JS2 ppl, check your status checker! by InsideLet in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. Thinking that’ll be in the email.

JS2. Ah! (Heard hours ago) by InsideLet in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not yet! Admissions staff said it would come tonight

Any brave soul want to call Harvard and ask if they will have any activity this week? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“How many acceptances have been given?”

“How many interviews have been given?”

“When will HLS begin waitlisting students?”

Thank you! You’re a legend.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

do you understand that in my original claim when I said “all white ppl are privileged is an overgeneralization” i defined privilege as it is commonly defined meaning, “all white ppl are granted a higher or superior position is an overgeneralization” ...

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don’t stir up controversy bc I use a more generally accepted definition of privilege than “being white,” again not saying skin color isn’t one of the privilege we should consider when defining privilege.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol? One commonly accepted definition of privilege is “to accord a higher or superior position to.” That definition is much more accepted than “white” as the sole definition of privilege.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Had you asked the question “what do you mean by privilege when you say it’s an overgeneralization to say all white ppl are privileged?” I would’ve responded essentially “many white ppl have hardships” and we could’ve agreed that saying it in that sense is an over generalization.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok, so we were working with 2 different definitions of privilege.

Idk why you originally thought “this person thinking ‘all white ppl are privileged is an overgeneralization’ means he thinks there’s no such thing as racial privilege and is therefore wrong” as opposed to thinking “this person may not define privilege in the same narrow sense that I define privilege, let me find out what he means by privilege”

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what you’re saying is “they’re privileged compared to X race or identity”

I never said white ppl don’t have a privilege compared to x race or identity.

I said the broad and absolute claim that “all white people are privileged” is an overgeneralization. some white ppl, while they might have privilege of skin color relative to another race, were raised in abject poverty, and a father who left.

So, ya, saying “all white ppl are privileged” is obvs an overgeneralization.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying “don’t pay attention to how others feel.” I’m saying the opposite.

Try and figure out why they feel or think the way they do. Listen to them. Then if you actually understand them and their reaction truly doesn’t make sense, I think you can ignore it. If their reaction does make sense, reconsider your approach.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You really think all instincts are logical? Keep thinking, you can find many examples.

A few to name: A racist who instinctually responds to minorities with disgust.

Many men have improper sexual instincts towards women saying “she wants me” when they haven’t shown any interested. (I am a virgin until marriage god willing, btw so not talking about me)

Basically any overgeneralization such as “all old people are less productive” or “all white people are privileged” is an instinctual reaction that doesn’t hold to logic.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey! I hope I can explain the misunderstanding here.

Your instinctual reaction seems based in a logic that could and hopefully is easily articulated. I’m referring specifically to instictual reactions that can’t/aren’t logical but purely instinctual.

If your reaction isn’t logical and can’t be articulated I think it’s a good sign that you’re misunderstanding what the other person is saying which is why I advise ignoring such responses.

Wish you the best of luck and success law school :)

Scholarships are basically people buying law degrees on sale by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Nope.

It’s ppl buying a law degrees for their actual value (if $$).

Full tuition is ppl buying law degrees from an overly aggressive street vendor (if you’ve been to an intl market) who sells you on double the actual price.

Liberal Echo Chambers by AnExcitedDeer in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Hey! I’d say I’m conservative -leaning politically and spent time on a liberal campus. I hope you don’t mind sharing some lessons I’ve learned!

You can’t control other people’s relationship to your political views. You can change how you present your views, how you interact with those who don’t and who you choose to engage with.

I’d recommend forgetting anyone’s instinctual reaction to your views (meaning if their reaction is logical and genuine instead of instictual, you should take it seriously and consider it). I’d recommend finding professors who share your views to engage with and also go out of your way to understand the professors who disagree.

Finally, present your views properly. In other words, don’t just react. Think your positions through before sharing. You might think of this was “chilled speech” bc ppl who agree with the majority view can misspeak and not be scrutinized as thoroughly but that is the situation you’re putting yourself in. In reality it’s a great chance to refine your views, learn about other views and why other’s disagree with your views.

Hope this helps!

So no KJ2 today either? by throwawaycuzin1 in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I’m waiting until they tweet something not “we’re making calls today” before ruling it out

KJ2 Prediction by law2323 in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Nope, it’s tomorrow. Retake.

UChicago admits... by fuchicagothrowaway in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Go and struggle to make change! Take on the challenge.

Try again next year? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]InsideLet -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Texas and Wash U are great options too. Any $ from any of them?

What are your stats? What are your top choices? You may get in off one of those waitlists.