Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Are women given URM benefits in the admissions process, and should they be?

They are not, nor should they be.
 22 (34.4%)
They are, but shouldn't be.
 5 (7.8%)
They aren't, but should be.
 15 (23.4%)
They aren't, and shouldn't be.
 22 (34.4%)

Total Members Voted: 38

Author Topic: Women = URM???  (Read 9781 times)

GentleTim

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
  • 3.45/175
    • View Profile
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2004, 07:47:33 AM »
kristy said (paraphrased): more professionals should have kids.  people who should be having kids aren't.

jenny interpreted as: non-professionals shouldn't have kids.

that, jenny, is called an incorrect negation, and the LSAT tests for it.  if that's the way you think, i guarantee you right now that you will never do as well as kristy did on her LSAT.

No Jenny interpreted as a certain group should be singled out based on socio-economic strata, to be endorsed in having kids. Reread the posts. Sorry your one-liner didn't work there. Maybe you are not as smart as you think you are, with your 5,000+ posts. Now thats haughty-to think people really care what you say, since you have no level of expertise. Do you ever get outside of your room? Do you have any friends outside this board? Negative on both, most likely. Go do something wild TD, go watch a Startrek: The Next Generation episode or something. You can even highlight it in your planner as your event of the month. Rebel.

Her one-liner had me laughing... Seemed pretty effective, actually.  By contrast, your snarky insinuation that Pookie is a dork (as if that's a bad thing) didn't really have much impact.

TDPookie1

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • the sugar cane is back!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - PookieEsq2B
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2004, 04:07:24 PM »
kristy said (paraphrased): more professionals should have kids.  people who should be having kids aren't.

jenny interpreted as: non-professionals shouldn't have kids.

that, jenny, is called an incorrect negation, and the LSAT tests for it.  if that's the way you think, i guarantee you right now that you will never do as well as kristy did on her LSAT.

No Jenny interpreted as a certain group should be singled out based on socio-economic strata, to be endorsed in having kids. Reread the posts. Sorry your one-liner didn't work there. Maybe you are not as smart as you think you are, with your 5,000+ posts. Now thats haughty-to think people really care what you say, since you have no level of expertise. Do you ever get outside of your room? Do you have any friends outside this board? Negative on both, most likely. Go do something wild TD, go watch a Startrek: The Next Generation episode or something. You can even highlight it in your planner as your event of the month. Rebel.

i still stand by what i said about you not beating kristy's score.  and as a reminder for all of us (you in particular, jenny), here's your first post in response to kristy:

Good point. It is happening more and more now though. Less professionals are having children which sucks becuase alot of people that should be reproducing aren't.

Wait there are people that should be reproducing and who should not be reproducing based soley on their professional ("right kind") status? I hope this is a joke, but from the way you came off, it didn't quite seem that way. Well I guess to you professionalism is pre-determinant of raising smart, "good" children. Why don't we just sterilize the poor, eh? They did it to themselves, they don't deserve to have children. God knows that other societal/cultural conditions don't influence people's economic status. Are you a Republican by chance?

I am the proud daughter of two very working class parents. I went to a ivy league university for my undergraduate, and now am applying to the top law schools in the country. Wow, I wonder how two people that shouldn't be reproducing could have a child that did so well. Kristyb, there is more to life then money and professionalism. Non-professional parents are capable of giving their children nurture, good educations, and a good sense of ethics. It especially scary to hear this from someone who is a self-proclaimed open-minded person and has taught in under-priviledged, Native American communities (you must have given those children you were teaching some kind of inferiority complex, since I am assuming the majority were not descendants of "professionals").
 

i've conveniently highlighted your incorrect negation.  consider this your LSAT lesson for the day.  if you're going to argue, at least remember what you said.

HTH  ;)
i am officially the biggest nerd of LSD!  ::gleaming with pride, as i shine my yoda trophy::

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=TDPookie1

accepted at yale.  how the hell did i pull this one off?

Nadia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2004, 04:44:08 PM »
Jenny,

Just because I think professionals should be having kids, doesn't mean that I think people who are non-professionals shouldn't be.  There are white collar jobs and blue collar jobs, I'm sure you know this.  I used bank teller as an example because I do see it as a professional job.  From your posts, it doesn't seem like you would.  At this point I am laughing at your responses.  You are being ridiculous.  There was a total of one other person that I had an argument with and if you read my post from that episode, you would know that my comment was not "dumb".  

I am not lying and I am not making up excuses.  And I was being sarcastic about being flattered by your posts.  I was making a point that the only posts you have so far are to trash me.  Why are you here anyway?  Are you applying to law school right now?  Why don't you concentrate on that? All I know about you right now is that you think I'm a dumb liar that will make a horrible lawyer.  Thank you for that.

I don't know how you see my past posts as getting ready to be catty.  I'm not the catty one here.  I'm not responding to you anymore after your last post.  Don't make jokes about someone whose been in an abusive relationship.  That's right, that girl that got beat up, it was her fault, right? Struck a nerve there and I'm not responding anymore.  Yeah, the problem did rest in me choosing the wrong guys.  Many intelligent women choose the wrong guys.  I think it is interesting that you continue to attack me personally when I am not reciprocating.  Have I yet made a comment about you personally?   You have a lot of growing up to do, I don't care how old you are. 

Abusive relationship, the girl that got beat up?...please in your posts you said he was a just mean to you, and said mean things. flip flop flip flop. I am mean to you...because your lack of intelligence. All I wanted to say was maybe your exs noticed your lacking in intelligence department..and apparently in the bedroom department as well  :P

And I will be taking the LSAT soon. And will probably do much better then you!!

Thanks
Jen

I will do a monetary bet that Kristyb will do better then you on LSATs Jenny.

Nadia

lexylit

  • Guest
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2004, 05:00:46 PM »
Her one-liner had me laughing... Seemed pretty effective, actually.  By contrast, your snarky insinuation that Pookie is a dork (as if that's a bad thing) didn't really have much impact.

how much do i enjoy the word snarky? 172

GentleTim

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
  • 3.45/175
    • View Profile
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #64 on: November 11, 2004, 03:35:10 AM »
Her one-liner had me laughing... Seemed pretty effective, actually.  By contrast, your snarky insinuation that Pookie is a dork (as if that's a bad thing) didn't really have much impact.

how much do i enjoy the word snarky? 172

I live to serve ;)

WitterUin4

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
  • How I thought of ad comms
    • View Profile
    • My blog
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #65 on: November 11, 2004, 05:08:11 PM »
Her one-liner had me laughing... Seemed pretty effective, actually.  By contrast, your snarky insinuation that Pookie is a dork (as if that's a bad thing) didn't really have much impact.

how much do i enjoy the word snarky? 172

I like that word, also, but since I could also of snarkiness(see my retraction, howver, Chip on Shoulder. ha) I will not laugh.  In fact, I am flogging myself as I type.
I'm at 1L at CU Boulder

KristyB

  • Guest
Re: Women = URM???
« Reply #66 on: November 25, 2004, 09:05:23 AM »
I appreciate the support guys.  I do hope to do well on the LSAT.  I am up to a high of 171 but can't expect to do that well on the real thing next week.  I started at 155 so I'll be happy with anything in the 160's.  And I too love the word snarky.