U Chicago 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby booboo » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:23 pm

Kretzy wrote:
All 3 major candidates for Governor in Rhode Island today came together to announce they'd sign a marriage equality bill, another big step. Good to see the progress, sad to see the remaining bigotry (esp. living in Colorado Springs...damn will it feel good to head to a real city).

/rant.


Is it that bad there?

I lived in a suburb of Denver for a while, didn't seem too bad... in that respect.

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:24 pm

.
Last edited by puppleberry finn on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Kretzy » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:25 pm

booboo wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
All 3 major candidates for Governor in Rhode Island today came together to announce they'd sign a marriage equality bill, another big step. Good to see the progress, sad to see the remaining bigotry (esp. living in Colorado Springs...damn will it feel good to head to a real city).

/rant.


Is it that bad there?

I lived in a suburb of Denver for a while, didn't seem too bad... in that respect.


Headquarters of Focus on the Family, major evangelical presence, voted 68 percent McCain and is the most conservative big city (>350,000 people) in the US.

Denver is a great gay city. CSprings is lackluster.

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:25 pm

So, um, back on topic (although I support a supporting-marriage-equality tangent more than a what-girls-at-what-schools-are-hot tangent), any thoughts on what's going on the the U of C admissions office?
Is anyone else still waiting from 2/4 and feeling the least bit optimistic? How many of us are left from this batch?

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:25 pm

puppleberry finn wrote:
crackberry wrote:Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.


also mormons

Yeah but the Mormons weren't voting for Obama (generally speaking). I really think it was the abnormally high numbers of blacks (who would otherwise not vote) who came out to vote for Obama that did in gay marriage in California.

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:27 pm

.
Last edited by puppleberry finn on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Jericwithers » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:30 pm

eas331 wrote:So, um, back on topic (although I support a supporting-marriage-equality tangent more than a what-girls-at-what-schools-are-hot tangent), any thoughts on what's going on the the U of C admissions office?
Is anyone else still waiting from 2/4 and feeling the least bit optimistic? How many of us are left from this batch?


I'm left.....yay?

bkwhopper
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby bkwhopper » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:31 pm

eas331 wrote:So, um, back on topic (although I support a supporting-marriage-equality tangent more than a what-girls-at-what-schools-are-hot tangent), any thoughts on what's going on the the U of C admissions office?
Is anyone else still waiting from 2/4 and feeling the least bit optimistic? How many of us are left from this batch?


I'm in 2/4 batch, and I'm still waiting. Has anybody from this batch been WL or dinged yet?

User avatar
Fancy Pants
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Fancy Pants » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:33 pm

crackberry wrote:
puppleberry finn wrote:
crackberry wrote:Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.


also mormons

Yeah but the Mormons weren't voting for Obama (generally speaking). I really think it was the abnormally high numbers of blacks (who would otherwise not vote) who came out to vote for Obama that did in gay marriage in California.


Interesting stuff. (LinkRemoved)

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:33 pm

puppleberry finn wrote:
crackberry wrote:
puppleberry finn wrote:
crackberry wrote:Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.


also mormons

Yeah but the Mormons weren't voting for Obama (generally speaking). I really think it was the abnormally high numbers of blacks (who would otherwise not vote) who came out to vote for Obama that did in gay marriage in California.


no but they poured a ton of money from out of state into getting prop 8 based, including insane things like "we will hold your children down in school and force them to like gay people"

True, there was a lot of Mormon $$ to get it passed. My point was more that it would not have passed had Obama not been on the ballot.

User avatar
JollyGreenGiant
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:12 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby JollyGreenGiant » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 pm

Please tell me these aren't the convos I'll be getting into at Chicago.. :lol:

User avatar
Fancy Pants
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Fancy Pants » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:36 pm

JollyGreenGiant wrote:Please tell me these aren't the convos I'll be getting into at Chicago.. :lol:


Students at Chicago don't have conversations, they compare notes.

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:37 pm

.
Last edited by puppleberry finn on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
johnstuartmill
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 9:53 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby johnstuartmill » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:40 pm

crackberry wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.

I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option. :wink:


I'd kind of like to...

Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.

Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.

There's also the fact that the Yes on 8 campaign was very good at using California's social libertarianism against itself. My ex-girlfriend's mom, who's Catholic but still quite liberal in social issues (e.g. abortion), voted for Proposition 8 because she believed that without it, churches opposed to same-sex marriage would be forced to officiate over them. She voted for Prop. 8 on libertarian grounds, as weird as that sounds to you and me.

But yeah, California will probably be the first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum. Gay marriage only lost by 5 percentage points in 2008. By the time it gets on the ballot (likely in 2012), four more years of young voters -- who supported gay marriage by 2:1 --will be on the rolls, and four more years of old, anti-gay voters dying will have transpired. The demographic logic alone warrants a strong presumption in favor of a win for gay marriage in 2012, and when you also consider that the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in 2008 and is thus unlikely to donate $20 million and its grassroots force again, the legalization of gay marriage in California looks like an inevitability.

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby booboo » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:45 pm

johnstuartmill wrote:
crackberry wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.

I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option. :wink:


I'd kind of like to...

Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.

Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.

