Jump to content
VitalGiraffe

Thoughts on whether schools like hearing about your political experiences?

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, artsydork said:

Basically, if your understanding of the left is what the above posters believe, or if your understanding of the right is that they're all literally hitler, you probably want to leave politics out of anything. If you're capable of understanding even some nuance, then keep it in.

Law schools DGAF about your political affiliation. Most of law school was Big L and Big C. 

 

I certainly don't agree with caricatures of any political party. I don't agree with my party 100% and I think that's true for any reasonable person. In my personal statement I'm going to focus on how my involvement has changed me as a person and how my views have evolved from my experiences. It is a 'personal' statement after all, so I'm going to make it about myself, not the policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VitalGiraffe said:

I certainly don't agree with caricatures of any political party. I don't agree with my party 100% and I think that's true for any reasonable person. In my personal statement I'm going to focus on how my involvement has changed me as a person and how my views have evolved from my experiences. It is a 'personal' statement after all, so I'm going to make it about myself, not the policies.

That's a good plan! Your PS isn't the place to write a political manifesto but rather showing who you are as a person and how you've grown. Best of luck! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VitalGiraffe said:

I certainly don't agree with caricatures of any political party. I don't agree with my party 100% and I think that's true for any reasonable person. In my personal statement I'm going to focus on how my involvement has changed me as a person and how my views have evolved from my experiences. It is a 'personal' statement after all, so I'm going to make it about myself, not the policies.

Then it sounds like a good experience that you can speak about with a strong understanding of how to tie ECs into a personal statement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 2:11 PM, artsydork said:

Basically, if your understanding of the left is what the above posters believe, or if your understanding of the right is that they're all literally hitler, you probably want to leave politics out of anything. If you're capable of understanding even some nuance, then keep it in.

Law schools DGAF about your political affiliation. Most of law school was Big L and Big C. 

 

Firstly, I would say that there is a big difference between liberal and left. Universities tend to be liberal places, however, in certain parts of the arts it is very much on the left. I even said in my post that “it is not likely to eliminate you from consideration but that it is possible.” I would say that my understanding of the left is relatively representative (by this I mean that surverys of views among faculty along with my experiences point to 50-60% of professors in sociology being marxist or postmodern, another approximately 20% have views that they think others consider extreme). I was pointing out that this attitude isn't uncommon, I'm not picking on some guy from Stony Brook University, and 2 guys/gals at NYU. These are common ways of viewing the world in Academia, of course there is diversity among these views, there are Neo-Marxists, post-structuralists etc. I know that people in other sociology courses have had experiences along these lines in other universities beside u of t in Canada and America. You appear to view liberals as being a part of the left, while I say there are liberals and there are leftists, I separate them and I realize my post didn’t make that clear and I shouldn’t of expected a reader to have known that I do that because, well no one knows me on here. I’ve read foucalt, Derrida etc. I know the jargon, it’s easy to manipulate as you can see with Sokol. I never insinuated that the entire left was like this as you seem to falsely assume. I was speaking to the idea that now a days it is more likely to have people dislike you, or people’s opinion be biased against if they associate you with conservative ideas, or principles. Mine was a risk-averse perspective, adding party may hurt and probably won’t help so I wouldn’t put it. This is probably coloured by my experiences, like people insinuating I was racist because I was white and asked a person of colour about their background. I may very well overestimate the probability of similar phenomenon occuring in different circumstances, but like I said when it comes to such matters I take a very risk averse perspective. 

Edited by humbledman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, humbledman said:

 

I'm wondering why you keep bringing up sociology. Do you think its particularly relevant to law school in some way?

I understand your point about people's biases, but I do not think I agree that it is very relevant to the scenario. I think law faculty are comprised of very intelligent people who are aware of their own biases and can set them aside when reviewing applicants. Anecdotally I know a decent amount of law students from across the political spectrum in many schools. Some of them are conservative in social justice-oriented schools, some are very liberal in more conservative schools. I've listened to the podcast hosted by the deans of Yale and Harvard's law schools. Both agreed that they actively try to create ideologically diverse classes to prevent lectures from being echo chambers and to promote debate. I went to an event hosted by admissions officers at my uni shortly before covid where they made similar remarks.

