Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lindbergh

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 425
1
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 12, 2008, 12:51:29 AM »
Finally, I will note that it's you who appears to have a stick up her butt, and apparently needs to "de-rear" herself, and develop a sense of humor.   :)

If "developing a sense of humor" involves spending my thirties making middle school jokes about butt sex on a discussion board for law students, I'll take a pass.

No one says you have to make butt sex jokes -- just try to appreciate them when others do.   :)

If you can't do that, maybe you could just keep your uptight, anal-retentiveness to yourself, instead of expressing outrage everytime someone makes a picaresque comment?  Just an idea.

2
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 12, 2008, 12:48:01 AM »
(I won't go into here whether classes made up of privileged whites and privileged nonwhites are really more intellectually diverse than a class focused on economic/class diversity, but an argument could certainly be made in favor of the latter vs. the former, if intellectual diversity is really our primary goal.)

I think you're being willfully obtuse about the meaning of diversity under Grutter. 


Not at all -- I was simply responding to the other poster's definition of diversity.


Part of the point is to include enough members of each racial group so that people cannot hold on to stereotypes about what black people are like or what white people think about X.  To this end, of course it's important to have class diversity -- among students from all racial groups.  Here are some relevant portions of O'Connor's opinion:

Fwiw, the rationale cited to above is clearly a post-hoc justification for preferential admissions, like most other justifications.  This is only confirmed by the fact that after making the argument diversity is needed to dispel such stereotypical views, the quote goes on to maintain that minorities do in fact hold stereotypical views.

In my view, it would better further the cause of disspelling stereotypes if we stopped pretending that all minorities (even privileged ones) need preferential admissions, and that all whites (even underprivileged ones) are somehow meaningfully advantaged in educational admissions. Just my opinion.

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 12, 2008, 12:23:03 AM »
I have been batteling with the question of race my whole life..... My parents have a plethora of ethnicities in their blood, they both look white, but somehow I ended up looking pure Mexican. I have identified as white my whole life until about four years ago, when I realized racist people were rearing me as they would any other minority.....

Were they raising you, or sodomizing you?   ???

This response indicates that you were unaware that "rear" is the preferred term for bringing up children in traditional English usage.  See, e.g., http://www.bartleby.com/68/62/4962.html.

Actually, if you read my post, I specifically ask if he's saying racist people were raising him (bringing him up).  However, not even this makes sense, unless he's saying his parents were racist against him, which seems unlikely.  (He clearly indicates he's still being raised by his biological parents, not foster parents or an orphanage.)  I therefore suspect he intended another term altogether.

Finally, it's difficult to argue that "rear" is still the preferred term in this area, if it ever was, which is yet another reason it's an odd (and likely mistaken) word choice.


But I suppose if you're hellbent on making homophobic jokes in every thread, any use of a word like "rear" or "behind" is just too great an opportunity to pass up.

Um, okay.   ::)

I recognize that the post was pretty incoherent, but "rear" is a common term.  It certainly wasn't what hung me up.  In any case, I don't think the natural assumption is that anyone was "sodomizing" him.  You can pretend that you weren't trying to make one of your signature jokes, but it will just further diminish your credibility.

Rear may be a common term in certain elite households, but it's certainly not a common term in most households today.  Regardless, it doesn't appear to make sense in this context, which was the point of my post -- I was trying to figure out what the poster actually meant by the term.  I didn't "assume" anyone was sodomizing the poster, I simply asked.  For all I know that's exactly what the poster intended, so maybe you're the one who should refrain from unwarranted assumptions. 

I will also note that it's unclear if the poster is male or female, so your "homophobia" attacks are clearly groundless.

Finally, I will note that it's you who appears to have a stick up her butt, and apparently needs to "de-rear" herself, and develop a sense of humor.   :)

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 12, 2008, 12:10:09 AM »
While I do understand the sentiment and agree that it sucks to feel shafted in terms of law school admissions, particularly with the school of your attendance being a major factor in your initial employment options.  Diversity is a valid  concern of a law school.  And while the majority of white people alive today do not actively contribute to overt racism or the obstacles many minorities face, those same people cannot help without active effort benefiting from entrenched advantages from the collective American past, just as minorities still struggle to gain ground they were forcibly withheld from.  Admittedly many do not take advantage of these opportunities and many of those end up on the news and elsewhere and in rap videos perhaps even as the star perpetuating stereotypes of people who it is harder to believe deserve some kind of help.

