« Bad Sculpture... Of PLEASURE | Main | My Life, EatFoo »

Hi,

This has nothing to do with yuor current post and everything to do with your current educational pursuit.

I am seeking advice for law school entry. G-town happens to be my first choice. I really, really want to attend Georgetown because of it's academic program, reputation and location but my GPA isn't stellar and I have yet to take the lsat (dec or if i have to again in feb '07). I think people don't want to share their gpa's because, at least in my case, i feel they will judge me and think I'm "dumb" if it's low. The fact of the matter is, it may be reflective of challenging courses one has taken. I attended NYU and at first took the "I wand to be a doctor" path. I took hard sciences like Organic chemistry and didn't do so well while at the same time taking intermediate Economics courses that were difficult for me as a first year student at NYU. I took on way too much at once and ended up with a 3.26/4.00 gpa which isn't great. This insecurity stopped me from applying for the past 2 years of my life because I thought, what's the point? If I don't have a great gpa I should just drop it all together but I've realized that I should still shoot for it because in the end, this is what I want to do with my life. I want to practice law and affect real change in people's lives through the legal system. Since i've graduated, i've worked for 2 non-profits and in the corporate sector too and am now a producer at a major online newspaper. I also am a minority; i'm of pakistani descent and i am a female muslim woman. I do have other experiences worth mentioning including involvment in a successful online startup company and am currently on my disctrict's committee of minotiry affairs that reports to the state supreme court. I could on..

In any case, I'd really appreciate any advice on your part since you went through this process and are in my top school of choice. Do at least sound like someone who has a shot at getting into Georgetown (of course i'd have to well on the lsat)?

thanks

Posted by: sarah at November 9, 2006 1:28 PM

i meant my "county's committee of minority affairs" and excuse mis-spellings etc. i typed in a hurry. again, i'm willing to take any advice you give me. i don't know any g-town law graduates to get answers from.

Posted by: sarah at November 9, 2006 1:36 PM

Is your headline a reference to Christopher Hitchens' book? You ever read him?

Posted by: Zhubin at November 9, 2006 5:01 PM

Welcome to the club!

Posted by: Jacob at November 9, 2006 5:46 PM

Zhubin, nope, never read Christopher Hitchens, though I have been hearing his name a lot lately. Does he seem to have similar views?

Anyway, I think it's no surprise that I'm opposed to whomever is in power. It's the job of satire to attack the status quo. As a satirist by nature and, occasionally, by trade, it makes sense that my mind would work in such a way as always to be objecting to political status quo.

Posted by: David Barzelay at November 9, 2006 6:37 PM

Sarah, the best answer is just that it depends. A 3.26 GPA doesn't put you out of the running, by any means, but at what college did you get that GPA? If it was at Princeton, it's not bad. If you were at the University of West Georgia, it probably won't do much for you. But if you get a 178 on your LSAT, you'll probably get in either way. If you get a 160, you probably won't get in either way. So like I said, it just depends.

Posted by: David Barzelay at November 9, 2006 8:01 PM

Barzy,

I am personally very surprised at what I learned from this post, though you coming from rural Seffner (the red area of Hillsborough County) and attending a HS known for its Ag program probably influenced your politics. Anyhow, I find it interesting that many people choose a political party and then mold their views to that party. I think everyone is capable of and should exercise free thought. Unfortunately, too many people everywhere don't take the time to think... not only about electoral issues and politics, but also about everything else.

Now I am not sure what to say about you taking a contrarian’s stance, but I am the first to realize that this Democratic victory has only meant for more Blue Dog Democrats, which the pessimists call "Republican-light" and the optimists call "moderates." I myself was very skeptical about what this "victory for America really was." But, Barzy you fail to mention that Rumsfeld's resignation---directly related to this huge victory. And now the Dems really have an opportunity to prove that they stand for something and can hold the GOP administration accountable.

