|
Blinkz0rz posted:His assumption was that because a person didn't fit his initial profile of a person who would make it into a T14 school, there must be some other mitigating factor. That could be true. He could be a legacy, or famous, or any number of other things that might make this T14's admissions department choose him over someone else. But ewr2870 went with the guy being a URM. Yeah because it is much more likely that the guy was Johnny Depp or that his dad was on the board of admissions than that he was a URM and the T14 cut him a break.  It's a pretty statistically safe assumption and really is just an acknowledgment of a policy that admits based on race without any value judgment passed on that policy. That "you know a number of people who" blah blah blah doesn't change the fact that those who get into a T14 with demonstrably lower grades or test scores are generally going to have the URM factor in their corner as opposed to being famous or influential, or whatever. It's not racist to assume so, it's just guessing based on statistical likelihood. If that *isn't* the case, then hurray for the guy I guess but that doesn't change the fact that that is how it usually happens. For gently caress's sake.
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
 If that's racist, this image is racist as gently caress (it's not racist) (although after reading the post, it was pretty obvious to me he got in on the college athlete train and not the URM train. still, the first one is a pretty small train)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:His assumption was that because a person didn't fit his initial profile of a person who would make it into a T14 school, there must be some other mitigating factor. That could be true. He could be a legacy, or famous, or any number of other things that might make this T14's admissions department choose him over someone else. But ewr2870 went with the guy being a URM. URMs are going to be more common than famous college athletes, so it's probably a fair assumption.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
.
maskenfreiheit fucked around with this message at 04:18 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:haha, some people drink when they stressed about the future... I start looking at law schools. The closest he can get is probaly an extra hour in every exam he sits, if he spins it right.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Final final of law school tomorrow. Woot.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Applebee123 posted:The closest he can get is probaly an extra hour in every exam he sits, if he spins it right. because they would be the majority OH SNAP
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
quote:"He is an elderly man, red-faced, white-haired, and choleric. His passion is for the British law, and he fights for the mere pleasure of fighting and is equally ready to take up either side of a question, so that it is no wonder that he has found it a costly amusement. Sometimes he will shut up a right of way and defy the parish to make him open it. At others he will with his own hands tear down some other man's gate and declare that a path has existed there from time immemorial, defying the owner to prosecute him for trespass. He is learned in old memorial law and communal rights, and he applies his knowledge sometimes in favour of the villagers of Fernworthy and sometimes against them, so that he is periodically either carried in triumph down the village street or else burned in effigy, according to his latest exploit. . . Apart from the law he seems a kindly, good-natured person . . . [T]here are rumors that he intends to prosecute Dr. Mortimer for opening a grave without the consent of next of kin because he dug up the Neolithic skull in the barrow on Long Down. He helps to keep our lives from being monotonous and gives a little comic relief where it is badly needed." Think like a lawyer.txt
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
ewr2870 posted:Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I was very happy when TyChan cried racism over an innocuous comment as it meant that I could note empirical data regarding the effect of affirmative action in the admissions process because, of course, I'm still very upset about AA despite being at HLS and having a BigLaw job. Even though AA hasn't affected me at all and I recognize that I was lucky to grow up white and middle class, I still don't appreciate dumbasses with lovely reading comprehension implying that I'm a racist. I apparently can never ask for some kind of clarification about your little tossed off statement made without any context or explanation. I am so sorry that my reading comprehension couldn't read the full nuanced extent of your soul and beliefs from a one sentence post. Also, apparently, your reading comprehension decided to read more malice in my question than was in the actual text. LIkewise, your reading comprehension prowess looked at my reaction to Blinkz0rz's joke and decided that my post was a dig at you and not a statement about how that joke reminded me about racist or just self-centered sentiments among my law school classmates. HiddenReplaced posted:No, it means they get in at highly ranked schools with lovely test scores. Touchy much? I didn't realize it was such a taboo question to ask. Tetrix posted:How is that racist when he has no clue as to the race of the person? If anything it is badmouthing the law schools saying they just take people who are underqualified. Well, if he "had no clue" as to the race of the person being talked about and he just instinctually assumes that someone with lower academic qualifications is a minority, there's at least some indicia of racial stereotyping. Having often run into the situation where that mindset often revealed other less-than-flattering views about people of color, I wanted to ask that question. To assume without question that kind of reaction has no trace of racism at all strikes me as highly naive. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 07:14 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:That's pretty loving racist. No, it's not. Anyway, here's the most likely answer: Petey's public ivy was in Virginia, the dumb student was a Virginia resident, and Virginia residents have a huge advantage when applying to UVA Law, which I think is pretty lame.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 08:53
