Law School Discussion

And Obama's not all that hard-hitting on the issues, either, so he makes it pretty easy.

Quote from: MikeyBruin2008 on July 23, 2008, 10:41:27 PM

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" misconception...you could go far...after all...there is no such thing as race.

Quote from: meggo on July 25, 2008, 05:30:47 PM

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.

 

Quote from: 008 on July 25, 2008, 03:10:24 PM

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.