Georgetown 2013/ (2014) Forum

[SaintClarence27]

.

[acdisagod]

Wait, a below median applicant got rejected and is bitching? Schools reject above median applicants all the time and your bitching? Why is any explanation needed, the applicant has a terrible gpa and an average LSAT at best.

[Unitas]

I don't see finding out if you have a cause of action as an overreaction at all. I think those that have been quick to name-call have been overreacting quite a bit, though.

Ok, she did not say let me find out if I have a cause of action, she said I'll just sue the burden of proof is on them. See quote below. That is entirely different and why people reacted badly. It is also why posters brought up why this is a bad indication on society. There is no basis for her to yell they discriminated against me… Her numbers aren’t that great, LSN is not a representative sample – most with below numbers have a good story, great PS , great LORs, and so on. If she said, I wonder what happened let me shoot them an e-mail, maybe they saw a red flag I wasn’t aware of.. Instead though she said I’ll sue then they can prove I am wrong… Big difference there.

Based on that alone I wouldn't want to be in classes with her. Sexual harassment is the same as discrimination, so I bet she throws that around too.

Nope. Discrimination is illegal and when they let in everyone else with my numbers or at least waitlisted them they've got a burden of proof.

[adameus]

come on Sibley and the person who was defending her! I realize you are disabled and for that I am sorry. I cannot say I can even begin to understand what is like to live with a disability. But you are acting like a spoiled brat. Seems to be a problem with our society today that we don't teach kids how to deal with failure. We give everyone ribbons for running the race and whenever something bad happens it's everyone else's fault. Sibley, you were a borderline candidate with your stats, not to mention you also had a very low first LSAT. You haven't been accepted at a school near Georgetown in the rankings, so to be so entitled to cry discrimination when you get rejected there is an over reaction. Perhaps there were/are some weaknesses with your application and that is why you got rejected? I just don't know what good could come out of suing Georgetown? Could you get an injunction that would force them to accept you? Would you actually want to attend there if it was proven that they rejected you due to discrimination?

Apart from that, you seem to have got into some very good schools and are waitlisted at some even better ones so I'm sure you'll end up at a very good school. Good luck with the rest of your cycle.

This is probably the most well-thought out argument made here, and some of it is certainly valid - especially about obtaining an injunction to attend a school that discriminated against you. I don't think there's any entitlement issues here, other than her being legally entitled to due process. It is about determining whether she has a cause of action - something she's certainly allowed to do. If the process determines that there was no discrimination involved, then it will get thrown out. If there *was* discrimination involved, then it should be dealt with. Where's the harm? I don't see the point in making judgments now (especially with very little information) when there are people who are (or will be) much more informed on both this case and the rule of law as it pertains here making the real judgments. They get paid for their expertise, and there's a reason. I hope to be one of them soon.

based on this every single person should sue every law school they didn't get into. I am not claiming to be a lawyer or to be really knowledgable about the law but do you really think it will be difficult for Georgetown to prove that they didn't discriminate against her? They can have a million reasons for why they didn't accept her. Like another poster said, unless they never or rarely admit anyone with a disability, I doubt she will have much of a case.

[D. H2Oman]

Sibley, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously.

[calicocat]

Sibley, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously.

Waterman always has words of wisdom.

[adameus]

Sibley, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously.

woh dude, take it easy, her mother and boyfriend are going to pay the price for your comments.

Going home to yell at my mother because she won't understand why I'm upset, then to do the same to my boyfriend. Yay.

[pertristis]

LMAO!!! But seriously, I agree with you. You got all these idiots trying to get into law school and they are already dismissing a case based on what they see on the surface, isn't that the reason why they subject us to those nerve wrecking logic games, so you can look beyond what's on the surface? Please, Sibley do your research and sue the pants of them if you can make a case. They tell you all these crap about how the admission process is beyond numbers but they use things in your application against you that should count as softs!...Here I come Ph.D Economics program, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, BC, Brown, Michigan.....