Another interesting point that would be something you could read up on would be the University of Michigan affirmative action case which invalidated points being added for minority status, but decided that it was entirely legitimate to allow for an even greater number of "admissions points" to be added for legacy.  Who gains advantage from that?  Your poor whites stuck in bad schools in poor neighborhoods without an edge in the world are left in the cold alongside the minorities and your additionally privileged middle and upper class whites who are more likely to have parents or siblings who went to the school benefit greatly.  It is incredibly difficult without this advantage to get into Yale University.  Yet the gripe you take up is some perceived sense of affirmative action which doesn't officially exist and especially not in the sense of your black people over white people sense.  I do agree with you that background should play a larger role in considerations as white privilege is not the only privilege that many have and that it itself should not be conflated with class privilege though it is often because of the fact that the majority of minorities are in a lower class and the majority of whites are in a higher class.

I just wrote a very long response to your post that got lost when I was logged out upon posting.   :(  Maybe I'll try to rewrite it later. 

However, the bottom line of the post was this: Whatever the actual numbers or percentages, there are in fact some white students who get shafted by this system.  (As you yourself note, "Your poor whites stuck in bad schools in poor neighborhoods without an edge in the world are left in the cold".)  These students are not privileged in any meaningful sense, and they are in fact far less privileged than many/most non-white applicants. 

(The uber-wealthy, uber-privileged minorities listed are of course extreme examples, provided simply to refute the claim made by the other poster that all whites are inherently more privileged than all non-whites.  However, there are in fact millions of non-white families that are better off than most white families, and there are even more white families that are worse off than most non-white families.)

We can't really blame such students for seeking to avoid the unfair stereotyping of a system that unjustifiably assumes advantage when no such advantage exists. 

That's my key point here, in response to the other poster.  One can certainly argue that such individual injustices are justified by broader social benefits (e.g., "diversity").  This is the argument behind any racial profiling, and preferential admissions are, of course, just one such type of profiling.  I'm simply noting that the injustices exist, and that we can't really blame the victims of such policies for quietly protesting them by checking "other", however ineffectual and meaningless that protest may actually be.

(I won't go into here whether classes made up of privileged whites and privileged nonwhites are really more intellectually diverse than a class focused on economic/class diversity, but an argument could certainly be made in favor of the latter vs. the former, if intellectual diversity is really our primary goal.)

5
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 11, 2008, 10:50:16 PM »
This response indicates that you were unaware that "rear" is the preferred term for bringing up children in traditional English usage.  See, e.g., http://www.bartleby.com/68/62/4962.html.  But I suppose if you're hellbent on making homophobic jokes in every thread, any use of a word like "rear" or "behind" is just too great an opportunity to pass up.

I'll get behind this post.  And ride it to the end.

I'll guess I'm not the only one who's supposedly unable to resist puns.  ;)

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 11, 2008, 10:49:01 PM »
I have been batteling with the question of race my whole life..... My parents have a plethora of ethnicities in their blood, they both look white, but somehow I ended up looking pure Mexican. I have identified as white my whole life until about four years ago, when I realized racist people were rearing me as they would any other minority.....

Were they raising you, or sodomizing you?   ???

This response indicates that you were unaware that "rear" is the preferred term for bringing up children in traditional English usage.  See, e.g., http://www.bartleby.com/68/62/4962.html.
 
Actually, if you read my post, I specifically ask if he's saying racist people were raising him (bringing him up).  However, not even this makes sense, unless he's saying his parents were racist against him, which seems unlikely.  (He clearly indicates he's still being raised by his biological parents, not foster parents or an orphanage.)  I therefore suspect he intended another term altogether.

Finally, it's difficult to argue that "rear" is still the preferred term in this area, if it ever was, which is yet another reason it's an odd word choice.


But I suppose if you're hellbent on making homophobic jokes in every thread, any use of a word like "rear" or "behind" is just too great an opportunity to pass up.

Um, okay.   ::)

7
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 11, 2008, 03:36:57 PM »
this is just ridiculous.  although I know plenty of white people check "other" to make it SEEM like they are some kind of minority without actually having to choose one of the minority statuses.

They probably just don't want to be discriminated against.  It's not so much that they want to be seen as a minority, they just don't want to be labeled as a "privileged" white person.

This is probably more of a problem for asians, however, who experience the most discrimination in admissions, and are therefore probably most likely to check the "other" box.

probably don't want to be discriminated against?  ha...

Why is this funny?  There's no question that whites and asians are discriminated against in admissions (though it's far worse for asians).  The only question is whether such discrimination is justified by other factors.  That's a debate for other threads.

There's also little question that most people don't like to be discriminated against, period.  And the people who are filling in the "other" box are clearly seeking to avoid this, or they wouldn't be checking the "other" box.  (I doubt they really think it will give them a positive boost, and the truth is, it probably gets them considered as white or even asian in reality.)

Yes, I agree people don't like being discriminated against.  I think what was funny to me is the comment that White's don't want to seem privileged and that somehow this whole "discriminating" thing is really a huge problem for whites. 