Anyways, your contrarian’s stance remains unclear to me. Does it mean you would vote GOP in 2010 if the Dems held on to the Congress and took the White House? Does it mean that your views are shaped in opposition to "the man"? What it seems to me is that you have libertarian tendencies, but your political maturation that started in college never completed, and perhaps your current antipathy towards many issues is demonstrative of that...

Anyhow, I told you I would comment when you wrote a good thinking piece/political note. So I think I've written enough for now. Let's not make this blog post a rarity!

-Z-

P.S. When were you going to tell the random Paki Muslim girl that commented on your blog about the Muslim Law Students Association and the Pakistani Law Students Association at Gtown Law (and the Pakis that go there)???

Posted by: Zeeshan at November 9, 2006 8:58 PM

Democratic ideals and actual democrats in power are two very different things. I think you can call yourself a democrat if you believe in stereotypical party beliefs (like the public programs, social equality, etc.). Just because the democrats in office straddle the line between parties and thus, you disagree with them, that doesn't mean you aren't a democrat. It's more that they're not democrats. But...it's one of those things about politics - whether it's true or just an idea that someone had and everyone ran with - people think they have to be moderate to win...so then they play that card. It's politics. I don't think I've ever been truly excited about a politician even if I'm truly excited about party platforms in general. So I'm a democrat, but I hate politicians. Now, if you disagree with the party lines, then you may not be a democrat - but you're not really a contrarian either because if someone in power DID actually act on the values and goals that you think are important, you'd probably be excited.

Posted by: Cara at November 10, 2006 1:39 AM

Right, Cara, but the Republican party ideals are also quite nice. And I'm a contrarian because my natural impulse is to be dissatisfied and annoyed with whomever is in power, no matter what they do.

And Z, if the Dems had the Executive and both houses of Congress, it doesn't mean that I'd vote for the GOP in 2010. It would take longer. It isn't that I would suddenly like the GOP policies, it's that Dem power would eventually, after, say, 10 years or so, cause them to shift into something very different. And the GOP would shift in order to counter them. In other words, the party not in power always shifts into the antidote for the party in power.

I think most people who are educated, politically aware, and unencumbered by silliness like religion are contrarians. They recognize the problems with the status quo before the rest of the country does, and so they're always siding with the party not in power.

Right now, it's apparent that most of the country has recognized that the Bush administration sucks. In 2004, that was not the case. My parents (who are fairly intelligent, but not particularly politically aware) now say that there is no way they will vote for a Republican in 2008. But in 2004, one of them voted Bush and the other didn't vote. They aren't part of that elite class of contrarians who recognize the problems early and align themselves with the solution.

For the foreseeable future, I'm likely to be voting Dem. But I predict that in, say, 2016, if the Dems have been in power since then, Republicans will no longer be the crazy, religious, facially corrupt, warmongering idiots they are now. The base will be the same, but the bulk of a political party is never its base. Rather, it is the pragmatic bulk who wisely hold no allegiances and switch affiliation whenever the current situation calls for it.

When a party is in power, its insane fringes get amplified while its reasonable bulk gets lost. When it's down, the opposite is true.

Posted by: David Barzelay at November 10, 2006 3:23 AM

Thanks for commenting on my post. I went to a decent undergraduate college; not as great as Princeton but definitely more respectable than the other university you mentioned. I'll just have to do really well on the LSAT which won't be easy.

Zeeshan, you shouldn't call Pakistani's "paki" because it's derogatory. Also, I'm a Pakistani Muslim American Woman not a random paki girl.

thanks

Posted by: Sarah at November 10, 2006 3:04 PM

I have to be a voice of bad news by saying that liberalism is in hibernation for the foreseeable future. There is an argument to be made that progressivism is merely liberalism in motion and is more of a vehicle for driving the country back across the incredible amount of terrority the Right was able to move us over during the past 26 years.