I really don't think anyone is commenting on the merits of the legal case, I think what they are commenting on is the over-reaction of sibley.

I don't see finding out if you have a cause of action as an overreaction at all. I think those that have been quick to name-call have been overreacting quite a bit, though.

I am guessing that the charge of overreaction doesn't find its root in her wanting to find out of she has a cause of action; I think the charge of overreaction has more to do with her stating, "hmph. I don't wanna go to law school anymore. they're too mean," et cetera. If she believes that there is a possible discrimination issue, she should absolutely pursue it. I'm saying this as someone who fought his undergrad institution over a disability issue and won.

Then again, for what it's worth, GULC was perfectly aware of my disability via a grade addendum and update, and that didn't prevent my acceptance.

[thestalkmore]

Sibley, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously.

Got linked to this thread and quoted for truth holy shit.

[chicoalto0649]

ITT: Things go downhill fast for Sibley.....

[SaintClarence27]

.

[adameus]

ITT: Things go downhill fast for Sibley.....

things could be turning around, she seems to be the frontrunner for meltdown of the year:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=112302

[D. H2Oman]

It depends on the disability, I suppose. Paralysis? Doubtful. Schizophrenia? More likely. I'm not going to pry into her personal information to find out, though. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the case law here, but she's right about ADA putting the burden of proof on G'Town. I don't know whether they can prove otherwise or not. I know very little about the situation. My real issue is that everyone automatically assumed that she would have no case here. I think it's a little ridiculous to definitively state that she has no case while calling her "whiny" "spoiled" "brat" and the like when they know nothing about her situation or her application.

Does she have a case? I don't know. I'll let someone who knows more decide on that one.

She has no case. Her numbers are right in WL range:

http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Sibley is objectively a complete moron if she is serious.

[calicocat]

It depends on the disability, I suppose. Paralysis? Doubtful. Schizophrenia? More likely. I'm not going to pry into her personal information to find out, though. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the case law here, but she's right about ADA putting the burden of proof on G'Town. I don't know whether they can prove otherwise or not. I know very little about the situation. My real issue is that everyone automatically assumed that she would have no case here. I think it's a little ridiculous to definitively state that she has no case while calling her "whiny" "spoiled" "brat" and the like when they know nothing about her situation or her application.

Does she have a case? I don't know. I'll let someone who knows more decide on that one.

She has no case. Her numbers are right in WL range:

http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Sibley is objectively a complete moron if she is serious.

I got waitlisted with objectively much better numbers

[SaintClarence27]

.

[unknownscholar]

come on Sibley and the person who was defending her! I realize you are disabled and for that I am sorry. I cannot say I can even begin to understand what is like to live with a disability. But you are acting like a spoiled brat. Seems to be a problem with our society today that we don't teach kids how to deal with failure. We give everyone ribbons for running the race and whenever something bad happens it's everyone else's fault. Sibley, you were a borderline candidate with your stats, not to mention you also had a very low first LSAT. You haven't been accepted at a school near Georgetown in the rankings, so to be so entitled to cry discrimination when you get rejected there is an over reaction. Perhaps there were/are some weaknesses with your application and that is why you got rejected? I just don't know what good could come out of suing Georgetown? Could you get an injunction that would force them to accept you? Would you actually want to attend there if it was proven that they rejected you due to discrimination?

Apart from that, you seem to have got into some very good schools and are waitlisted at some even better ones so I'm sure you'll end up at a very good school. Good luck with the rest of your cycle.

This is probably the most well-thought out argument made here, and some of it is certainly valid - especially about obtaining an injunction to attend a school that discriminated against you. I don't think there's any entitlement issues here, other than her being legally entitled to due process. It is about determining whether she has a cause of action - something she's certainly allowed to do. If the process determines that there was no discrimination involved, then it will get thrown out. If there *was* discrimination involved, then it should be dealt with. Where's the harm? I don't see the point in making judgments now (especially with very little information) when there are people who are (or will be) much more informed on both this case and the rule of law as it pertains here making the real judgments. They get paid for their expertise, and there's a reason. I hope to be one of them soon.

based on this every single person should sue every law school they didn't get into. I am not claiming to be a lawyer or to be really knowledgable about the law but do you really think it will be difficult for Georgetown to prove that they didn't discriminate against her? They can have a million reasons for why they didn't accept her. Like another poster said, unless they never or rarely admit anyone with a disability, I doubt she will have much of a case.

