Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15419
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby sublime » Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:37 am

..

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby LexLeon » Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:43 pm

bk1 wrote:lololololol at citing SCOTUS opinions.


Yeah lolol, what a terrible way to argue a legal point.

User avatar
LSATSCORES2012
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:12 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:52 pm

LexLeon wrote:
bk1 wrote:lololololol at citing SCOTUS opinions.


Yeah lolol, what a terrible way to argue a legal point.

It seems to me that though you're making a legal point, you're implicitly using it to reach a practical conclusion.

I'm not a law student, but I would imagine that reality doesn't always coincide with the law. Personally, I regularly go 5mph over the speed limit, and sometimes I don't come to a complete stop at stop signs. Of course, if I see a police car, I slow down so they won't catch me.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby stillwater » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:15 pm

LexLeon wrote:
Please bear in mind that "a quota system," or "assigning points," or setting "a specific threshold," are, indeed, inconsistent with Grutter. But Grutter requires more from race-conscious admissions policies than the absence of those features.

I'm not saying that you're definitely incorrect.

But

"As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, truly individualized
consideration demands that race be used in a flexible,
nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that
universities cannot...put members of [certain racial] groups on
separate admissions tracks."

539 U.S. at 334; See: 438 U.S. at 315 - 316

And I was thinking that Justice O'Connor wrote that

"[A] university's admissions program must remain flexible enough to
ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and
not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity
the defining feature of his or her application. The importance
of this individualized consideration...is paramount."

539 U.S. at 339; See: 438 U.S. at 318

So I thought that dividing some applicants into a pile, because of their races, and admitting them by virtue of their status in this pile, "unless they have egregiously low numbers," (you, above) would make race "the defining feature of" (539 U.S. at 339) an application, and put the members of "that fourth pile" (you, above) and members of the other three piles "on separate admissions tracks" (539 U.S. at 334).


arent you a 0L? pull your head out of your ass.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby LexLeon » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:57 pm

stillwater wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
Please bear in mind that "a quota system," or "assigning points," or setting "a specific threshold," are, indeed, inconsistent with Grutter. But Grutter requires more from race-conscious admissions policies than the absence of those features.

I'm not saying that you're definitely incorrect.

But

"As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, truly individualized
consideration demands that race be used in a flexible,
nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that
universities cannot...put members of [certain racial] groups on
separate admissions tracks."

539 U.S. at 334; See: 438 U.S. at 315 - 316

And I was thinking that Justice O'Connor wrote that

"[A] university's admissions program must remain flexible enough to
ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and
not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity
the defining feature of his or her application. The importance
of this individualized consideration...is paramount."

539 U.S. at 339; See: 438 U.S. at 318

So I thought that dividing some applicants into a pile, because of their races, and admitting them by virtue of their status in this pile, "unless they have egregiously low numbers," (you, above) would make race "the defining feature of" (539 U.S. at 339) an application, and put the members of "that fourth pile" (you, above) and members of the other three piles "on separate admissions tracks" (539 U.S. at 334).


arent you a 0L? pull your head out of your ass.


Stillwater loves me (sarcasm); but (s)he never offers substantial reasons as to why (s)he thinks I am incorrect.

I wonder "Why?"

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby LexLeon » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:00 pm

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
bk1 wrote:lololololol at citing SCOTUS opinions.


Yeah lolol, what a terrible way to argue a legal point.

It seems to me that though you're making a legal point, you're implicitly using it to reach a practical conclusion.

I'm not a law student, but I would imagine that reality doesn't always coincide with the law. Personally, I regularly go 5mph over the speed limit, and sometimes I don't come to a complete stop at stop signs. Of course, if I see a police car, I slow down so they won't catch me.


I think, on some level, you're correct.

But I also believe that we should suppose admissions officers to be honest and admissions policies to be legal, unless there's compelling evidence which suggests otherwise.

User avatar
Borg
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:08 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby Borg » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:02 pm

stillwater wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
Please bear in mind that "a quota system," or "assigning points," or setting "a specific threshold," are, indeed, inconsistent with Grutter. But Grutter requires more from race-conscious admissions policies than the absence of those features.

