I'm generally a supporter of AA (and have benefitted from it a number of times). However there is one question that I heard someone ask and I have not yet been able to find an answer that I feel is adequate. The question was asked by someone who fully supported AA on the undergraduate level but opposed it at the graduate level. The question was why do minorities need AA for graduate school if they got a boost for undergrad which presumably gave them a leg up and an opportunity on par with other non-minority students. If anyone has an answer for this, please share, as I haven't really come up with an answer myself.
The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing. When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.
AA is bull. If everyone is to be treated equally, doesn't AA oppose this idea? Furthermore, each law school applicant has gotten to undergrad one way or another. Once we get there, we should work our asses off to get a high undergrad GPA and LSAT score. At this point, your undergrad performance is what matters--not your race. I think people often use their race to excuse a poor GPA/LSAT score.
Exactly, no matter how much I preach, it'll never sink in. You'll always think that because of the history involved, you'll think you are continually discriminated against. Because racism existed in the 1960s, you should be given privileges post 2000.
Page created in 0.917 seconds with 17 queries.