Racist Whites

[amelus]

i'm sure you are an impressive candidate (since you graduated magna in EE), but almost everything you say below makes no sense.

Grr every time I see another AA post where people start talking about how unfair AA is I get so annoyed because the application process, whether for school work, etc, is a discriminating process by nature. If a law school received 7000 applications for 260 spots and all of the applicants had the EXACT same stats, what basis would they use to say whether applicant 155 is in and applicant 1789 is not? They use the factors that the school feels will make the entering class diverse in extracurricular activities, culture, race, background, academic major, region, etc. Do I feel that I got into a certain school solely because of AA?? Hell no!! I am a Black female who graduated magna cum laude with a BS in electrical engineering, a field where there are barely even women, let alone black women. I had numerous and extensive extracurricular activities. I had great a personal statement, and great reccommendations. I was very well rounded on my own and I think that if I had left the race box blank, they would have accepted me either way.

Many people naively assume that if they have a certain LSAT score and GPA that they are automatically entitled to admission to the school of thier choice. Sorry but that just is NOT the case. There are, have been, and always will be people with damn near perfect numbers who still get rejected. Is it because some URM took their spot? Hell NO!! They just didn't have what the law school was looking for in terms of the kinds of personalities they want at their school.

AA does not take away from qualified individuals, and no, qualified does not just include your GPA and LSAT score. It is responsibility of ALL applicants to sell themselves on their application and personal statement, and back it up with great reccommendations. If you do that well, regardless of your stats a school of your choice will want you.

One earlier poster said that if a rich black kid and a poor white kid were applying for law school or a job the black kid would get the advantage. Not true. In the case of law school admissions, that white kid needs to sell himself better than the black kid regardless of his race. If he feels that he was at an economic disadvantage then it is up to him to present that to the ad comms. It is up to the individual to let the adcomms know who you are. I feel that most of the people who were "scorned" by AA are really just experienciong the result of not having sold themselves well enough. I beleive that regardless of what AA practice you think are being used, a damn goods applicant is a damn good applicant. You can't expect an adcomm to see a white male with a 2.9 in Poli Sci and 165 after he or she has already seen other white male applicants with a 165 LSAT and much higher GPAs in Poli Sci and them want to pick you with out there being something that makes you stand out. And I don't see that as discrimination based on being white. I see it as the ad comms trying to have more diversity.

[sweatsandtees]

i'm sure you are an impressive candidate (since you graduated magna in EE), but almost everything you say below makes no sense.

It makes sense to me. Now that I look back, it may not need to be verbose but it basically states that the admissions process is discriminatory by nature, NO ONE is a sure bet on any school solely bacause of their stats (as is seen by the 180 scorers being rejected), and that marketing yourself well enough will get you where you want to be, despite any "setbacks" from AA.

But I do respect your comment.

[amelus]

It makes sense to me. Now that I look back, it may not need to be verbose but it basically states that the admissions process is discriminatory by nature, NO ONE is a sure bet on any school solely bacause of their stats (as is seen by the 180 scorers being rejected), and that marketing yourself well enough will get you where you want to be, despite any "setbacks" from AA.

But I do respect your comment.

well this is shorter . 

i dont understand what you mean by "it is discriminatory by nature"  how? for whom? against whom?

what's your point that "no one is set?"  that someone with a 4.0 and 180 is not 100% assured they will get into yale proves/demonstrates what exactly?

same point here...who cares that "marketing yourself" can help you, what's your point with that?

what does any of this have to do with the issue of "AA" being "fair" or "unfair"?

[->Soon]

its a dog eat dog world.  you have to take a good job if its offered.

id be interested to see the opposite of this poll...

[TheCanadian]

Working in retail is much the same. This one place I used to work at flat out told me they hire only pretty girls. I was appalled, but needed the cash. This same place also had the employees followed Native people around the store to make sure they didn't shoplift. Some restaurants also use selective hiring for waitressing/hosting positions; they require you to attach a photo with your resume.

[->Soon]

Working in retail is much the same. This one place I used to work at flat out told me they hire only pretty girls. I was appalled, but needed the cash. This same place also had the employees followed Native people around the store to make sure they didn't shoplift. Some restaurants also use selective hiring for waitressing/hosting positions; they require you to attach a photo with your resume.

i have no probs with discriminating based on how hot a chick looks.

who wants to go to h00ters and have your burger served by a kathy Bates?

not moi...

[TheCanadian]

Who doesn't want to be served by the beautiful...but if more and more places of employment follow such trends, the poor will continue to get uglier and uglier.

[->Soon]

wont that mesh nicely with your eugenics program?

[TheCanadian]

uh oh...you're on to me...

[->Soon]

uh oh...you're on me...

wooooooo, i thought it felt nice n cozy.