So I understand the point you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, VitalGiraffe said:

I'm wondering why you keep bringing up sociology. Do you think its particularly relevant to law school in some way?

I understand your point about people's biases, but I do not think I agree that it is very relevant to the scenario. I think law faculty are comprised of very intelligent people who are aware of their own biases and can set them aside when reviewing applicants. Anecdotally I know a decent amount of law students from across the political spectrum in many schools. Some of them are conservative in social justice-oriented schools, some are very liberal in more conservative schools. I've listened to the podcast hosted by the deans of Yale and Harvard's law schools. Both agreed that they actively try to create ideologically diverse classes to prevent lectures from being echo chambers and to promote debate. I went to an event hosted by admissions officers at my uni shortly before covid where they made similar remarks.

So I understand the point you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree.

I brought up sociology because it’s the area of life where this tends to occur and there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent on the right in university or else I would use them as an example as well. It does have relevance about applying to law school because we have actual people who would eliminate you based on party and we are uncertain about the views of the proportion admissions officers. It can be something that changes your decision, just like in another forum they talk about how firms choose candidates from school. I'm not going to get technical but there is a way of viewing these decision making processes, for example for the discussion on whether or not the school is important for hiring to the employers you can use signaling theory. You can use some fundamental ideas to make decisions, and given our lack of information I go with a precautionary principle. Bringing up Sociology helps illustrate my point - which is that I wouldn’t take the chance because there is a possibility of being rejected and it would tend to be by people who use similar theories as those in sociology. It helps show that there is an air of reality to saying one shouldn’t risk it, I say this because there may be some people who completely exclude this possibility. I also think it depends on how borderline you are, for me my gpa is very high (still waiting on the LSAT) and I would be paranoid because my GPA (excluding the LSAT) would be good enough to get in so I don’t think a personal statement would get me into law school but just have the chance of eliminating me (this is assuming my LSAT will be average or better for the entering class). 

Edited by humbledman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so people know I identify as liberal. I think it’s that I had study groups and class discussions where people say things like if you believe in free markets (regulated market, not completely free) you support white supremacy and patriarchy and that the professors support this and while not everyone goes along with it a decent portion of students do. That I hear them call people who believe in some conservative things as stupid and laugh at them. I think this is the reason why I bring this up and have the opinion of being wary with telling people political beliefs or leanings. I mean I hear things from conservatives as well, libtards, stuff like that but it’s not nearly to the same degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, humbledman said:

Just so people know I identify as liberal.

So does Dave Rubin and Tim Pool.

It's the in vogue way to self-identify for "enlightened centrist" right-wingers who (unconvincingly) want to maintain some guise of neutrality or objectivity while exclusively or almost exclusively ranting and raving about "the left."

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

So does Dave Rubin and Tim Pool.

It's the in vogue way to self-identify for "enlightened centrist" right-wingers who (unconvincingly) want to maintain some guise of neutrality or objectivity while exclusively or almost exclusively ranting and raving about "the left."

Do people actually believe Dave Rubin is a liberal or centrist? 😅

Love watching political commentators from both sides and it is just so obvious he's a closet conservative. Kind of reminds me of Joe Rogan who claims to be a liberal/democrat but has really libertarian viewpoints lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CleanHands said:

So does Dave Rubin and Tim Pool.

It's the in vogue way to self-identify for "enlightened centrist" right-wingers who (unconvincingly) want to maintain some guise of neutrality or objectivity while exclusively or almost exclusively ranting and raving about "the left."

Well I voted liberal, I think racism is an important factor to conquer, I believe in free markets that are well regulated (dumping laws, consumer protections etc.). I believe in subsidized daycare to increase female labour supply, that we have big problems with sexual assault against women etc. I guess I,m a David Rubin or Tim Poole whoever that is,  I will admit I do not agree with a lot of post modernism, though I do see their fundamentals as valid, about grand narratives, that morals have a subjective nature, that power can play a role in knowledge etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can’t identify the right wing elements of universities (there’s an entire disastrous school of economic thought known as the Chicago School) that’s on you bud.

