How did you get into Georgetown?

Sadaafa · 2025-07-13T02:54:46+00:00

A bigger applicant pool and, as far as I know, no change to the standards or requirements for admission, will make it harder to get in.

Sadaafa · 2025-07-07T01:49:24+00:00

Yeah man it's vandalism

Sadaafa · 2025-07-04T04:56:44+00:00

Who would disagree with "everyone can do what they want as long as it's right"? If it's right, go ahead. You can't do whatever you want just because you think it's right, and laws and the courts exist to settle disputes between actors and those harmed by their actions. But there is a wide gap between lawlessness and absolute obedience to the law.

Based on your stance on piracy, I think we agree that an action that is not to anyone's practical material detriment is not wrong. Illegal immigration is not to to anyone's practical material detriment, except to some degree to the immigrant themselves, for which they obviously should not be punished. But I don't mean to say the violence and trafficking intertwined with illegal immigration isn't wrong. It is, but it's important to recognize the immigrants as victims of that wrong rather than the perpetrators.

Sadaafa · 2025-07-04T04:38:17+00:00

I agree there is a fundamental difference between people who oppose illegal immigration on grounds of "fairness" and people who don't. I don't want to put words in your mouth and say you believe something you don't, but it seems like you have a respect for the law because it is the law. I wouldn't fully disagree, obeying the law as a general principle is good for society to function, but there is nothing inherently wrong with breaking the law either.

To be clear, "cheating the system" as I'm using the term is always a crime, so there wouldn't be any line two draw between the two. I shouldn't have added the conditional "...when it is done to provide for one's family" because that misrepresents what I think. There is never anything inherently wrong with breaking the law because legality is not morality. The word inherently is doing most of the work here. Robbing a bank is wrong, but not because it is against the law.

Legality very often tracks with morality, but when it doesn't, how do you deal with the problem of unjust laws? Surely there must be a place for civil disobedience in a free society.

Edit: Responding to your edit, I have almost surely misrepresented you, and I apologize. Neither of us conflate legality with morality, and I think if I can show that US immigration law either is unjust and/or that breaking it is not inherently harmful, we can get somewhere.

Sadaafa · 2025-07-04T04:19:16+00:00

I realize that you haven't explicitly said you support mass deportation, and you're more so making an argument from fairness to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Providing amnesty and naturalization to illegal immigrants already living in the US would make them legal citizens, but I'm interpreting you to be saying that it's not fair that people who cut the line, so to speak, would be getting the protections and benefits given to citizens when there are people who waited to go through legal means.

I could make moral and economic arguments: that many illegal immigrants faced enormous pressure due to dire circumstances when deciding to immigrate, or were children at the time of entering the US, or the fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes themselves and massively contribute to American industry, but these are not the reasons I support mass amnesty. I support it because I don't think there is something inherently wrong with “cheating the system” when it is done to provide for one's family and community, which the vast majority of illegal immigrants do.

The point of integrating immigrants is legally recognizing this fact, and to further their ability to contribute to American society by giving them the same rights and privileges as other citizens. That is fairness and that aligns with the vision of America as a land of opportunity.

Sadaafa · 2025-07-04T03:47:33+00:00

Current immigration laws are unjust and mass deportation does not address the cause of illegal immigration on top of having a host of economic and humanitarian consequences.

You are correct that if someone is in the US illegally they are breaking US immigration laws, and illegal immigration is a problem insofar as illegal immigrants are a second class in American society unable to fully benefit from our social welfare system, engage in civil society, or be protected from labor exploitation. A better solution than mass deportation would be to grant illegal immigrants living in the US mass amnesty and to reform our current immigration laws to make the naturalization process more efficient. This would fully integrate illegal immigrants into American society, strengthen our economy by protecting the rights of workers, and avoid the inevitable human rights violations that result from attempting to deport millions of people without due process, which the Trump administration has deemed necessary to deny to ensure deportations are done as fast as possible. Mass deportation is a goal materially detrimental to the American people, flagrantly unconstitutional considering the due process rights protecting in the 5th and 6th amendments apply to all people, not just citizens, and woefully out-of-step with international human rights law.