It depends on the disability, I suppose. Paralysis? Doubtful. Schizophrenia? More likely. I'm not going to pry into her personal information to find out, though. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the case law here, but she's right about ADA putting the burden of proof on G'Town. I don't know whether they can prove otherwise or not. I know very little about the situation. My real issue is that everyone automatically assumed that she would have no case here. I think it's a little ridiculous to definitively state that she has no case while calling her "whiny" "spoiled" "brat" and the like when they know nothing about her situation or her application.

Does she have a case? I don't know. I'll let someone who knows more decide on that one.

to be fair, it's often a good idea for the poster to give some context to the reading crowd she's ranting to.

[D. H2Oman]

It depends on the disability, I suppose. Paralysis? Doubtful. Schizophrenia? More likely. I'm not going to pry into her personal information to find out, though. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the case law here, but she's right about ADA putting the burden of proof on G'Town. I don't know whether they can prove otherwise or not. I know very little about the situation. My real issue is that everyone automatically assumed that she would have no case here. I think it's a little ridiculous to definitively state that she has no case while calling her "whiny" "spoiled" "brat" and the like when they know nothing about her situation or her application.

Does she have a case? I don't know. I'll let someone who knows more decide on that one.

She has no case. Her numbers are right in WL range:

http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Sibley is objectively a complete moron if she is serious.

I got waitlisted with objectively much better numbers

Sue Georgetown?

[SaintClarence27]

.

[calicocat]

Sue Georgetown?

Soon as I figure out what the hell they were discriminating against. Canadians?

[calicocat]

She has no case. Her numbers are right in WL range:

http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Sibley is objectively a complete moron if she is serious.

So you made a case FOR her. She wasn't WLed. She was rejected.

Dude come the fuck on. People have had screwy cycles. Some people are out at cornell and CLS and in at H. So really, this is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

[dk8]

It depends on the disability, I suppose. Paralysis? Doubtful. Schizophrenia? More likely. I'm not going to pry into her personal information to find out, though. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the case law here, but she's right about ADA putting the burden of proof on G'Town. I don't know whether they can prove otherwise or not. I know very little about the situation. My real issue is that everyone automatically assumed that she would have no case here. I think it's a little ridiculous to definitively state that she has no case while calling her "whiny" "spoiled" "brat" and the like when they know nothing about her situation or her application.

Does she have a case? I don't know. I'll let someone who knows more decide on that one.

Law schools love diversity and disabled people overcoming odds. Do you honestly think they looked at her app and said "well it looks good, lets let her in...wait...she's disabled?!?! ding her, we don't want her kind here!"

[chutzpah]

My issue is the tone of the whole thing. We're all adults here, please don't be a petulant child about this. And if you are going to take legal action, do it with some dignity and privacy.

[SaintClarence27]

.

[holybartender]

She has no case. Her numbers are right in WL range:

http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Sibley is objectively a complete moron if she is serious.

So you made a case FOR her. She wasn't WLed. She was rejected.

Dude come the fuck on. People have had screwy cycles. Some people are out at cornell and CLS and in at H. So really, this is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

I finally figured out my cycle: they're discriminating against whites from a mixed Christian and Jewish background!

[D. H2Oman]

She has no case. Her numbers are right in WL range:

http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Sibley is objectively a complete moron if she is serious.

So you made a case FOR her. She wasn't WLed. She was rejected.

You're right, this is the first time in the history of law school admissions that someone has underachieved their numbers! Must be discrimination. Holy fuck that 171, 3.54 got rejected too. He is going to own the school!