Mojosodope wrote:
Writing them are pretty simple.
*is
Mojosodope wrote:
If this discussion happened in person, I probably would have laughed in your face.
You wouldn't have the balls.
I'm not even going to respond to you anymore, the things you brag about are laughable (having a poor, whole first year of school, and your big 8 point increase from your diagnostic.)
This coming from the person who put himself on a pedestal for merely "stressing" about getting a 170 and simply
trying to get such a score?
You are absolutely no more accomplished than anyone else in this thread, yet you still somehow found a way to look down on people as though you were some kind of example. Amazing.
Keep quoting the bible at me. You sound real cool Ronald Reagan.
I didn't get that quote from the bible. John Winthrop (LinkRemoved) is the man I was referencing. He was a religious figure, but not a biblical one.
I'm not a Republican either. Nice try, though.
sassybassy wrote:GO AWAY! Omg, you're so negative.
If you legitimately worked hard to obtain that 162, and not as you said, settled for it because you knew it was good enough for an African American, then you have every reason to be proud of your score because 162 is a good score. You shouldn't need someone else to validate your score for you.
That isn't the reason why I've bothered dragging out this argument. I'm already proud of my score, nothing has changed there.
This site, believe it or not, is a crucial resource for URMs looking into the law. There aren't a lot of other places where they can get advice tailored to them. What is written here will be read by thousands of would-be URM lawyers for many years into the future. I know, because I myself have spent years lurking here.
That means that the information written here needs to be on point. It needs to be realistic, rational and objective.
Mojoslowdope up there does a disservice to readers when he a) tries to portray a 160-162 as a score that is anything less than excellent for an AA and gives an AA anything less than a strong shot at the T-14, b) attacks and shames individuals who score in that range (and either cannot or will not try again) by portraying them as lazy and unambitious individuals who wouldn't be good fits for law school (despite their having better numbers than 99% of AAs) while simultaneously lording it over them with a false sense of supremacy not because he has a higher score or has proven capable of acquiring one, but because he's merely
trying to get one.
The objective reality is this:
AAJD2B wrote:
Moreover, we can agree to disagree, can we not? We are not all cut from the same cloth. Just because a test is considered "easily learnable" to you does not mean it will be easily learnable for every other person. Not all of us share the same career goals, the same dream schools, or the same score benchmark that will make someone satisfied or happy. For some, a 162 is stellar. For others, it won't be, but to go on to insinuate that on this basis one may lack "to push...beyond what is expected" is, in my humblest of opinions, an ad hominem flaw that has no place in this thread, given it's very purpose.
Mojoslowdope is precisely the kind of pompous, uninformed prick whose words could fool a URM into thinking his/her perfectly respectable score (160-163) and the effort used to obtain it is unworthy of the T-14 and of law school in general. That leads to people under-applying, doubting themselves in ways they shouldn't, and becoming otherwise misinformed. This is the main reason why I've dragged this out (in addition to the fact that I simply do not like Mojoslowdope or his attacks on my person).
sassybassy wrote:We're here to push you.
Mojoslowdope was not pushing, he was insulting. There is a difference.
