Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle) Forum
-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Playersball has pretty good stats FOR ANYONE too and is well within the 25-75 range for Stanford so if that's not merit, I don't know what is.
There's a big difference between recognizing that URM admissions aren't completely analogous to non-URM admissions (which was my reaction upthread; sorry to anyone who misinterpreted my unclear post) and chalking up URM status as some sort of sufficient condition to admission regardless of numbers and other soft factors.
There's a big difference between recognizing that URM admissions aren't completely analogous to non-URM admissions (which was my reaction upthread; sorry to anyone who misinterpreted my unclear post) and chalking up URM status as some sort of sufficient condition to admission regardless of numbers and other soft factors.
- Litt1tUp
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Stanford picked you, so get out there and ball, player
You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!
You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!
-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Now please just let some less qualified people (i.e. me) in!
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:36 am
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
.
Last edited by Monday on Wed May 10, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mr_Chukes
- Posts: 1162
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:01 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Love this post lol. Laughed at get out there and ball.Litt1tUp wrote:Stanford picked you, so get out there and ball, player
You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:09 am
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
A mentor once told me that no one would admit someone unless they believed they would succeed -- a school doesn't set people up for failure. Playersball, this was your ability, full stop. Go kick a$$ in Cali!
- Litt1tUp
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
I think you meant that. Never lower your worth, my friend!Rigo wrote:Now please just let some over qualified people (i.e. me) in!
- pretzeltime
- Posts: 1993
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 6:57 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW
-
- Posts: 16639
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Haha thanks! I'm the coolest 25th% LSAT you'll ever meet, Stanny! I'm big league!Litt1tUp wrote:I think you meant that. Never lower your worth, my friend!Rigo wrote:Now please just let some over qualified people (i.e. me) in!
- forum_user
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:40 am
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW
- unrelated
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
This is the content I come here for.forum_user wrote:For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:38 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
x
Last edited by lawschool2017712 on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- unrelated
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Gonna be honest, that seems a little drastic if that one comment was his only offense.soj wrote:helioze is an asshole so i banned him. good luck to you all!
- forum_user
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:40 am
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Spoken like someone who has clearly never filled their bathtub with bubbly. The displacement is part of the luxury!canafsa wrote:You dummy, you forgot to account for displacement caused by 75% of his body submerged in the tub.forum_user wrote:For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Litt1tUp
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
And alcohol poisoning? Correct me if I am wrong, but you can absorb alcohol through your skin?canafsa wrote:Sounds like a good way to get sticky floors if you ask me.forum_user wrote:Spoken like someone who has clearly never filled their bathtub with bubbly. The displacement is part of the luxury!canafsa wrote:You dummy, you forgot to account for displacement caused by 75% of his body submerged in the tub.forum_user wrote:For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- nimbus cloud
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:19 am
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
.
Last edited by nimbus cloud on Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- poptart123
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:31 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
Can confirm. Only a good time.nimbus cloud wrote:Based on anecdotal evidence, no alcohol poisoning from champagne baths.Litt1tUp wrote: And alcohol poisoning? Correct me if I am wrong, but you can absorb alcohol through your skin?
- unrelated
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
+1. Censorship is death.canafsa wrote:Now that's a stupid phrase. You sound even more obnoxious than he was.soj wrote:he should have kept his white tears to himself.unrelated wrote:Gonna be honest, that seems a little drastic if that one comment was his only offense.soj wrote:helioze is an asshole so i banned him. good luck to you all!
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:58 am
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
So incredible that for one negative remark, there were 7+ positive and supportive people to back me, and all URMs, up.
Thank you to everyone who made it a point to let Helioze know what's really up and to congratulate me! It's great to think that you all will be part of the legal community and potential classmates/colleagues.
Also yes, was too busy celebrating with family and friends but unfortunately no champagne bathtubs due to it being a work night. This weekend tho
Thank you to everyone who made it a point to let Helioze know what's really up and to congratulate me! It's great to think that you all will be part of the legal community and potential classmates/colleagues.
Also yes, was too busy celebrating with family and friends but unfortunately no champagne bathtubs due to it being a work night. This weekend tho
forum_user wrote:For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW
SmallK wrote:A mentor once told me that no one would admit someone unless they believed they would succeed -- a school doesn't set people up for failure. Playersball, this was your ability, full stop. Go kick a$$ in Cali!
Litt1tUp wrote:Stanford picked you, so get out there and ball, player
You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!
Rigo wrote:Playersball has pretty good stats FOR ANYONE too and is well within the 25-75 range for Stanford so if that's not merit, I don't know what is.
There's a big difference between recognizing that URM admissions aren't completely analogous to non-URM admissions (which was my reaction upthread; sorry to anyone who misinterpreted my unclear post) and chalking up URM status as some sort of sufficient condition to admission regardless of numbers and other soft factors.
bartlettadmin wrote:I wanted to say the same thing when i saw that post so I'm glad it was mentioned. It's not just the sls thread, it's most of the top 5 I'd say where the accomplishments of URMs are really downplayed. Anyway congrats on your acceptance you deserve it!calpolisci2016 wrote: Seriously. It doesn't even make sense, does helioze think anyone who is a URM and applied to SLS is an auto admit? There's obviously a lot more to it than that.
Helioze should feel ashamed. Very well said, mysterycat.
VapidP wrote: I also don't get the bitterness. Like is a purported "easier" law school admissions cycle really worth all the other shit that URMs have to go through on a daily basis? Almost certainly not. If you are going to reduce someone to their URM status, at least understand the full complexity of what that entails.
mysterycat2020 wrote:
You know I have been absolutely dismayed at the negativity shown towards URMs in these threads. But why should I, this is what folks do when they can hide behind anonymity. You should be ashamed of how you essentially just boiled this person's hard work and accomplishments down to just their URM status. Jealousy can be shown in so many ways and that should not be the spirit of these threads.
- lawlzschool
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 8:57 pm
Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)
came here expecting a wave of stanford admits
learned my champagne bathtub dream will require too many years of biglaw (gotta have that dom)
damn
edit: also obviously congrats playersball and props for the positivity in your post ^^
learned my champagne bathtub dream will require too many years of biglaw (gotta have that dom)
damn
edit: also obviously congrats playersball and props for the positivity in your post ^^
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login