Just really frustrated about the lack of unrepresented minority at law schools..

[Miss P]

S2DNT, man, just cut your losses, eh?

ALL THREE OF YOU!

seriously people.  seriously.

::falls asleep::

It's the first I've engaged or addressed him since the post you liked (HTFH), so don't get all pissy with me.

[Qui Ju]

It didn't look good when I made errors in my grammar and spelling, though to argue that I was wrong in pointing out another's faults because I may have the same faults myself is just silly.

No it's not.

okay seriously, i give up.

you think gratz system is preferable?  huh.  okay.

Why not?  It announced clear standards, gave bumps to some groups of students based on their perceived disadvantages (and statistical evidence), and then permitted individualized review of all borderline candidates.  As long as schools are going to rely on standardized tests and grades, they should contextualize those numbers as much as possible.

i forgot about that part.

bright line rules are overrated in my opinion.

S2DNT, man, just cut your losses, eh?

ALL THREE OF YOU!

seriously people.  seriously.

::falls asleep::

It's the first I've engaged or addressed him since the post you liked (HTFH), so don't get all pissy with me.

fine.  i'll redirect pissiness at J. 

[Qui Ju]

I usually ignore it, as you probably know. This is just particularly dumb.

and i've successfully redirected the ire of everyone in this thread toward myself.

i should have used the Charles "pay attention to me" account instead.

[Astro]

Ignore those two.  They're flirting.

As for struggles, you owe her an apology for making an insincere yet derogatory argument that clearly conflated race, intelligence and work ethic, even if you were doing so tongue-in-cheek.  It didn't come across as (you're saying) you meant it to -- it really does look like poor spelling = lower intelligence/work ethic = minorities, whether you make the "just devil's advocating" disclaimer or not.  And she clearly took offense to it.

These are two quotes from my earlier posts. 

"Again, I am not trying to argue that all minorities have bad grammar and spelling.  If there is any correlation at all, it would almost certainly be between students at substandard schools and bad grammar/spelling.  I am not even making an argument based on my opinions."

"struggles, I hope I did not give you the idea that I was condemning you in any way, or saying that you don't deserve to be a law student.  I always get myself in trouble at family gatherings because I like to take the opposite side of any argument.  I do think if you are serious about becoming a good lawyer, you should work tirelessly towards improving your grammar and spelling.  Take it from me, an old guy who is still trying to improve himself--it is never too late to learn.  However, it is up to you to improve yourself.  If the plight of minorities in America is really important to you, it is critical that you educate yourself to the point that your arguments are not lost because you are unable to express them well. You must work to make yourself better than your detractors, or you will be supplying them with all the ammunition they need to defeat you."

Let's ignore for a minute the condescending tone.

Think about the highlighted.  There are some things you're missing in this statement that might be offensive.  There are also inferences that can be drawn from it that even I find offensive.

Not that it's wrong to be offensive, necessarily.  It's just going to be hard for anyone to take you seriously if you're offensive because of ignorance (in its most specific sense).

I did not conflate race and bad grammar--I believe the comment I made was that, if anything, there was a correlation between bad schools and bad grammar. 

Do you seriously want to go there?  Don't make me pull up the old post.  Qui Ju's right -- that battle would be a waste of my time, as well as yours. 

[Qui Ju]

Do you seriously want to go there?  Don't make me pull up the old post.  Qui Ju's right -- that battle would be a waste of my time, as well as yours. 

on the other hand, THAT has some serious entertainment value. 

there is no right to privacy.  that's because there's no such thing as rights.  QEP.

wait, what?

[Astro]

Do you seriously want to go there?  Don't make me pull up the old post.  Qui Ju's right -- that battle would be a waste of my time, as well as yours. 

on the other hand, THAT has some serious entertainment value. 

there is no right to privacy.  that's because there's no such thing as rights.  QEP.

wait, what?

::throws sand::

[Qui Ju]

seriously, what bothers me most about the anti-AA trolls is how whiny they are.  somebody took my spot.

personally, i think that instead of blaming the system, people should start taking some f-ing personal responsiblity.  if you're a marginal candidate, stop pointing fingers and figure out what you need to be doing differently.  then go do it.

[Miss P]

you think gratz system is preferable?  huh.  okay.

Why not?  It announced clear standards, gave bumps to some groups of students based on their perceived disadvantages (and statistical evidence), and then permitted individualized review of all borderline candidates.  As long as schools are going to rely on standardized tests and grades, they should contextualize those numbers as much as possible.

i forgot about that part.

bright line rules are overrated in my opinion.

I agree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have standards at all.  Furthermore, I have more faith in standards that are a product of conscious, ex ante group deliberation than those whimsically employed by an individual admissions officer.

I found this portion of Souter's dissent in Gratz particularly persuasive:

 Without knowing more about how the Admissions Review Committee actually functions, it seems especially unfair to treat the candor of the admissions plan as an Achilles’ heel. In contrast to the college’s forthrightness in saying just what plus factor it gives for membership in an underrepresented minority, it is worth considering the character of one alternative thrown up as preferable, because supposedly not based on race. Drawing on admissions systems used at public universities in California, Florida, and Texas, the United States contends that Michigan could get student diversity in satisfaction of its compelling interest by guaranteeing admission to a fixed percentage of the top students from each high school in Michigan. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Grutter v. Bollinger, O. T. 2002, No. 02—241, pp. 13—17.

    While there is nothing unconstitutional about such a practice, it nonetheless suffers from a serious disadvantage.4 It is the disadvantage of deliberate obfuscation. The “percentage plans” are just as race conscious as the point scheme (and fairly so), but they get their racially diverse results without saying directly what they are doing or why they are doing it. In contrast, Michigan states its purpose directly and, if this were a doubtful case for me, I would be tempted to give Michigan an extra point of its own for its frankness. Equal protection cannot become an exercise in which the winners are the ones who hide the ball.

[Qui Ju]

i suppose i'm just uncomfortable with the mechanical nature of the thing.  it's kind of like the spring gun thing.

also, notable first: May 9, 2007: miss p directs harsh words at stanley for the first time.  this brings the % of lsders to have done so up to 100. 

[Miss P]

i suppose i'm just uncomfortable with the mechanical nature of the thing.  it's kind of like the spring gun thing.

also, notable first: May 9, 2007: miss p directs harsh words at stanley for the first time.  this brings the % of lsders to have done so up to 100. 

You don't think I directed harsh words at you in the "Anyone here think the LSAT is easy?" thread?  That's good, I suppose.    Also, just to clarify, when I wrote that "HTFH" above, it wasn't directed at you but rather intended to signal to which post I was referring, where you had replaced my "HTH" with a "HTFH."

Never mind me.  I'm feeling even testier than usual because of exams.  No pun intended.