Of course sociology has a left wing bent. It’s about understanding people and their behaviour. What’s a right wing sociology course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy and violent because of the colour of their skin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, humbledman said:

Well I voted liberal, I think racism is an important factor to conquer, I believe in free markets that are well regulated (dumping laws, consumer protections etc.). I believe in subsidized daycare to increase female labour supply, that we have big problems with sexual assault against women etc. I guess I,m a David Rubin or Tim Poole whoever that is,  I will admit I do not agree with a lot of post modernism, though I do see their fundamentals as valid, about grand narratives, that morals have a subjective nature, that power can play a role in knowledge etc. 

Wow, you think that racism and sexual assault are bad. What hot takes. 🤣

The fact that those and your belief in free markets (with some minor caveats where regulation is clearly required) make up the bulk of your examples of how you're totally not a right-winger kind of proves my assessment correct.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Wow, you think that racism and sexual assault are bad. What hot takes. 🤣

The fact that those and your belief in free markets (with some minor caveats where regulation is clearly required) make up the bulk of your examples of how you're totally not a right-winger kind of proves my assessment correct.

I guess access to abortion, increasing the supply of subsidized housing, increasing microfinance etc are all indicative of right wing. My point was people on the right typically say they (racism, sexism) play a minor role in life outcomes, while I think they are much more than minor. Either it proves the assessment right or it doesn't, but how does it "kinda" prove it? Do you mean support?

Edited by humbledman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

If you can’t identify the right wing elements of universities (there’s an entire disastrous school of economic thought known as the Chicago School) that’s on you bud.Togy course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy and violent becauseehof the colour of their skin?

"disastrous" that's quite an exaggeration, they showed many of the flaws of Keynesianism during stagflation. This played a pivotal part in making the ideas (post-Keynesianism, neo-Keynesian) stronger and improving them, now imagine if that didn't happen.... you know COVID-19, the way we put money into the system is so much better now than how the Keynesians used to do it. Because they had to greatly improve due to the Chicago school. Milton Friedman in the 70's proposed carbon taxes, an idea that is only being implemented 50 years later, this view of the world is why they got rid of the draft for the military. Fama greatly increased our knowledge of financial markets, these ideas helped our economy boom. Yes common sense has to be implemented, regulation is important, we shouldn't let big banks make bets with 33 to 1 leverage. They were advocating for the legalization of marijuana, where sadly many people were incarcerated and had their lives ruined. Yes there are shortcomings in the school, economics is extremely complex and relationships that seemed to explain things 30 years ago don't now, we have way more information and it has improved tremendously, whether you like it or not they helped improve the whole area of economics. Another thing about economics, a continuing trend since the Lucas critique has been it has become very empirical, econometrics is extremely sophisticated and they do pay attention to evidence. These things can be disproven, whereas with the postmodernists you can't disprove them because the theories are largely rational. Economics you live and die by the evidence now a days, the theory must be falsifiable. Postmodernism you create another rational construct in your mind.

Edited by humbledman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

If you can’t identify the right wing elements of universities (there’s an entire disastrous school of economic thought known as the Chicago School) that’s on you bud.

Of course sociology has a left wing bent. It’s about understanding people and their behaviour. What’s a right wing sociology course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy and violent because of the colour of their skin?

Are you implying conservatives do not have the capacity to understand people and their behaviour, from a sociological perspective? Also your take on how a con would view why people is poor is laughably stupid and quite uneducated. A modern day con would typically make the argument that a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions whereas a lib would say that societal/external forces create the conditions that create these terrible outcomes. 

When I hear libs make that characterisation its almost as bad as when I hear cons yell communist at any hint of a social safety net program.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 5:29 PM, erinl2 said:

I can't see a problem mentioning it in law school applications. However, I can't seeing it being more of an advantage than any other EC or community participation during undergrad.

As for job interviews, it's unlikely to be of much benefit and, in some circumstances, may be a detriment. ;)

This is a sound view. 

I'd also like to add, be cautious to not over emphasis this particular matter in a personal statement. Try and incorporate other valuable experiences and attributes of yourself into a personal statement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

What’s a right wing sociology course going to look like? People are poor because they’re lazy[...]?

