Law School Discussion

Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate

MHLM

  • ****
  • 742
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #130 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.

Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #131 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.

MHLM

  • ****
  • 742
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #132 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...?

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #133 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.

Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #134 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.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #135 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.

Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #136 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.

Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #137 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.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #138 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.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #139 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.