W&L c/o 2015

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.

Preferred ASW Weekend

February 17-18
35
35%
March 16-17
36
36%
March 30-31
30
30%
 
Total votes: 101

crouton62
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby crouton62 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:24 pm

anjmissy wrote:I am also interested in this since I am an AA, and a lesbian too...triple wammy!..before i deposited that was the only thing that worried me, how it will be to move to such a small southern town with these identities.


Lex is steeped in the heritage and culture of the Civil War with R.E. Lee at W&L and Stonewall Jackson at the V.M.I. Besides the two schools, tourism to see the Civil War history stuff is the best thing economically that Lexington has going for it. The officials in the town and at the two schools know this, but to my mind, the educated people in Lexington act accordingly.

However, Lex is in the middle of Rockbridge County, the second poorest county in Virginia. There is lots of mostly white rural poverty. In this type of environment, you are going to have ignorant, racist people. They don't see the ignorance of their point of view and probs wouldn't care even if confronted with it. However, as a student, you never have a reason to venture out into the hoots and hollers of Rockbridge County to encounter these people and they rarely come into the town where you'd be most likely to interact with them. Not to say that the county has the monopoly on this point of view and some townsfolks don't also have those feelings. But for the most part, it's two very separate worlds between the student-centric town of Lex and the county. One of the county folks may drive through town with a Confederate fla sticker on his truck or something like that, but I think such instances are pretty isolated.

That's my read on the issue after doing W&L UG.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby tennisking88 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:28 pm

seancris wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:To be fair, when I visited I didn't see any confederate flags. The fact remains though that the school is partly named after the leader of those who fought to keep people as property. And he is buried on the campus in honor. I'm pretty positive that the school in no way condones what he did, and is active in seeking out and admitting minority/LGBT applicants. But, I wouldn't be shocked if the dark aura of the Confederate South makes some think twice about attending.


You guys should read some Lee biographies and civil war history. It may change your perspective and give you an appreciation of the history. Lee himself was actually anti-slavery and called it a "political and moral evil." There's a lot more going on than racism, etc. when it comes to an appreciation of civil war history.

I really think that's what's going on with the confederate flags, in Lex. It's just the community showing an appreciation for the history of their town. And if that's not good enough for you, the town banned them from displaying their flags or something along those lines, right?


It's not about the intentions of the people displaying the flags, which may very well be good-hearted. By putting up the flag, these people are either ignorant of what the flag represents to others, or they dismiss that it does represent what some people think it represents, or that while it may represent something evil to some people, the good in it overpowers any perceived evil. All three reasons, in my opinion, do not justify display. A good comparison (I think) is the swastika, which, in Southeast Asian cultures, signifies things that are largely positive (like boldness). I wouldn't ever put one up, though, because, even if I thought it meant something positive, it obviously does not signify anything positive to many others. But it's a free country.

Edit: None of this is to disparage W&L, or discourage anyone from going. I think it's a great school, and I'm positive no one there is or means to be racist.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby noleknight16 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:33 pm

Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights. Slavery was going out the door soon anyways with machinery's improvements.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby tennisking88 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:39 pm

noleknight16 wrote:Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights..


False. http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/f ... story.html

"Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.

South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own."

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of ... _Civil_War

User avatar
kroakstool
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby kroakstool » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:44 pm

noleknight16 wrote:Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights. Slavery was going out the door soon anyways with machinery's improvements.


Bro, everybody knows that ppl from the south are inherently racist and ignorant. Thusly, they cannot understand the concept of states' rights. Also they hate minorities, so it only makes sense that the were fighting for slavery.

User avatar
anjmissy
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:40 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby anjmissy » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:47 pm

noleknight16 wrote:Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights. Slavery was going out the door soon anyways with machinery's improvements.


idk y but lately there has been a movement to "lessen" the role slavery had in starting the civil war..this definitely isn't the place to debate what "main thing" caused the civil war..people claim that it was for states' rights but we all know it was states' rights to have slavery. period, the south wanted to expand to more lands and have those lands occupied by slaves...now it would probably be a stretch to say those who fought for the north did so to abolish slavery and it would be a stretch to say that those who fought for the south did so to preserve slavery ...but the argument doesn't just stop at "state's rights" and it is actually offensive for someone to have such a view!

User avatar
kroakstool
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby kroakstool » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:50 pm

anjmissy wrote:
noleknight16 wrote:Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights. Slavery was going out the door soon anyways with machinery's improvements.


idk y but lately there has been a movement to "lessen" the role slavery had in starting the civil war..this definitely isn't the place to debate what "main thing" caused the civil war..people claim that it was for states' rights but we all know it was states' rights to have slavery. period, the south wanted to expand to more lands and have those lands occupied by slaves...now it would probably be a stretch to say those who fought for the north did so to abolish slavery and it would be a stretch to say that those who fought for the south did so to preserve slavery ...but the argument doesn't just stop at "state's rights" and it is actually offensive for someone to have such a view!