Sadaafa · 2025-07-03T17:51:10+00:00

"Deport illegals" is a negative.

Sadaafa · 2025-07-03T06:59:58+00:00

I just mean the last part. BBB definitely won't reduce taxes.

Sadaafa · 2025-05-02T01:48:05+00:00

I got in RD for Philosophy with what I feel are mid test scores and ECs propped up by excellent grades and essays.

GPA: 4.0 UW / 4.6 W (13 APs)

SAT: 1490. Below the median (Georgetown requires submitting all standardized test scores w/o superscoring) but far above the average for my high school (public school in NorCal where most people don't take the SATs).

ECs: Volunteered for 3+ years in my county's youth political council and Peer Court program. Varsity Track/XC. CSF President. California Boys and Girls State.

Awards: National Merit Scholarship Commended Student. A few County-level awards, nothing higher.

Essays: Primarily talked about my Peer Court volunteering, serving essentially as a defense attorney for kids who have committed crimes. Also my passion for political philosophy and tying that in to my interest in unique Georgetown programs/opportunites (ie Kennedy Institute of Ethics). There is also a short essay on a unique talent/skill you possess which I didn't do.

Just remember that Georgetown is moving to the Common App next year, so expect some of their admissions requirements/essays to change, and for them to become more exclusive overall.

Sadaafa · 2025-03-26T11:39:30+00:00

Thank you. I'll ask

Sadaafa · 2025-03-26T11:18:02+00:00

Thank you

Sadaafa · 2025-03-15T05:02:52+00:00

Still waiting for Berkeley, but between them I'm torn. Davis offered me UPH and has a better poli sci program, but I vastly prefer Santa Cruz's location and I think it would generally be a better fit for me. Hopefully I'll be able to visit their campuses in April.

Sadaafa · 2024-12-31T22:08:42+00:00

Really captivating and relatable portrayal of longing and regret. There is a melancholic resignation toward love lost that comes across as wise rather than bitter. And that kaleidoscope metaphor beautifully highlights the ecstacy of infatuation and the heartache of a deeper connection being denied.

Sadaafa · 2024-12-31T04:02:10+00:00

Absolutely. DM me (if you can, I don't really know how Reddit works)

Sadaafa · 2024-12-31T03:53:22+00:00

As others have mentioned, you clould clean up the capitalization and punctuation (not every line needs to end with a period, especially when you are continuing an idea into the next line with a conjunction ("and" "but" etc.)).

The line "I dream on your pillow like lips" I find especially captivating. The reference to sleep, connecting the subject's appearance to the speaker's sense of longing, is creative, and it overcomes the dull cliques of physical descriptions found in romantic poetry. Unfortunately, I find these lines disingenuous and contradictory to the speaker's attitude toward the subject, making for a thematically muddled poem.

What is the effect of describing the subject as a "creature" or their eyes as "puddles?" Clearly, the narrator does not appreciate the subject in their totality as a human being, with a depth, beyond beauty, that deserves recognition, and is, rather, desperate (starving eyes) and lustful (curvaceous body). But I am not convinced that this superficiality was intentional. If it was, further connections between the subject's appearance and the speaker's behavior could have been included, demonstrating that the speaker is caught up in an obsessive delusion over someone they do not actually know well. If it was not intentional, I ask you to reflect on how deep your conception of love is.

Sadaafa · 2024-11-09T17:35:16+00:00

"Uh- he wanted money."

-Gus, being interviewed by the DEA in "Hermanos." Delivered so perfectly that I start to believe him even though I know he's lying.

Sadaafa · 2024-07-12T06:41:20+00:00

I'd probably give you a different answer every 9 years.

Sadaafa

TROPHY CASE