 04:42:26 PM
Um, I really hate to give this idiot one more hit, but I would like to point out that this white boy got WL at UCLA and Michigan, and in at NYU.

If you have anything else to say about race, I'd be happy to meet you in person so you can say it to my face.

I appreciate your macho posturing on the internet.  It makes me smile.

(http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50356703/136_Piece_Tool_Set.jpg)
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 19, 2008, 04:46:18 PM
Um, I really hate to give this idiot one more hit, but I would like to point out that this white boy got WL at UCLA and Michigan, and in at NYU.

If you have anything else to say about race, I'd be happy to meet you in person so you can say it to my face.

What are you numbers?
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 07:45:40 PM
Um, I really hate to give this idiot one more hit, but I would like to point out that this white boy got WL at UCLA and Michigan, and in at NYU.

If you have anything else to say about race, I'd be happy to meet you in person so you can say it to my face.

I appreciate your macho posturing on the internet.  It makes me smile.

As if your bull posturing is any better, fucknuts. 
Title: Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: t... on January 19, 2008, 11:06:55 PM
Um, I really hate to give this idiot one more hit, but I would like to point out that this white boy got WL at UCLA and Michigan, and in at NYU.

If you have anything else to say about race, I'd be happy to meet you in person so you can say it to my face.

I appreciate your macho posturing on the internet.  It makes me smile.

As if your bull posturing is any better, fucknuts. 


By cursing and name calling, you just make tfm's arguments sound more legit.

Lulz x 4.
Title: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
Post by: Justice Brennan on February 02, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
::dissents::