I'm not really sure why you put "discriminating" in quotes.  Do you dispute that different groups are subject to different standards in admission?  If not, then one has to acknowledge that discrimination is taking place.  The only question, again, is whether that discrimination is justified.

Whether or not such discrimination is a "huge problem" for whites probably depends on the white person in question. White people, like every other group, come from all kinds of backgrounds.  A rich, well-supported white person probably won't be hurt much by preferential admissions.  They probably have enough advantages to overcome it.  However, a poor/working-class white person who's had to struggle for everything they have will probably be a more borderline applicant, and may therefore be impacted more (and bothered more) by such policies.


Don't want to get all philosophical here, but Whites are always more privileged over nonwhites.
 

Oh, really?  So a retarded, homeless white person is somehow more privileged than Will Smith, or Michael Jordan, or Oprah, or Colin Powell?  Put more generally, is the child of a poor white preson, growing up in a poor area with crappy schools, really more privileged and advantaged than the child of any non-white millionaire or successful professional when it comes to educational admissions? 

I realize you've been taught this, and you may even believe it.  I'm simply pointing out that it makes absolutely no sense.  Sure, many whites are advantaged relative to many non-whites, and this can be determined by examining factors like household income and K-12 school quality.  However, the same factors clearly show that many non-whites are educationally advantaged relative to many other whites.  Which is why preferential admissions based solely on ethnicity (as opposed to actual advantages) also makes little sense.


It is called "the Racial Contract" in which ALL whites are beneficiaries whether or not they choose to be. 

I haven't seen a copy of this alleged contract.  Can you post one for us? 

One can certainly argue that, all other things being equal, it's easier to be white than non-white, in pretty much every country.  So one could argue that where applicants are otherwise comparable in terms of background, the non-white should get the edge in admissions.  The problem, of course, is that other things aren't always equal.  There are white families in this country that are much more disadvantaged than most non-white applicants to law school, and there are non-white families that are far more advantaged (and therefore privileged) than most white families. 

So I think it's important to get beyond a simplistic, self-serving, incorrect view of privilege, and understand that privilege and advantage are far more complex than some might believe.


And to try to mask that by checking off another box is pretty low. 

Except the alleged advantage you claim they're "masking" may not exist in many cases.  For those who are less advantaged than most non-white applicants, it's hard to say they're doing anything wrong by avoiding an unfair, prejudicial stereotyping. For those who are from similar backgrounds as most non-white applicants, the issue is at best arguable.  This would really only seem truly problematic for those white applicants who are meaningfully advantaged relative to most non-white applicants, and even in those cases, it really comes down to the non-white applicant they're being compared to, as many of them may also be comparably advantaged.

If, on the other hand, preferential admissions was instead based on economics and educational opportunity, and someone was distorting their economic/educational background, your position would of course be far more justified.

8
I wouldn't put visiting a campus on par with the personal statement, but it can work as a soft. You might meet admissions people and even if it's not a formal interview, you are still putting yourself out there and many do make notes on their files. And as Lindbergh says, it shows you are serious about the school and have thoroughly checked it out.

I think the best thing about visits is that while not a formal interview, it can act as an informal interview, and if you "connect" with an adcom, that will obviously put you ahead of everyone else with comparable numbers. 

Obviously, after your visit, you should write and e-mail to reinforce any positive connections.

9
Studying for the LSAT / Re: did anyone lie about their race on the lsat?
« on: October 10, 2008, 11:29:49 PM »
this is just ridiculous.  although I know plenty of white people check "other" to make it SEEM like they are some kind of minority without actually having to choose one of the minority statuses.

They probably just don't want to be discriminated against.  It's not so much that they want to be seen as a minority, they just don't want to be labeled as a "privileged" white person.

This is probably more of a problem for asians, however, who experience the most discrimination in admissions, and are therefore probably most likely to check the "other" box.

probably don't want to be discriminated against?  ha...

Why is this funny?  There's no question that whites and asians are discriminated against in admissions (though it's far worse for asians).  The only question is whether such discrimination is justified by other factors.  That's a debate for other threads.

There's also little question that most people don't like to be discriminated against, period.  And the people who are filling in the "other" box are clearly seeking to avoid this, or they wouldn't be checking the "other" box.  (I doubt they really think it will give them a positive boost, and the truth is, it probably gets them considered as white or even asian in reality.)

10
Robin Singh would probably be the best tutor in SoCal.  I have no idea if he still tutors privately, and it would be beaucoup bucks if he does, but if you have the money, it would probably be worth it.

Sounds like you need to slow down first, working through PT tests (and games sections) untimed until you master them.  Obviously, a basic prep book would be a good start, and then maybe the Powerscore bibles, especially the Games bible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 425