LSAT discrepancies

[tms31078]

Rude...

i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...

sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.

saying someone is an a-hole because they dont agree with affirmative action is a pretty ignorant statement.

Also, saying somebody who got in is 'unqualified' is pretty stupid.  If she got in, she's qualified. 

but race shouldnt be something that makes someone qualified over another and it definitely is. all it does it draw races further apart and adds even more to a divided society based on color.

[greg556]

tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races, and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors.  It is absolutely fair and right that an under-represented minority should get into a school ahead of you.  Our, all of us, our duty is to make a world where racial inequality is no longer an issue.  After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character.  The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.

[tms31078]

tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races, and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors.  It is absolutely fair and right that an under-represented minority should get into a school ahead of you.  Our, all of us, our duty is to make a world where racial inequality is no longer an issue.  After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character.  The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.

Based on the illogical assumptions and horrible writing this isn't even worth a response, but I will opine. Either you are very confused or lying because you use the word our, implying Americans, and then you imply that George Bush is my leader, but not yours, so which one is it? If the goal is to have a society that is color blind, what good does having laws and policies that make determinations based on race do? Paradoxically Afirmative action only drives a deeper divide between the races. AA should be based on socioeconomic factors, not the color of your skin. Also, to assume you know where I went to school is extremely ignorant. If you call an inner city school in Long Beach, CA superior, you truly have no idea what you are talking about! Oh and what in the world does any of this have to do with Katrina, lol.

[greg556]

Your leader: you, white people who would complain about affirmative action.  Racists, republicans.

"Our": we the people, all of us, Americans.  I meant Bush's role as leader of the right-wing; I'm not sure anyone could say he's leading the country.

If you've looked at any law school applications, you'll see that the schools try very hard to find out what adversity you've overcome.  They are not interested in your race, but rather in your background and your travails.  At the same time, the racial make-up of their student body is public, so race is an issue as well.

AA drives deeper wedges between racist white people and URMs.  It certainly doesn't drive a wedge between me and other races.  As I said, I would give your spot at school to a URM any day of the week.

If you go by the applications, AA _is_ based on socioeconomic factors.  Who knows how representative the apps are of their actual acceptance policies, but ostensibly at least that is the case.

I said nothing about where you go to school.  If you read my post carefully (a skill you'll need for the LSAT), you will see that.

If you can't see how Katrina is related to this discussion, I unfortunately don't have time to explain it.

So, on a personal note, it's really easy for me to get sucked into conversations with people who are not interested or not capable of having an actual reasoned debate.  I am trying very hard to break myself of that habit.  In this message you bizarrely attacked the quality of my writing (apparently if you disagree with it it means the writing is bad), and you resort repeatedly to ad hominem attacks (something else you'll have to learn not to do if you expect to do well on the LSAT).

Every day in every way I'm getting better and better, and thus I will not respond to you again.  I'll wait till someone interested in a real discussion comes along.

[tms31078]

Your leader: you, white people who would complain about affirmative action.  Racists, republicans.

"Our": we the people, all of us, Americans.  I meant Bush's role as leader of the right-wing; I'm not sure anyone could say he's leading the country.

If you've looked at any law school applications, you'll see that the schools try very hard to find out what adversity you've overcome.  They are not interested in your race, but rather in your background and your travails.  At the same time, the racial make-up of their student body is public, so race is an issue as well.

AA drives deeper wedges between racist white people and URMs.  It certainly doesn't drive a wedge between me and other races.  As I said, I would give your spot at school to a URM any day of the week.

If you go by the applications, AA _is_ based on socioeconomic factors.  Who knows how representative the apps are of their actual acceptance policies, but ostensibly at least that is the case.

I said nothing about where you go to school.  If you read my post carefully (a skill you'll need for the LSAT), you will see that.

If you can't see how Katrina is related to this discussion, I unfortunately don't have time to explain it.

So, on a personal note, it's really easy for me to get sucked into conversations with people who are not interested or not capable of having an actual reasoned debate.  I am trying very hard to break myself of that habit.  In this message you bizarrely attacked the quality of my writing (apparently if you disagree with it it means the writing is bad), and you resort repeatedly to ad hominem attacks (something else you'll have to learn not to do if you expect to do well on the LSAT).

Every day in every way I'm getting better and better, and thus I will not respond to you again.  I'll wait till someone interested in a real discussion comes along.

Just by the fact that you made the statement law schools aren't interested with your race shows how out of touch you are with the admissions process. There is no need for me to respond anymore to someone who blatently lies!

[SkullTatt]

i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

Well, everybody should try a few long shots. Basically if you are a white male, you should try to emphasize something unique about yourself that schools can latch onto. They see too many generic fratboy 23 y/o poly sci majors and they can't admit them all. Not that that necessarily describes you, just an example.

[JPhilmore]

I'm kind of ambivalent about AA, so don't normally jump into these debates.  However, I thought the line about having a superior education for 16 years was interesting.  Don't URM's get a boost when applying to undergraduate institutions as well?  If a URM got him/herself into Harvard as an undergrad, wouldn't they have a superior education to a non-URM attending BU or UCLA?  How many times do you have to level the playing field?  I understand that having to work throughout college can be a burden, but again that comes back to the question of whether affirmative action should be race-based or look instead at socioeconomic factors.  I agree with AA in principle, but I think there are some serious issues with how it is implemented, and this post ignores a lot of those issues.

tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races, and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors.  It is absolutely fair and right that an under-represented minority should get into a school ahead of you.  Our, all of us, our duty is to make a world where racial inequality is no longer an issue.  After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character.  The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.

[wowand135]

 i think it's ignorant of greg to assume that because somebody does not agree with AA they must be a republican. did you know that the whole state of california has made AA illegal? Do you think most californians are republicans?

[RochelleD]

I agree with the above post, and I take issue with the unwarranted assumption that people so often make when they equate being a republican with being racist. I am a republican and honestly don’t have a racist bone in my body. I feel this assumption is very offensive and ignorant.

[SCgrad]

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Um....not really.  When you start being indexed on things OTHER then LSAT, gpa and race.  Get back to me.

so how, pray tell, did ruskiegirl get into Boalt Law with a 157, being a pasty white?

if you can't back up your generalizations, then stfu.