|
|
|
Petey posted:Did they compute how much of an numerical advantage being white gave you for Mich? My favorite part of that was when at 6:30 he said that when you control for socioeconomic status amongst exclusively families of color and white families, there "is no difference in college graduation rates and only an insignificant difference in college grades." If there is no difference between the academic performance of these students throughout their undergraduate studies, why are half of them given a bonus to those grades based exclusively on the color of their skin? If the problem is (mostly) more socioeconomic than racial, why draw such an arbitrary dividing line based entirely on race? Every time I watch someone speak about wealth and whites as if they are inextricably linked, even cognizant of the impact of white privilege on all economic classes, I die a little inside.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 10:46
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:On another note, do 'spergers get URM status? I jokingly suggested one of my friends who's currently looking at materials science poo poo to write an essay about how spergin out effected his life and poo poo and he could totally get a free ride to HYS, and now he's obsessed with the idea he can go to Yale for free because of his "disability" Wanna see some 'spergin? It's "affected" not "effected." Spergers tend to gravitate to law review, so they can argue about affected and effected and sperg out about citation formats. Incredulous Red posted:Think like a lawyer.txt Nope. He is more like the anti-lawyer, taking risks and having some fun. A real lawyer would never shut up a right of way without a court order, for fear of getting sued or held in contempt. Nor would a real lawyer tear down a gate without a court order (and waiting until the appeal deadline had passed). Thinking like a lawyer is being paralyzed with fear.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 11:15
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Wanna see some 'spergin? It's "affected" not "effected." Spergers tend to gravitate to law review, so they can argue about affected and effected and sperg out about citation formats. --- After emerging from my post-graduation bender, I am realizing how awful it is going to be to prepare for two bar exams. At least I only have to take the MBE once, but I have to take in the state I don't live in because they don't accept MBE scores from other states. I guess if law school didn't kill me, I can survive this. Thinking about all of the awful, awful lawyers who eventually passed the bar cheers me up a little.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 11:57
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Wanna see some 'spergin? It's "affected" not "effected." Spergers tend to gravitate to law review, so they can argue about affected and effected and sperg out about citation formats. spergin could have effected his life if his parents' spergin drove them to particularly efficient lovemaking, or indeed if the spergin of another man thrust said sperger's mother into spergfather's arms
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
racechat itt
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
deathdrive83 posted:After emerging from my post-graduation bender, I am realizing how awful it is going to be to prepare for two bar exams. At least I only have to take the MBE once, but I have to take in the state I don't live in because they don't accept MBE scores from other states. Which states are you taking? I've had a couple of friends and relatives take 2 bar courses during the summer and I hear that if one of the states is only testing you on MBE knowledge or MBE subject areas, it's not quite that bad. I've found that the "secret" of making bar preparation less hellish is to be consistent. Procrastination might have been sustainable during law school because you could make an outline, but there is just too much memorization and test-practice necessary to wait until the last minute and comfortably maintain sanity. The people I know really getting frazzled by the process were the ones who sat on their asses until June.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
TyChan posted:
This a thousand times. Having studied for the bar twice, I can vouch that procrastination is the devil's way. The second time I studied like clockwork, and it worked fine. Skim the reading before the lecture, go to the lecture, outline the lecture (or, in my case, create a mindmap of the topic), do some practice questions, review your prior work, rinse and repeat. It is not a difficult task, it is merely tedious.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Virginia residents have a huge advantage when applying to UVA Law, which I think is pretty lame. UVA only reserves 40% of it's class for VA students, so it's really not a huge advantage. At least in comparison to schools like UT who reserve 65% of their class to residents and UNC who take 70-75% residents. deathdrive83 posted:At least I only have to take the MBE once, but I have to take in the state I don't live in because they don't accept MBE scores from other states. Does it really matter? The MBE tests black letter law, and it's the same everywhere, unless you're just complaining about having to get a hotel room for a night. deathdrive83 posted:After emerging from my post-graduation bender, I am realizing how awful it is going to be to prepare for two bar exams. For tests you could take with the NY bar (I think Mass, CT & NJ), the general idea was that you only learn NY law and then just apply NY on whatever second exam you're taking because it's not going to be wrong enough that you won't pass. Don't know if that strategy works for your two states but it seemed to work just fine for all of my friends who took NY and another bar. TyChan posted:I hear that if one of the states is only testing you on MBE knowledge or MBE subject areas, it's not quite that bad. There are states that only test you on the MBE section or MBE subject areas? That's pretty awesome. I thought you usually took the MBE once and then had two state based essays when you're taking two at once. HooKars fucked around with this message at 16:04 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