I'm not saying slavery wasn't a major factor. It's just ofensive for ppl to say that the cause was slavery, when most southerners were poor and didn't have slaves. When people say your ancestors were racists, it's also kind of offensive.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby noleknight16 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:51 pm

I went to Monticello during my weekend visit to Virginia and found this out about Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Apparently anti-slavery sections were in it and were edited out because South Carolina and Georgia weren't going to sign. I never knew that.

http://classroom.monticello.org/kids/resources/profile/6/Jefferson-and-the-Declaration-of-Independence/

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby tennisking88 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:53 pm

kroakstool wrote:
anjmissy wrote:
noleknight16 wrote:Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights. Slavery was going out the door soon anyways with machinery's improvements.


idk y but lately there has been a movement to "lessen" the role slavery had in starting the civil war..this definitely isn't the place to debate what "main thing" caused the civil war..people claim that it was for states' rights but we all know it was states' rights to have slavery. period, the south wanted to expand to more lands and have those lands occupied by slaves...now it would probably be a stretch to say those who fought for the north did so to abolish slavery and it would be a stretch to say that those who fought for the south did so to preserve slavery ...but the argument doesn't just stop at "state's rights" and it is actually offensive for someone to have such a view!


I'm not saying slavery wasn't a major factor. It's just ofensive for ppl to say that the cause was slavery, when most southerners were poor and didn't have slaves. When people say your ancestors were racists, it's also kind of offensive.


Bro, no one is calling Southerners racist. Take it easy. When the dude above says "the civil war was mainly fought over states' rights", it lessens the role of slavery, which is also offensive to a lot of people.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby tennisking88 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:57 pm

kroakstool wrote: It's just ofensive for ppl to say that the cause was slavery, when most southerners were poor and didn't have slaves.


The article I posted above (http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/f ... ory_1.html) disagrees with this contention:

"Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.

However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.

Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.” Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well."

User avatar
kroakstool
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby kroakstool » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:03 pm

tennisking88 wrote:
kroakstool wrote:
anjmissy wrote:
noleknight16 wrote:Heck, the main reason for the civil war was state's rights. Slavery was going out the door soon anyways with machinery's improvements.


idk y but lately there has been a movement to "lessen" the role slavery had in starting the civil war..this definitely isn't the place to debate what "main thing" caused the civil war..people claim that it was for states' rights but we all know it was states' rights to have slavery. period, the south wanted to expand to more lands and have those lands occupied by slaves...now it would probably be a stretch to say those who fought for the north did so to abolish slavery and it would be a stretch to say that those who fought for the south did so to preserve slavery ...but the argument doesn't just stop at "state's rights" and it is actually offensive for someone to have such a view!


I'm not saying slavery wasn't a major factor. It's just ofensive for ppl to say that the cause was slavery, when most southerners were poor and didn't have slaves. When people say your ancestors were racists, it's also kind of offensive.


Bro, no one is calling Southerners racist. Take it easy. When the dude above says "the civil war was mainly fought over states' rights", it lessens the role of slavery, which is also offensive to a lot of people.


I'm just saying that when someone calls it a flag of hatred, it leads ppl to believe that all those who fought under that flag were racist. It's just a little painful when they fought for their family and community, not for slavery. Especially since they were white indentured servants to begin with. I know that isn't quite slavery, but when they had to run away to keep from ramaining enslaved, they might as well have been. Just sucks is all. I realize that slavery was a key factor and that many southerners were racist. I just don't like when they are painted with a broad brush.

Spladle
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:18 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby Spladle » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:11 pm

tennisking88 wrote:many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.


The Bush tax cuts disproportionately favor(ed) low-income Americans. I hear the converse bandied about a lot as if it were fact, and I find it moderately annoying that so many people are so badly misinformed. Prior to said tax cuts, the tax code was less progressive than it is now. Repealing them would shift the burden of taxation from wealthier Americans to poorer Americans.

For the record, I am in favor of tax progressivity and would prefer that wealthy Americans pay more taxes/poor Americans pay fewer taxes. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a monstrously terrible way to go about accomplishing this end.

I realize this is kind of a thread hijack, will try not to derail any further.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby tennisking88 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:12 pm

kroakstool wrote: I'm just saying that when someone calls it a flag of hatred, it leads ppl to believe that all those who fought under that flag were racist. It's just a little painful when they fought for their family and community, not for slavery. Especially since they were white indentured servants to begin with. I know that isn't quite slavery, but when they had to run away to keep from ramaining enslaved, they might as well have been. Just sucks is all. I realize that slavery was a key factor and that many southerners were racist. I just don't like when they are painted with a broad brush.


I think that's fair but my point above still stands. You can put up a swastika, and if you're a Buddhist, or Hindu, it would have very honorable and positive connotations. But for other people, it's a horrific sign that symbolizes humanity at its worst. Why should anyone give someone who has a bumper sticker of a swastika on the back of their car the benefit of the doubt that it's merely an affirmation of something positive? The broad brush business goes both ways, so the moral here is that it's best to be very careful about what you show off.