However, the truth is that liberalism has not been a viable political reality for a very long time. Carter was hardly liberal; he was -more- liberal than Clinton, for instance, but to find a true liberal you're going to have to go back to Lyndon Johnson. His spending was untennable and it was his hardnosed approach (you should read about how he absolutely tore Goldwater to pieces in their contest, if you haven't) and vast spending that created the environment for labels of tax and spend to so haunt the Dems for so long.

I think it would be more appropriate at this point to discuss politics in terms of idealism and realism. Ideologically I am as far left as you can go without giving up showering, single housing and meat. Politically, however, I have to be willing to accept that my ideals are not going to be realized without operational and demographic shifts that will only occur as the Democrats rebuild their party structure and our grandparents' and parents' generation die off.

You and I may never see gay marriage made viable; but the generation after us may. I hope to see it go the way of interracial marriage prohbitions in another 20 years, but am not sure that it will happen until we are the oldest and therefore most conservative generation. As the "Greatest" generation dies off and the milennials move into the booth in their place we will see a dramatic shift in social policy; hopefully enough to move social issues back in a liberal direction.

Incidentally, Bush has been the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long time. He not only killed Reagan's legacy (as if 18 year olds these days know what that is) but has effectively driven young voters into blue terrority. Demographics 18 - 26 voted Dem by a margin of 22%. That is above the typical margins for that demographic.

Finally, though, I dunno what I'm trying to say. Contrarianism is a political positioning with a long American history and we need malcontents in order to stimulate ideological growth and then death. But I would just caution you not to burn out in a long winter for liberalism. Because we liberals are not going to be 100% happy with the progressive era; that era, however, is one of reparation for the damages wrought by conservatives over the past 26 years. Perhaps later in life we can give up things such as contrarianism and a schizophrenic ideal/realistic political duality.

I hope so, anyway, and will now stop rambling. :D

Posted by: Jacob at November 10, 2006 4:41 PM

Please delete all of my comments from before including this one. Thanks.

Posted by: Sarah at November 10, 2006 5:33 PM

Hitchens wrote a book titled "Letters to a Young Contrarian," where he basically pontificates on the meaning of being anti-power.

He's famous, most recently, for being a rascible leftist who suddenly broke with the Left over the Iraq War. He firmly supported it and since then has been bosom buddies with Wolfowitz and co. He writes frequently for Slate and Vanity Fair, if you want to check out his writings. Very eloquent, but a very controversial guy.

Posted by: Zhubin at November 10, 2006 6:23 PM

Barzelay, you're not a contrarian...you're an idealist. I read your post and I don't hear someone who dislikes those in power because they are in power. I hear someone who dislikes those who fall short of their ideals. You don't argue for the opposition for the sake of being devil's advocate. You argue against what you see as the shortcomings of the party in power.

Me, I think I've grown less idealistic over time...and yet more committed to actual change. I recognize the flaws in the current Democratic party and I'm still glad they won. First, the views of Americans are so varied that no party of pure ideology is going to win...and thus no party of pure ideology is going to make much of a difference. (Third parties can make some difference, but it is at best indirect....influencing the "first" 2 parties to shift a little bit.) Second, things are going to be better under a Democratic Congress than they would be under a Republican Congress. I don't believe a Democratic Congress is going to be so swift to erode our civil liberties, to take just one example. Another example, I believe a Democratic Congress is going to be more aggressive in pursuing sound environmental policy.

At some point, I may respond to your "unencumbered by silliness like religion" crack, but for now let me just say that THIS Evangelical Democrat is willing to be pragmatic. The lesser of two evils is still beter.

Posted by: Ben at November 11, 2006 10:33 AM

Idealist? Perhaps, but I still think that no matter who was in power, and no matter how well they were doing, I'd still shift toward those not in power. I'd still be the contrarian.

And I think that you'd be the first to admit that faith is often manipulated for political gain.

Posted by: David Barzelay at November 11, 2006 6:36 PM