Lawyers really don’t provide anything of value life. Passing the bar is all about memorizing things that you never use in practice. Doctors need to be intelligent. Lawyers just need to recall precedence of work other people thought of first.
The easiest profession to lower the bar in because it’s mostly politics and favors.
It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about.
#ipassedthefirsttime
Right. They waived you through because you could dance.
That, my innate sense of rythm, and my swarthy good looks.
It also helped that they knew about my hot temper and didn't want to tangle with an angry Cuban looking at taking the bar exam for the second time.
Lawyers really don’t provide anything of value life. Passing the bar is all about memorizing things that you never use in practice. Doctors need to be intelligent. Lawyers just need to recall precedence of work other people thought of first.
The easiest profession to lower the bar in because it’s mostly politics and favors.
It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about.
#ipassedthefirsttime
So you didn't need lower standards? You should tell the woke Californians
Is this a serious question Race? You've known me for now over 20 years. You know that my self-esteem is well intact and how I feel about standards.
Why would that be a serious question? I was illustrating a point
It should be an insult to you that California thinks you need lower standards.
Affirmative action, though well intended as a concept, is a crippling and, yes, insulting policy.
Sure, if I were on the admissions committee somewhere, and I were evaluating candidates, I'd consider their backgrounds. A kid who graduates from Andover is simply going to be better prepared than 95% of the kids who graduate from public high school or some middling parochial school. It's almost axiomatic.
So if I see a kid from, say, Aberdeen who did really well and whose test scores indicate that he can hang, I'm probably going to give him the nod over a kid from Exeter whose grades and scores are similar, even though I know the Exeter kid will do better in the short term.
But to simply have lower standards based on race, across the board, is beyond problematic. Show me a kid who has fought their way out of something, and I will give that kid a + on his application because that shows me something. But don't just check a box and expect me to put that kid at the top of a pile.
I wrote a paper on why affirmative action is a bad policy as an undergrad, and my liberal English professor liked it so much he referenced it in my letter of recommendation for law school. He noted that he disagreed with my views, but that the paper challenged him. So then when I was at admitted students day at Penn Law (where I was going to attend), the dean of admissions pulls me aside and tells me about the letter of recommendation, and how he was surprised that a Latino student would take that angle on things. Mind you, he's talking to a kid (me) he admitted and who graduated from a respectable university with very high grades and scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT. So, yeah, it's undermining of one's credibility.
Lawyers really don’t provide anything of value life. Passing the bar is all about memorizing things that you never use in practice. Doctors need to be intelligent. Lawyers just need to recall precedence of work other people thought of first.
The easiest profession to lower the bar in because it’s mostly politics and favors.
It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about.
#ipassedthefirsttime
So you didn't need lower standards? You should tell the woke Californians
Is this a serious question Race? You've known me for now over 20 years. You know that my self-esteem is well intact and how I feel about standards.
Why would that be a serious question? I was illustrating a point
It should be an insult to you that California thinks you need lower standards.
I know. I was joking. It absolutley is an insult to me.
Comments
It also helped that they knew about my hot temper and didn't want to tangle with an angry Cuban looking at taking the bar exam for the second time.
It should be an insult to you that California thinks you need lower standards.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jul/30/hundreds-become-lawyers-in-washington-state-withou/
Sure, if I were on the admissions committee somewhere, and I were evaluating candidates, I'd consider their backgrounds. A kid who graduates from Andover is simply going to be better prepared than 95% of the kids who graduate from public high school or some middling parochial school. It's almost axiomatic.
So if I see a kid from, say, Aberdeen who did really well and whose test scores indicate that he can hang, I'm probably going to give him the nod over a kid from Exeter whose grades and scores are similar, even though I know the Exeter kid will do better in the short term.
But to simply have lower standards based on race, across the board, is beyond problematic. Show me a kid who has fought their way out of something, and I will give that kid a + on his application because that shows me something. But don't just check a box and expect me to put that kid at the top of a pile.
I wrote a paper on why affirmative action is a bad policy as an undergrad, and my liberal English professor liked it so much he referenced it in my letter of recommendation for law school. He noted that he disagreed with my views, but that the paper challenged him. So then when I was at admitted students day at Penn Law (where I was going to attend), the dean of admissions pulls me aside and tells me about the letter of recommendation, and how he was surprised that a Latino student would take that angle on things. Mind you, he's talking to a kid (me) he admitted and who graduated from a respectable university with very high grades and scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT. So, yeah, it's undermining of one's credibility.
What was your question again dean dickhead?