User avatar
CwallXC322
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby CwallXC322 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:16 pm

People need to stop being so 'offended'. I have only seen Lexington once and I did not get any "the South will rise again!" vibe. The people in town all seemed very nice and they all had their teeth. The law school is a pretty insulated community as is so I doubt you'll come in to contact with those characters. Robert E. Lee from my understanding did not condone slavery and was fighting for VA. Stonewall Jackson is a different story.

mcdeeremitch
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:16 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby mcdeeremitch » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:22 pm

CwallXC322 wrote:People need to stop being so 'offended'. I have only seen Lexington once and I did not get any "the South will rise again!" vibe. The people in town all seemed very nice and they all had their teeth. The law school is a pretty insulated community as is so I doubt you'll come in to contact with those characters. Robert E. Lee from my understanding did not condone slavery and was fighting for VA. Stonewall Jackson is a different story.


Im going to have to piggyback off Cwall....I to did not get that vibe....I think just as people who have a problem with the confederate flag because of what it represents to them...you also need to understand that confederate flags mean to them some people really view it as just a pride thing and nothing more...Im an AA male and when I see confederate flags I don't automatically assume people have ill will towards me unless they outwardly show it then ill have a problem with it...but you have to undertand it from both sides

jaysgirl42671
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:43 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby jaysgirl42671 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:31 pm

I have to chime in - first, for being naive to think this thread wouldn't go in this direction, and also to make myself feel better. Jackson, I would say, did not fight for slavery. Few people held that notion to begin with. And am I getting off on a bad start if I admit that I'm a Civil War buff???

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby tennisking88 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:34 pm

I never got a "South will rise again" vibe either. W&L is terrific and I don't think this debate should deter anyone from attending. The kerfuffle started with someone being cautious, as a minority in multiple respects, to being in a place that occasionally displays the Confederate flag. I thought that caution was reasonable. But, again, I wouldn't not go because of it.

User avatar
T00L
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:35 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby T00L » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:42 pm

tennisking88 wrote:I never got a "South will rise again" vibe either. W&L is terrific and I don't think this debate should deter anyone from attending. The kerfuffle started with someone being cautious, as a minority in multiple respects, to being in a place that occasionally displays the Confederate flag. I thought that caution was reasonable. But, again, I wouldn't not go because of it.


Did you miss those stickers at ASW?? They were right next to the blue W&L Law ones....

We got T-shirts with that on it too.

Everybody chill out and stop talking about the "War of Northern Aggression"

I hope everyone knows I'm joking. But I guess if I really thought everyone would get it, I wouldn't feel it necessary to write this fine print.

User avatar
anjmissy
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:40 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby anjmissy » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:57 pm

Sooo to get off this topic..I wonder why w&l's orientation is a whole week whereas other schools is just a few days..I'm excited =)

User avatar
seancris
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:10 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby seancris » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:51 pm

Not sure if I started this. Didn't mean to.

When is orientation & what's on the agenda?

User avatar
wvu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:20 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby wvu » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:30 pm

seancris wrote:When is orientation & what's on the agenda?

It's the week before classes start. I found this online somewhere:

"The required orientation program for first-year students is 3 days and includes social activities for the entire student body, an introduction to the case method and case briefing techniques, an introduction to legal research, an honor system orientation, and a university orientation."

Obviously the 3 days part is wrong but gives you an idea of what they do during the week.

User avatar
anjmissy
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:40 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby anjmissy » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:42 pm

wvuchip wrote:
seancris wrote:When is orientation & what's on the agenda?

It's the week before classes start. I found this online somewhere:

"The required orientation program for first-year students is 3 days and includes social activities for the entire student body, an introduction to the case method and case briefing techniques, an introduction to legal research, an honor system orientation, and a university orientation."

Obviously the 3 days part is wrong but gives you an idea of what they do during the week.


yeah i think i remember on my tour that during that week they teach you how to actually read and research using the law books, which i guess has become an outdated practice. A 3L even told me that once during an internship the legal websites that people normally refer to was down and she was the only law student who could actually utilize the books.

User avatar
PurplePirate
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby PurplePirate » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:00 pm

This was a tough decision, but I withdrew today and put some $ back in the pot. Good luck to all of you still waiting. It is a truly special and unique place.

User avatar
aeiouy
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:07 am

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby aeiouy » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:31 pm

Is it bad that I'm offended when people have no idea what Washington & Lee Law is? School pride before I even send in my deposit, lol.

User avatar
wvu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:20 pm

Re: W&L c/o 2015

Postby wvu » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:34 pm

aeiouy wrote:Is it bad that I'm offended when people have no idea what Washington & Lee Law is? School pride before I even send in my deposit, lol.

Naw. :wink:

I'm lucky enough to be from the general area so everyone I know thinks it's the bees knees, lol.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AustinLu, eyetelyuhwhut, Long shot hero and 15 guests