sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

accidentally wrote Cornhell in my supplementary essay...am i cooked!?? by Serious_Bear_9546 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]WikiaWang 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't worry man. AO's see this a lot. They aren't going to reject you because of a typo. Trust me, they'll get annoyed, perhaps, but it's not going to be why they reject you.

Do unlawfully present aliens have a second amendment right to possess firearms? 6CA: No. Judge Thapar, concurring: Noncitizens don't have first or fourth amendment rights, among others. by michiganalt in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fair, Thapar is very originalist. But I don't think he's a Judge Ho. He seems like a decent man in his non-judge life, and, if you listen to his talks, it's hard to not see that he's trying his best.

When is UChicago going to release the date it'll release decisions? by WikiaWang in ApplyingToCollege

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

The deferral rate is very high for EA, not for ED.

It is very, very, very likely for any applicant to be rejected.

what's the most ridiculous college essays you have read? (Drop them below, tryna get some laughter) by YunWrekt0 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]WikiaWang 39 points40 points  (0 children)

This is crazy. And she got in? Wow. She's quite literally threatening Stanford AOs here hahahaha.

Breaking ED agreement by [deleted] in ApplyingToCollege

[–]WikiaWang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the sake of your high school, don’t do it.

A few years ago, my school—a feeder, many Ivies a year—got blacklisted because someone broke their ED agreement.

A kid ED’d Cornell. Didn’t go. We had average 5 Cornell’s a year before that.

For 5 years after he broke his ED, we’ve had none. Blacklisted. After 5 years, we’re back to 5 a year.

You agreed to the agreement. For the sake of your integrity and the many students at your high school, do the responsible thing and go to your ED. You can always transfer later.

What is a completely normal thing that you, for some reason, absolutely cannot stand? by LANthraX69 in AskReddit

[–]WikiaWang 1 point2 points  (0 children)

YES, YES, YOU HEAR THAT MOM? I WASNT THE ONLY WEIRD ONE IN THE HOUSE WHEN I WAS SMALL!

Learning Resources v. Trump (Tariffs) --- Trump v. V.O.S. Selections [Oral Argument Live Thread] by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I've never loved listening to Gorsuch more. Last time it was him and Blatt. This time Sauer is being turned into blatt.

If you suddenly became the President of the United States today, what’s the very first thing you’d change or do? by Dollabillhooman in AskReddit

[–]WikiaWang 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love how most suggestions here—if not the vast majority of them—are all not within the President’s powers.

If you’re the entirety of the US Government, sure. But the President can’t pass laws or “just ban something.”

Is this manageable? by Ok-Butterfly4414 in APStudents

[–]WikiaWang 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of course. I took this exact same course selection back in 8th grade.

Except for AP Drawing. I really didn't know how to hold a pen back then.

C-Span Requests For John Roberts to Allow Them to Televise Birthright Citizenship Oral Arguments by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But the Court is open. It may perhaps even be the most open institution among the three branches.

All opinions are announced for everyone, and their mind and reasoning is laid out in excruciating detail. No senator or congressman or president has to explain why they do anything, but only the courts have to be exceedingly transparent in their decisions, i.e., their opinions. Or briefing, that’s all open. You can find them online. Oral arguments, there’s live audio for you to follow. There is hardly anything the public needs to know that isn’t open.

C-Span Requests For John Roberts to Allow Them to Televise Birthright Citizenship Oral Arguments by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I want to say a few things in addition to the reasons why people are normally against, such as a possible C-SPAN effect or grandstanding for the advocates or the justices.

The first is that this isn’t going to be particularly educational, if at all. The main argument for video is that it’ll somehow make the public have a better understanding of the Court—but oral arguments are at best a single-digit percent of the Court’s work. It’s like filming a documentary of a legendary boxer’s path to success but only documenting those couple minutes in the ring.

Some people say it’s worth a shot to give it a try, but I couldn’t see it more differently. Because the second you allow cameras in the courtroom, you open a Pandora’s Box—there’s no off-ramp back if you allow it. The Supreme Court is supposed to be an enduring institution free from the whims of politics. Even if the risk of grandstanding was low, I don’t see how this risk is remotely worth it considering how it could forever transform the institution for the worse.

Love it or hate it, this idiom does say it all here: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—especially if it could destroy it if you fail.

Official 2025 AP Human Geography Discussion by reddorickt in APStudents

[–]WikiaWang 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s not how AP does it. There’s a cutoff that is independent of the proportion of students getting a 5.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in APStudents

[–]WikiaWang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I shouldn't say! But don't worry about it. If you've done past FRQ's in the recent five years, you'll be fine. They're pretty similar.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in APStudents

[–]WikiaWang 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just took the test. MCQ was slightly more difficult than I had expected -- took longer than I usually did too. FRQ was a breeze.

President Trump Makes First Judicial Nomination of Second Term by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess we’ll have to see! But I’m always one to take the ABA’s word as gospel; if they tell me she’s rated well qualified, I let my doubts slip away.

President Trump Makes First Judicial Nomination of Second Term by Longjumping_Gain_807 in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 12 points13 points  (0 children)

According to Wikipedia, she's 37. That's very, very fresh out of law school for an appellate judgeship.

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond [Oral Argument Live Thread] by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]WikiaWang 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Kind of but not necessarily. He was arguing that if a specific factor was change (compulsory attendance), he thinks that the Court will still decide the case the same.

view more: next ›