I'm not saying that you're definitely incorrect.

But

"As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, truly individualized
consideration demands that race be used in a flexible,
nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that
universities cannot...put members of [certain racial] groups on
separate admissions tracks."

539 U.S. at 334; See: 438 U.S. at 315 - 316

And I was thinking that Justice O'Connor wrote that

"[A] university's admissions program must remain flexible enough to
ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and
not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity
the defining feature of his or her application. The importance
of this individualized consideration...is paramount."

539 U.S. at 339; See: 438 U.S. at 318

So I thought that dividing some applicants into a pile, because of their races, and admitting them by virtue of their status in this pile, "unless they have egregiously low numbers," (you, above) would make race "the defining feature of" (539 U.S. at 339) an application, and put the members of "that fourth pile" (you, above) and members of the other three piles "on separate admissions tracks" (539 U.S. at 334).


arent you a 0L? pull your head out of your ass.


Seriously. I make reference to separate piles of apps for minorities, but you're so right, they're probably in the same pile as the others after all! My mistake, that makes a huge difference. Race isn't used as the defining feature by any of these schools, it just so happens that all the URM applicants on LSN have such compelling backgrounds and personal statements that it makes sense to lower the bar for admission by multiple standard deviations to let them in. Race is applied in a "flexible, nonmechanical way," in which they are put in the SAME PILE as others, and then given a small additional boost for race and a huge boost for some intangible feature that's assuredly just part of an overall methodology that doesn't "make an applicant's race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application."

Also, I want to be clear that I'm in favor of affirmative action. I just don't think we need to buy into this delusion that it's not the single dispositive feature in most URM applications.

User avatar
North
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby North » Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:56 pm

LexLeon wrote: I also believe that we should suppose admissions officers to be honest

Stopped reading.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby stillwater » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:54 pm

LexLeon wrote:
stillwater wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
Please bear in mind that "a quota system," or "assigning points," or setting "a specific threshold," are, indeed, inconsistent with Grutter. But Grutter requires more from race-conscious admissions policies than the absence of those features.

I'm not saying that you're definitely incorrect.

But

"As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, truly individualized
consideration demands that race be used in a flexible,
nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that
universities cannot...put members of [certain racial] groups on
separate admissions tracks."

539 U.S. at 334; See: 438 U.S. at 315 - 316

And I was thinking that Justice O'Connor wrote that

"[A] university's admissions program must remain flexible enough to
ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and
not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity
the defining feature of his or her application. The importance
of this individualized consideration...is paramount."

539 U.S. at 339; See: 438 U.S. at 318

So I thought that dividing some applicants into a pile, because of their races, and admitting them by virtue of their status in this pile, "unless they have egregiously low numbers," (you, above) would make race "the defining feature of" (539 U.S. at 339) an application, and put the members of "that fourth pile" (you, above) and members of the other three piles "on separate admissions tracks" (539 U.S. at 334).


arent you a 0L? pull your head out of your ass.


Stillwater loves me (sarcasm); but (s)he never offers substantial reasons as to why (s)he thinks I am incorrect.

I wonder "Why?"


dude you make no sense. you write like someone jammed a probing stick through your ass to your mouth. relax, be a human. also, philosophy isn't the key. you arent the only major- at a presumably elite UG- and its just annoying. you carry it like 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag. relax.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby LexLeon » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:06 pm

Stillwater, you've nevertheless responded with nothing of value, in language that testifies to your immaturity.

Try adhering to the topic of the thread and proposing an argument if you disagree with me or anyone else. I'm actually interested in hearing a good argument from someone who disagrees with me.

User avatar
North
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Ann Levine — Worth da $$ ???

Postby North » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:39 pm

LexLeon wrote:Stillwater, you've nevertheless responded with nothing of value, in language that testifies to your immaturity.

Try adhering to the topic of the thread and proposing an argument if you disagree with me or anyone else. I'm actually interested in hearing a good argument from someone who disagrees with me.

Dude how can I take what you're saying seriously if you can't even bother to bluebook relevant authorities on the subject?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Mullens, packerboy31489 and 4 guests