7 minutes ago, 76th said:

Also your take on how a con would view why people is poor is laughably stupid and quite uneducated. A modern day con would typically make the argument that a person is poor because of their bad free will decisions

How are these any different 

Edited by masterofnut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, humbledman said:

"disastrous" that's quite an exaggeration, they showed many of the flaws of Keynesianism during stagflation. This played a pivotal part in making the ideas (post-Keynesianism, neo-Keynesian) stronger and improving them, now imagine if that didn't happen.... you know COVID-19, the way we put money into the system is so much better now than how the Keynesians used to do it. Because they had to greatly improve due to the Chicago school. Milton Friedman in the 70's proposed carbon taxes, an idea that is only being implemented 50 years later, this view of the world is why they got rid of the draft for the military. Fama greatly increased our knowledge of financial markets, these ideas helped our economy boom. Yes common sense has to be implemented, regulation is important, we shouldn't let big banks make bets with 33 to 1 leverage. They were advocating for the legalization of marijuana, where sadly many people were incarcerated and had their lives ruined. Yes there are shortcomings in the school, economics is extremely complex and relationships that seemed to explain things 30 years ago don't now, we have way more information and it has improved tremendously, whether you like it or not they helped improve the whole area of economics. Another thing about economics, a continuing trend since the Lucas critique has been it has become very empirical, econometrics is extremely sophisticated and they do pay attention to evidence. These things can be disproven, whereas with the postmodernists you can't disprove them because the theories are largely rational. Economics you live and die by the evidence now a days, the theory must be falsifiable. Postmodernism you create another rational construct in your mind.

There you go @CleanHands, you were right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, masterofnut said:

How are these any different 

 

 

I was mainly referring to the race baiting comment, which you casually removed from your comment.

Too often I see both the left and right make arguments using premises that involve extremes and it's just so cringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 76th said:

I was mainly referring to the race baiting comment, which you casually removed from your comment.

Too often I see both the left and right make arguments using premises that involve extremes and it's just so cringe.

Is that the same as the comment about violence that you didn't directly respond to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I was accepted by Western this cycle with with a 3.08 cGPA and a 3.65 L2 (and a 167 LSAT). Mind you, I also have 2 masters degrees and got an A- average in both (both were course-based). I think cGPA does matter, but they account for how long ago your undergrad was and what you've done since then, and whether you've proved that you could probably do better if you were given another chance (and ergo succeed in law school). 
    • Hi, are there any LLM applicants for the year 2021/2022 who received an admission e mail from Dalhousie? My application was completed on 31st March 2021 and waiting for a reply from the University. Just wondering whether any one of you guys have an update.    Thank you!!!
    • There are a lot of municipalities in Canada. City of Toronto hires a few articling students (most of their lawyers are former articling students and they rarely hire from outside though), along with Region of Peel, York Region, and some others I've seen. For federal government, there is only really the DOJ Legal Excellence Program. The municipalities also hire junior lawyers and I've seen quite a few postings in York Region and the surrounding areas. The process is a lot faster than the federal government which can take over a year from the time you apply. The federal government rarely hires junior lawyers outside of its articling students and federal court clerks. And you often see mid-level lawyers applying for LP-01 positions with the federal government and going through a written exam and interview processes just to end up in a waiting pool. I know people who applied in 2019 for the most recent DOJ LP-01 recruitment process and were put into a waiting pool which is scheduled to expire soon, after which point you have to apply all over again. So getting your foot in the door is a lot harder than it is for municipal and provincial. Certainly, getting into provincial is easier than municipal as there are a lot more legal positions available as well. 
    • Hey I'm a bit late here but I can give you my personal experience. It is quit the contrary of what your expectations seem to be. I did 3 years CEGEP and a 4 year Undergrad (just because I took my time). I spent some time managing a restaurant, then started a law certificate in the evening, then law school. I thought I would be disadvantaged because my background was so far away form the classic path to Biglaw. I will be 28 when graduating. I just did my Course aux stages and got 4 offers, while having a 3.65 GPA. First, they don't care about your age. If you have done anything productive in the past 10 years, it will be a great advantage to you in the interviews, because you might have more to say than anyone else. Find a way to highlight your maturity/leadership or whatever it is you have developed while others were in high school. I had a lot of misconceptions about a supposed prejudice towards older candidates, but I can assure you they don't really care. Get involved in whatever gets you going and be passionate about something. Good luck!

×
×
  • Create New...