But if I espoused your opinions you'd welcome me to this board, yes??
Just ignore this troll.. It's obvious this person is a perfect example of the flaws in race-only based admissions and is not bringing anything in regards to diversity. Unfortunate for those URM who should receive consideration
After thead hominemattack you follow with a non-sequiter. Why do you insist on slighting my "logical cohesiveness in my responses" instead of specifically debating my points in open dialogue??
Well this thread was supposed to be about helpful suggestions for people at a bit of a loss of how to improve their applications, you however are posting on a thread about how non-minorities have no culture or soul and should just get over themselves because they will never be as good as you. We don't have to all agree, however we should at least all be discussing the same topic.
yes, very good question. I tried to paint myself as an "intellectual-radical" -- i.e. research grants, study at Oxford-U, honors thesis, (plus very strong LORs), gov't internship etc. plus my anti-war and drug policy activism. I tied this into my goal to do joint JD/PhD. Who knows though, maybe I should have just focused on my activism. But with a low LSAT score and high GPA, I wanted them to know that I'm capable despite low LSATI'm very curious (as I am sure you are!) as to how this works out. I'm not judging by any means, but one of the few things that every LS book out there says is to leave politics out of your application. Curious if this is just another myth.
but it is, in fact, your adversarial responses that haven't made this possible.
Of course I'm adversarial in my responses, as are most good lawyers. And...I'm still waiting for your specific critique of the substance of what i"m saying...you have fingers that can go tap,tap, so I'm not making it impossible for you to debate me.