Top Law Schools

pompoms wrote:
For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

Good advice, but your username/avatar make it *really* hard to take your scolding seriously.

pompoms wrote:

edwardt1988 wrote:

superdingle2000 wrote:

gigibeirne wrote:just random but i think its fun so bring this up
my interviewer was like super pretty so i google her up and found a clip about her introducing her firm to summer interns or sth..like broadcasting clip
the short clip heavily concentrated on her lips.......
so TLSer who underestimated GULC or mentioned Georgetttown,fuck youuuu all cuz GULC got beautiful blondies with decent medical background. lol

pics or it didnt happen

Just do it. You can't mention a IRL pretty girl on the interwebz and not post pictures. That's breaking the rules.

For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

Not sure if you are working with her or not, but I'd hope you realize that that I was kidding, and nobody expects him to actually post a picture of her. Nor do I think that him calling her pretty is objectifying, but I can understand why it can be perceived like that

ScottRiqui wrote:

pompoms wrote:
For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

Good advice, but your username/avatar make it *really* hard to take your scolding seriously.

I pity the fool who doesn't take Rachel Zane seriously.

.

What an exciting turn of events itt today.

.

NoDayButToday wrote:I'm sorry to be ignorant, but what is "ITT?" I've seen this a lot.

In this thread

.

Anybody receive a letter today?

kidrobotLaw wrote:Anybody receive a letter today?

I received an email. ED application being "deferred" until they have a "better sense of the overall applicant pool." They promise a final decision before Feb. 28.

Anyone else?

mec246 wrote:

kidrobotLaw wrote:Anybody receive a letter today?

I received an email. ED application being "deferred" until they have a "better sense of the overall applicant pool." They promise a final decision before Feb. 28.

Anyone else?

Not a peep here. Application has only been complete for a little over a week though.

ScottRiqui wrote:

pompoms wrote:
For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

Good advice, but your username/avatar make it *really* hard to take your scolding seriously.

Seriously not looking forward to going to law school with these sexist douches who can't take women seriously because omg tits and hair and biology!11111

Mec246, check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7&t=199259

It should answer your questions. To briefly sum it up, being "held" is better than going straight to the wait list.

snapdragon25 wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

pompoms wrote:
For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

Good advice, but your username/avatar make it *really* hard to take your scolding seriously.

Seriously not looking forward to going to law school with these sexist douches who can't take women seriously because omg tits and hair and biology!11111

Poms and Snap- thank you so much for saying this. Just added you both as friends on my profile (huge honor, I know :p)

But seriously, get it together people.

SparkyZZZ wrote:Mec246, check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7&t=199259

It should answer your questions. To briefly sum it up, being "held" is better than going straight to the wait list.

Thank you! Very helpful.

Is 3 status updates with no interview request a good sign? I know that a few people got admitted after 3 updates and no interview, but was wondering if it's okay for me to expect something good...My last update was 12/9 by the way. thanks!

Checking in.

,

Checking in, good luck to everyone applying!

LSAT: 168
GPA: 3.64

-

snapdragon25 wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

pompoms wrote:
For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

Good advice, but your username/avatar make it *really* hard to take your scolding seriously.

Seriously not looking forward to going to law school with these sexist douches who can't take women seriously because omg tits and hair and biology!11111

snap:its so funny how you distort original statement to fit in your archetypically imaginary villain sexiest image,who said 'tits or biology or hair' for fux sake..not sure if this is how you see women.
nice judgment and your high moral standpoint is sensationally cool.

EDIT: im totally okay with people pointing out the inappropriateness embodied in my snetence because its possible that people have different reaction and potentially will get offended,well im more than willing to admit my improprieties and apologize if it is.
but pointing outright' sexist douche' is absolutely hilarious and honestly yur level of ignorance is almost so cute that i can use it as a textbook mistake of modern phonies trying to establish their moral nobility by distinguishing themselves from other 'sexist douche' people using the engrained sexiest image already existed in their heads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

gigibeirne wrote:

For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

[[[i can't even...]]]

it's really not a good idea to drunkpost in acceptance threads.

What's going on here?

scoobers wrote:

gigibeirne wrote:

For the record, I work with her, your alumni interviewer. I suggest avoiding using your real name in the forums. This is not an appropriate line of discussion and objectifying a female attorney in a public forum is probably not anyone's best use of this thread...if you get me.

well im confused, would you be so kind to enlighten me that which part of my word indicate objectification of women.
since when spontaneous appreciation on women's appearances become objectifying women, like every single time i compliment some other fellow women sincerely, it will turn out to be some egregious discrimination against women.
just for random question...im wondering why would women be offended by seemingly friendly appreciation of their beautiness. is there a way women as a group or an individual be demeaned by it?because by objectification i guess it implies wrongful discrimination or demeaning its equal moral value as others or something.
but again, im by no means looking for a fight,just so confused miss, and i hate idiots who asking for pics,,could be just another random"ahh stunning" post

it's really not a good idea to drunkpost in acceptance threads.

^^ Haha this!

ohpobrecito wrote:What's going on here?

Some people have just become acquainted with the Internet I think