Petey posted:Did they compute how much of an numerical advantage being white gave you for Mich? atlas of bugs posted:My favorite part of that was when at 6:30 he said that when you control for socioeconomic status amongst exclusively families of color and white families, there "is no difference in college graduation rates and only an insignificant difference in college grades." Here's the first lazy link I found - http://www.scribd.com/doc/20270498/Massey-Et-Al-The-Puzzle-of-Minority-Under-Achievement-Chapter-1-From-the-Source-of-the-R It states that URMs underperform even controlling for socioeconomic status. gvibes fucked around with this message at 16:27 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
HooKars posted:For tests you could take with the NY bar (I think Mass, CT & NJ), the general idea was that you only learn NY law and then just apply NY on whatever second exam you're taking because it's not going to be wrong enough that you won't pass. Don't know if that strategy works for your two states but it seemed to work just fine for all of my friends who took NY and another bar. quote:There are states that only test you on the MBE section or MBE subject areas? That's pretty awesome. I thought you usually took the MBE once and then had two state based essays when you're taking two at once. From what I was told, NJ only tests on the MBE subject areas but they might have been mistating things. I could see what they really did being what you were saying about just applying NY law and not being wrong enough to take a massive point hit. You still have to write essays, but if all you have to study is Contracts, Torts, Property, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, and Criminal Law, it apparently makes the task less daunting than I originally thought.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Wanna see some 'spergin? It's "affected" not "effected." Spergers tend to gravitate to law review, so they can argue about affected and effected and sperg out about citation formats. I've got a guy riding my rear end about stuff like "in regard to" versus "in regards to" and who stated that it's impossible to use parameter outside of a mathematical context and that I should change the word, despite the fact I was quoting the language from the case.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
According to the Barbri site, the only additional New Jersey subject is Civil Procedure. For what its worth, I know when a Barbri rep came to us to talk about the NY bar, he made it seem that there was not really too much additional preparation needed if you wanted to take NJ too.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
TyChan posted:From what I was told, NJ only tests on the MBE subject areas but they might have been mistating things. I could see what they really did being what you were saying about just applying NY law and not being wrong enough to take a massive point hit. You still have to write essays, but if all you have to study is Contracts, Torts, Property, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, and Criminal Law, it apparently makes the task less daunting than I originally thought. If you're taking NY/NJ and are pressed for time, BarBri recommends that you don't study at all for the NJ essay day and just apply NY law to the questions. You'll lose points for not knowing the law but will gain all the application points.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
Any other 3Ls feel like they don't have enough credits left to take all the classes they want, or am I just a freak? I have 19 credits of classes all 3L year and I have a shitload I want to take. I know it won't matter because I'll die alone and penniless anyway, but...arrrggghh.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Any other 3Ls feel like they don't have enough credits left to take all the classes they want, or am I just a freak? I have 19 credits of classes all 3L year and I have a shitload I want to take. I know it won't matter because I'll die alone and penniless anyway, but...arrrggghh. You're a freak. You're supposed to take classes that are easy or on the bar and then not go to them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Any other 3Ls feel like they don't have enough credits left to take all the classes they want, or am I just a freak? I have 19 credits of classes all 3L year and I have a shitload I want to take. I know it won't matter because I'll die alone and penniless anyway, but...arrrggghh. I want to learn more than I have time for, but that doesn't really translate into wanting to take more classes. (I'm personally more of an autodidact) So yes and no?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:racechat itt this is significantly less good than tacochat. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
we all know statistically there's a tremendously disproportionate number of blacks in prison! so how can it be racist to assume the offender was black!? just the facts ma'am -smart thread for smart law students
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Draile posted:If you're taking NY/NJ and are pressed for time, BarBri recommends that you don't study at all for the NJ essay day and just apply NY law to the questions. You'll lose points for not knowing the law but will gain all the application points. I've said this before, but I literally went into the NJ exam not knowing what format it was in, expecting multiple choice and being surprised when it was nothing but essays. I passed, and then had to pay fees and physically travel to NJ to take their insane CLE classes for no benefit. They also don't waive bar fees unless you "retire" even if you don't practice in the state, and also don't waive pro bono requirements either so there's a chance you wind up being forced into pro bono there while never setting foot in the state. i.e. passing was a mistake
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
builds character posted:this is significantly less good than tacochat. A more effective anti-drug program than D.A.R.E..
