Law School 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 - 008

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26
This issue really gets you doesn't it?  Well, everyone has their cross to bear.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: July 27, 2008, 02:46:17 AM »
And Obama's not all that hard-hitting on the issues, either, so he makes it pretty easy.

This is true, but who is hard hitting on the issues?  Politics is a waste of time.  It's a popularity contest between two equally unsympathetic characters.  I dont vote usually, unless i'm particularly moved AGAINST a candidate like in 2004 against Bush.  This election comes down to not wanting Bush III in office, so I'll vote for whoever is running against him. Hell, I'd vote for Mickey Mouse or Tyrone Biggums over McCain.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: July 27, 2008, 01:54:04 AM »
I hate to admit it, but a meltdown is always possible.

Yeah, I'm not all that convinced Obama is going to win.  I am entirely convinced that it won't be the Latino and Asian-American votes that do him in, though.  Thanks for playing, Vercingetorix.

I mean, I hope he does, but the Repubs are a formidable misinformation-nonsequiter-distract-you-from-the-issues machine.

So I was at my home campus (UCLA) the other day and I stepped into the law admissions office and ask to speak with a admissions rep. I informed her that I was a recent graduate from UCLA and that I am considering coming to UCLA Law.

She started off by asking why I had a interest in coming to UCLA and in short I told her that there are potential family problems that might require me to stay close to home. I also told her that I was too happy with how UCLA kept single digits number of Blacks/African Americans in each of their incoming law school classes.

She at that point seemed to question why UCLA? She informed me "UCLA is a top-ranked school" we only take the best of the best who on average maintain a 3...At this point I stopped her...I informed her I am aware that the school has a 3.69 and a 167 average. I then told her what my gpa (3.789) and lsat (169). She stopped and I saw this suprise looked crawl on her face (as if she thought a black male at UCLA couldn't attain that.

She then seemed all excited about me applying and she said "apply to the critical race theory program." I had informed her that I was intersted in race and law, I especially have considered educational law and try shake things up with affrimative action being prac. in california.

So she explictly said "they would love to hae you...they hardly ever have students that are above the school average" she then provided me a book and I looked at the average admits for Critical race theory program 3.49 and 159 average...I hate to say this but is this the "easy way into UCLA"

Does anybody know why that the admissions standards are much lower for this program?

if you enter...aye hope you dismantle the "race" could go far...after all...there is no such thing as race.

Perception is reality.  As long as minorities are discriminated against based on their color or culture, there will always be "race."

You think everything you tough is solid, but that is not true.  There really is no such thing as solid as we know it.  But try explaining that to the average American bumpkin and you'll be wasting your breath and time.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: July 27, 2008, 01:45:11 AM »
I hate to admit it, but a meltdown is always possible.

Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Bar Exam Study Thread
« on: July 26, 2008, 09:38:22 PM »
I havent done an MBE q in over a week... eep!

Where should I go next fall? / Re: USC vs. Fordham
« on: July 26, 2008, 01:15:04 AM »
There's the possibility for money at USC. I doubt I'll get anything at Fordham (but won't have to relocate, and would live driving distance from pretty much everyone I know, ultimately saving quite a bit). I haven't visited USC, and won't have time to now. I've been to Fordham, though. Anyone have input on USC's campus? I know the surrounding area is debatably sketchy...

Also, I called USC's Admissions office today to ask a few general questions before making my final decision, and they put me on the phone with one of the deans, who talked to me for about 10 minutes. She said USC does recruitment events in NYC and DC, and that USC placed 14 graduates in NYC last year (100% of the total # who interviewed for a NYC job and wanted one, she said). According to her, USC places very well on the east coast, esp. NYC and DC. Obviously, Fordham would be the safe, practical choice for definite NYC living, but USC has definite appeal...and wouldn't make it impossible for me to move back east...anyway, they offered to extend my deposit date to Monday (I didn't have to ask for the extension), and are putting me in contact with a student who chose USC over Fordham last year (This was brought up before I mentioned that Fordham was my other school)..overall, exceptionally nice Admissions Office. I was impressed.
The area gets a bad rap but it is perfectly safe because so many students live in the area; Unless you start driving south of 35th street to practice your gang signs, tough guy stare and crip walk, you'll be perfectly fine.

Whatever faults the area has are more than made up for by the campus.  It is fantastic.  The first time I went there it took my breath away.  Many many places to study, sit by one of the 20+ fountains and relax, or sit on a park bench and admire the fresh flowers.  USC spends over a million a year on landscaping alone, and it shows.

Throw away your shoes, socks, pants, heavy coat, mittens, ear muffs and buy a pair of sandals/flip-flips/slippers or whatever you like call them.

I wish I could go back in time and do it all over again. :-[

I don't know why 'direct result' and '100 years ago' doesn't compute. In the case of First Nations people, 100 years ago - force them into residential schooling where they are made to speak english only, dress and act in a western manner, and any expressions of their heritage is expressly forbidden. Add on top of that consistent sexual and physical abuse. Today - a group which is still in great poverty, marginalized, with large substance abuse problems, and a youth population many who understandably feel no connection to 'white' society and lack linguistic links to their First Nations history.

I think there are quite a few examples of parents not raising their kids, and their kids go on to be successful and vice versa. The biggest indicator of economic success is level of education, imo.

First - you apparently do not know the difference between the words "direct" and "indirect." I hit you and as a direct result you have a bloody nose. Indirectly, you contracted a deadly disease and died from the blood transfusion you received because of the blood running down your face. In between the face strike and the transfusion, something else could have happened to prevent your death. E.g. you could have gone to a different place for the transfusion.

Who do you think most influences a child's choice to obtain a good education? Parents, good thing too, because they have the responsibility. I know exceptions happen and even a 10% exception rate does equal millions of success stories, so yes, quite a few people do succeed despite parental neglect.

It's still the single largest success factor and thus where communities should focus.


Directness can always be disputed.  You getting a bloody nose is a direct result of your tissues being too weak, so really, it's your own fault.

how about the but for cause, does that work?

Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 25, 2008, 09:30:53 PM »
That really sucks for his dying wife.  Can't he just hold it together until she's in the ground?  sheesh

How about America gives back the land it took, pays for the labor it was unjustly enriched by, gets rid of legacy admits, criminalizes all intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities use, abolishes the distinction between white collar crime and other crime and then strictly prohibits racial profiling?  What is it about that that really bothers you?

1. Why don't you start with your first house?
2. Those labor thieves are dead. Last I checked I'm not liable for even a murder my father commits.
3. What? Crack vs. Alcohol? Unsure what you mean here.
4. White collar crime is distinguished because it generally doesn't deal with direct physical attacks on people. Sorry mate, there's a huge difference between sticking a gun in my face to take my money and stealing from my bank account. What you ask? The weapon.
5. As for racial profiling, yes I agree it should not happen. It does, if it happens to you and you suffered some tangible damage - lost wages, confinement, etc., then find a lawyer. Actually, I am a lawyer, send me a pm and we'll sue or I'll find you a lawyer who will.
1. First house?
2. Yeah, but you wouldnt be able to keep any of the proceeds of your father's theft or murder.
3. Crack, marijuana v. alcohol and cigarettes
4. Maybe there is a huge difference, but why should someone who embezzles vast amount of money go to a minimum security prison where someone who sells drugs gets mixed in with the rapists and murderers? 
5. It is a fact that african americans are more likely to get pulled over merely because they're black - it's called DWB

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26