Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate  (Read 19831 times)

MHLM

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #140 on: January 19, 2008, 05:13:21 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?

t L

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2201
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #141 on: January 19, 2008, 05:14:09 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.
Michigan 2L

tkm.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #142 on: January 19, 2008, 05:14:54 PM »
don't bother tL...lost cause

.......2

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #143 on: January 19, 2008, 05:15:24 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.

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #144 on: January 19, 2008, 05:16:14 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...
Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

theflyingmachine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #145 on: January 19, 2008, 05:17:25 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.

theflyingmachine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #146 on: January 19, 2008, 05:18:36 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.

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #147 on: January 19, 2008, 05:18:42 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.

Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

theflyingmachine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #148 on: January 19, 2008, 05:19:56 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.

MHLM

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
Re: Re: UCLA Waitlist - AA Debate
« Reply #149 on: January 19, 2008, 05:21:36 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.