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Well, if he "had no clue" as to the race of the person being talked about and he just instinctually assumes that someone with lower academic qualifications is a minority, there's at least some indicia of racial stereotyping. But that's not what happened. I asked if someone with low academic qualifications who nonetheless got into a T14 was a URM (in other words: whether this person was part of a large group of candidates whose members frequently receive a significant bump in the admissions process by virtue of that group membership). If after dozens of replies (most of which agree with me and try to explain this to you) you're still incapable of grasping the significance of that distinction, there's no point in continuing the conversation. /Last reply because tacochat > racechat.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
ewr2870 posted:Is this an attempt to demonstrate your outstanding powers of reading comprehension? I ask because you're still not getting it. If I had "assumed that someone with lower academic qualifications [was] a minority" with no other information about that person then, yes, that could be "indic[ative] of racial stereotyping." Well, I was throwing your rudeness back at you since you basically called me a moron for not automatically reading a ton of surrounding context into your question which other posters more cooly and clearly stated. quote:I asked if someone with low academic qualifications who nonetheless got into a T14 was a URM (in other words: whether this person was part of a large group of candidates whose members frequently receive a significant bump in the admissions process by virtue of that group membership). I find that distinction to be problematic. It apparently is more potentially racist to assume from the get go that someone is a minority if they have low academic scores and are in just any law school, which one can probably back up with statistical evidence as well. At the same time, it's apparently not racist at all to assume from the get go, which you did, that someone who got into a t14 school if they had lower academic SAT score is a minority because URM status is a factor that carries a lot of mitigating weight in the admissions process. The ranking of the school apparently makes all the difference. There are other factors that play into getting a free pass for loving up before and during one's college career that law schools look into and former athletes do get an advantage and indulgence because the intensity of college athletics do have an effect on GPA. I see where you're coming from, but that's a very fine line to make. Also, I did not call you a racist or "cry racism," but that's what you assumed when I asked a question. You could have just answered it the way others did instead of making your little snipe at me. To be fair, I admittedly asked my question in a way that many of you guys associate with hypersensitive liberals and minorities. EDIT: Trying to be civil and accurate about the posts in question... Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 18:49 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
I like to think that this thread is simply a representation of the legal field at large: filled with hypersensitive egos and long-winded discussions about something or another that inadvertently offended someone's feelings, requiring at least some amount of input from all those within earshot (billables!), while Speaking of which, I saw a Chipotle for the first time in my life last weekend in my visit up to Williamsburg. Didn't go in, because someone itt said it was trash after it was brought up as a potentially viable taco vendor to frequent.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
Just had my clinic professor email me and say we "won" our first case, if by "won" you mean "get your application for leave to appeal denied but get the case remanded to correct a minor error in fines." I'm sure the guy sitting in jail for 4 years, who pleaded guilty to probation violation thinking he'd get 9 months and got slapped with the max instead, must really feel like a winner as he realizes he owes slightly less in court costs.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
TyChan posted:Also, I did not call you a racist or "cry racism," but that's what you assumed when I asked a question. You could have just answered it the way others did instead of making your little snipe at me. To be fair, I admittedly asked my question in a way that many of you guys associate with hypersensitive liberals and minorities.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Speaking of which, I saw a Chipotle for the first time in my life last weekend in my visit up to Williamsburg. Didn't go in, because someone itt said it was trash after it was brought up as a potentially viable taco vendor to frequent. If you have no suitable local "Mama y Papa" taco shops, Chiptole is a not terrible substitute, but literally any authentic Mexican shack will beat it. It is better than Taco Bell, but that is like being better at basketball than Stephen Hawking. Their guacamole is pretty good though IMO
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:If you have no suitable local "Mama y Papa" taco shops, Chiptole is a not terrible substitute, but literally any authentic Mexican shack will beat it. I prefer Taco Bell to Chipotle. Choptle makes me feel ripped off and the spices aren't very good whereas Taco Bell's offerings are at least at a decent price point. By the way, if any of you Goons are in Charlottesville and want Mexican food, go to El Puerto. Any other place is overrated and overpriced.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:If you have no suitable local "Mama y Papa" taco shops, Chiptole is a not terrible substitute, but literally any authentic Mexican shack will beat it. Yeah it's not authentic mexican food or anything but it tastes good for what it is, I like it. It's burritos for white people basically Uh oh I just merged tacochat and racechat didn't I
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Yeah it's not authentic mexican food or anything but it tastes good for what it is, I like it. It's burritos for white people basically That's what it tries to do, but if you've ever had Freebirds you know it can be done much, much better.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
my civ pro exam had a discovery question about the body of a dead dog. Is that discoverable in order examine it? Rule 35 is mental and physical examinations, but that's for parties, not dead dogs.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:51
|
|
