a) I effectively responded to your post in my reply to UBH. I did not feel like hashing through the same argument twice. You are saying the same thing and I will counter your points the same way.b) Your response to blunts failed to address the focus of his question. Normally, when educated people are asked why something functions in a certain way, they do not repond by telling you why it doesn't function in other ways, because that's called avoiding answering the question. The exceptions your provided and the conclusions you drew are based on the erroneous premise that URM's for AA purposes were not selected becuse of a historical group disadvantage that continues to be prevalent today.
Man, y'all need to get a life.It would probably help you get admitted to law school...then you wouldn't have to worry about affirmative action so much.
1) Nope, I didn't read everything. I just posted after looking at the last couple of comments. And I'm okay with that. Why does this bother you so?
2) FYI, you would be the first person ever to call me rude. Congratulations. (I think you might be a bit oversensitive. I'd hate to see your reaction if someone were actually rude to you.)
3) I know Ruskie goes to Boalt. I like Ruskie - she's actually one of my favorite posters on the board.
4) Congratulations on your acceptances. Why are you so fixated on AA? (I'm not judging this by this thread in particular, but in combo with other threads) Do you plan to go into work with social policy? Wanna be a civil rights attorney? If not,
Page created in 0.432 seconds with 18 queries.