There's also the fact that the Yes on 8 campaign was very good at using California's social libertarianism against itself. My ex-girlfriend's mom, who's Catholic but still quite liberal in social issues (e.g. abortion), voted for Proposition 8 because she believed that without it, churches opposed to same-sex marriage would be forced to officiate over them. She voted for Prop. 8 on libertarian grounds, as weird as that sounds to you and me.

But yeah, California will probably be the first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum. Gay marriage only lost by 5 percentage points in 2008. By the time it gets on the ballot (likely in 2012), four more years of young voters -- who supported gay marriage by 2:1 --will be on the rolls, and four more years of old, anti-gay voters dying will have transpired. The demographic logic alone warrants a strong presumption in favor of a win for gay marriage in 2012, and when you also consider that the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in 2008 and is thus unlikely to donate $20 million and its grassroots force again, the legalization of gay marriage in California looks like an inevitability.


I feel you underestimate the dark side of the force.

User avatar
johnstuartmill
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 9:53 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby johnstuartmill » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:47 pm

crackberry wrote:
puppleberry finn wrote:
crackberry wrote:Yeah but the Mormons weren't voting for Obama (generally speaking). I really think it was the abnormally high numbers of blacks (who would otherwise not vote) who came out to vote for Obama that did in gay marriage in California.


no but they poured a ton of money from out of state into getting prop 8 based, including insane things like "we will hold your children down in school and force them to like gay people"

True, there was a lot of Mormon $$ to get it passed. My point was more that it would not have passed had Obama not been on the ballot.

This isn't so clear. First-time voters in California actually supported marriage equality by a substantial margin, so if those voters only showed up on Election Day because of Obama, then Obama actually helped the No on 8 side by being on the ballot. Of course, that assumption is highly suspect, but that just proves my point -- that we can't say that Obama's presence on the ballot caused Prop. 8 to pass -- even more.

attendantgodot
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby attendantgodot » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:48 pm

bkwhopper wrote:
eas331 wrote:So, um, back on topic (although I support a supporting-marriage-equality tangent more than a what-girls-at-what-schools-are-hot tangent), any thoughts on what's going on the the U of C admissions office?
Is anyone else still waiting from 2/4 and feeling the least bit optimistic? How many of us are left from this batch?


I'm in 2/4 batch, and I'm still waiting. Has anybody from this batch been WL or dinged yet?


+1 but it was my first IR update... do people usually get more than one update?

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:50 pm

booboo wrote:
I feel you underestimate the dark side of the force.


But maybe Perry v. Schwarzenegger will take care of everything.

I can't believe I contributed to a tangent.

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:51 pm

attendantgodot wrote:
bkwhopper wrote:
eas331 wrote:So, um, back on topic (although I support a supporting-marriage-equality tangent more than a what-girls-at-what-schools-are-hot tangent), any thoughts on what's going on the the U of C admissions office?
Is anyone else still waiting from 2/4 and feeling the least bit optimistic? How many of us are left from this batch?


I'm in 2/4 batch, and I'm still waiting. Has anybody from this batch been WL or dinged yet?


+1 but it was my first IR update... do people usually get more than one update?


I don't know about the usual number of updates, and it looks like one person here got a rejection e-mail today. Guess we just have to keep our fingers crossed and wait.

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:56 pm

.
Last edited by puppleberry finn on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:56 pm

Fancy Pants wrote:
JollyGreenGiant wrote:Please tell me these aren't the convos I'll be getting into at Chicago.. :lol:


Students at Chicago don't have conversations, they [strike]compare[/strike] sabotage each others' notes.

Fixed (joking, sort of).

User avatar
johnstuartmill
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 9:53 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby johnstuartmill » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:58 pm

eas331 wrote:
booboo wrote:
I feel you underestimate the dark side of the force.


But maybe Perry v. Schwarzenegger will take care of everything.

I can't believe I contributed to a tangent.

Boies and Olson kicked the shit out of the anti-gay hacks in that suit, but I'm still extraordinarily skeptical that it will be successful. The argument for gay marriage is airtight, but unfortunately a coalition of bumblefucks and wussies constitutes a majority on the Supreme Court.

User avatar
ChildPlease
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby ChildPlease » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:59 pm

managamy wrote:
booboo wrote:
managamy wrote:Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.


Sorry, Jelena wins.

http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-conten ... vic_81.jpg


No, but thanks for removing yourself from the competition.

Actually, my avatar is going to be taking a class at Harvard :D , although not HLS :| . Not that it matters in my decision, though, of course. :wink:

Where did you hear that?

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:01 pm

ChildPlease wrote:
managamy wrote:
booboo wrote:
managamy wrote:Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.


Sorry, Jelena wins.

http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-conten ... vic_81.jpg


No, but thanks for removing yourself from the competition.

Actually, my avatar is going to be taking a class at Harvard :D , although not HLS :| . Not that it matters in my decision, though, of course. :wink:

Where did you hear that?


Oh, it was mentioned on her website a while ago. I'm sure that it's one of those things where she shows up for a few weeks and does the rest by correspondence. However, she does intend to get a degree from an American university eventually.

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:47 pm

puppleberry finn wrote:
eas331 wrote:I can't believe I contributed to a tangent.


you will do so well at chicago


Ouch! :wink:




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TecumsehSherman and 9 guests