UBC admissions wokeness

[CBay]

On 5/9/2022 at 11:52 AM, Whysolong said:

General?  Sorry to hear that. Genuinely insane some of the people that have been rejected or waitlisted...

Judging by the profiles of the incoming class, I am entirely convinced that UBC admissions rejected students if they weren't woke enough in their personal statements, 170+ LSATs be damned. 

[Rashabon]

5 hours ago, CBay said:

Judging by the profiles of the incoming class, I am entirely convinced that UBC admissions rejected students if they weren't woke enough in their personal statements, 170+ LSATs be damned. 

🙄

[cherrytree]

5 hours ago, CBay said:

Judging by the profiles of the incoming class, I am entirely convinced that UBC admissions rejected students if they weren't woke enough in their personal statements, 170+ LSATs be damned. 

Anecdotally, UBC was the first school to give me an offer when I applied back in 2017. I got the offer in December as part of the first wave. I wrote my personal statement about my experience doing a business degree in undergrad, what I've learned working for the financial services industry after undergrad, and how all those things connect to my decision to pursue a legal education. None of my personal experiences was related to social justice, other than participating in school clubs that raised money for local shelters or charities. I did not go out of the way to profess any ideals, woke, un-woke, social justice related or pointedly anti-social-justice. I told my story in a way that was both entirely truthful and setting me up for my best shot of being admitted, nothing more to it.

From what I recall, years of personal stats shared on the old forum also show that great stats alone do not make you a shoo-in for every single school, especially in more recent years as high LSAT scores seem to have become more prevalent among applicants.

To any future applicants reading these posts for substantive information, I strongly caution you against playing up "wokeness" in your personal experiences or essays, as if that would somehow increase your chances of acceptance. Don't do it if that angling is not what works best with your actual experiences.

[Patient0L]

7 hours ago, CBay said:

Judging by the profiles of the incoming class, I am entirely convinced that UBC admissions rejected students if they weren't woke enough in their personal statements, 170+ LSATs be damned. 

True. I wrote a three-word statement: “Defund the police.” Got in with a 145. 

Edited August 6, 2022 by Patient0L
ETA: 💀

[Philosophy]

3 hours ago, cherrytree said:

Anecdotally, UBC was the first school to give me an offer when I applied back in 2017. I got the offer in December as part of the first wave. I wrote my personal statement about my experience doing a business degree in undergrad, what I've learned working for the financial services industry after undergrad, and how all those things connect to my decision to pursue a legal education. None of my personal experiences was related to social justice, other than participating in school clubs that raised money for local shelters or charities. I did not go out of the way to profess any ideals, woke, un-woke, social justice related or pointedly anti-social-justice. I told my story in a way that was both entirely truthful and setting me up for my best shot of being admitted, nothing more to it.

From what I recall, years of personal stats shared on the old forum also show that great stats alone do not make you a shoo-in for every single school, especially in more recent years as high LSAT scores seem to have become more prevalent among applicants.

To any future applicants reading these posts for substantive information, I strongly caution you against playing up "wokeness" in your personal experiences or essays, as if that would somehow increase your chances of acceptance. Don't do it if that angling is not what works best with your actual experiences.

Just wondering but back in 2017 was there an equity / diversity statement question? 

My understanding is that the above question (which is #3 out of 3 required essays) was added recently like within the last 2 years. I could be wrong though.

I don't believe that UBC is so progressive to the point where you could get in purely with woke essays, but it does seem like it's leaning more and more left than it was in 2017. 

[123]

2 hours ago, Patient0L said:

True. I wrote a three-word statement: “Defund the police.” Got in with a 145. 

I wrote Black Lives Matter, then everybody clapped. My LSAT score was a gender neutral bathroom. 

Edited August 6, 2022 by realpseudonym

[cherrytree]

41 minutes ago, Philosophy said:

Just wondering but back in 2017 was there an equity / diversity statement question? 

My understanding is that the above question (which is #3 out of 3 required essays) was added recently like within the last 2 years. I could be wrong though.

I don't believe that UBC is so progressive to the point where you could get in purely with woke essays, but it does seem like it's leaning more and more left than it was in 2017. 

I dug up my old files and here's what I have saved from the 2017 UBC personal statements guideline:

Quote

 

Generally, the purpose of the personal statement is to provide the Admissions Committee with any information an applicant considers relevant to the consideration of her or his application. The Admissions Committee would like to see several kinds of information from you in order to make its decision.

• First, if your academic performance in some limited period was affected by a short-term medical condition or other circumstances, information about this should be provided, along with supporting documentation.
• Second, a personal statement should also highlight those aspects of your personal history that enhance your application. For example, a personal statement should set out the relevant information about: academically related extra-curricular activities, community involvement, work (both paid and volunteer) experience, parental or caregiver responsibilities, and relevant personal characteristics and attributes.
• And lastly, the Admissions Committee is particularly interested in you telling us why you want to study law, what makes you well-suited to the study of law (e.g., the particular skills, interests and/or experiences you have), and what contributions you think you would make to the Allard School of Law.

 

So as you can see it was a completely different format back then, no distinctly separated sub-questions as are found in the current format. I agree that the distinct, specific question for applicants to discuss equity and diversity suggests a shift in the rubric, so to speak. I can't imagine a candidate having much chance to succeed if they simply submit "I have no thoughts on the matter because I don't consider it important to my legal education" for the third question, regardless of stats, but on the other hand, waxing poetic about equity and diversity to the point of insincerity might not get you far either.

[StephenToast]

10 hours ago, CBay said:

Judging by the profiles of the incoming class, I am entirely convinced that UBC admissions rejected students if they weren't woke enough in their personal statements, 170+ LSATs be damned. 

Below is an excerpt of what I wrote for the equity and diversity part of my application to UBC for the 2021 cycle. Not "woke" by any means, I still got in.

Quote

3. Tell us about how equity and diversity have mattered in your life. This could include identifying your own experiences as a member of one or more groups that have historically faced systemic barriers to equal educational and other opportunities and/or discussing the ways in which you have engaged with these issues in your education, employment or relationships with others.

[Explanation of my own background and past experience living in different and diverse places.]

Equity and diversity mattered in my life because I live in it. I understand well that reasonable people can hold dramatically different and incompatible values. I live in a diverse environment and have the fortune to be consistently treated with equity by those around me. As far as I understand it, I have faced no discrimination or systemic barriers on account of my origin or social-economic status, though I do not discount the possibility that I am simply far too unobservant to know that I have been discriminated against.

Despite embodying it, I have not substantially and critically engaged with the issue of equity and diversity beyond affording respect equally to all those around me. I would like to change this during my legal studies. While I would have loved to leverage my ethnic origins to show that I closely align with the Peter A. Allard School of Law’s strategic plan to “celebrate, support and promote the importance of diversity, equality, equity, Indigeneity and a respectful and inclusive community to a vibrant law school,” it would have been dishonest of me to say more than what I already have.

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by StephenToast

[123]

29 minutes ago, StephenToast said:

3. Tell us about how equity and diversity have mattered in your life. This could include identifying your own experiences as a member of one or more groups that have historically faced systemic barriers to equal educational and other opportunities and/or discussing the ways in which you have engaged with these issues in your education, employment or relationships with others.

[Explanation of my own background and past experience living in different and diverse places.]

Equity and diversity mattered in my life because I live in it. I understand well that reasonable people can hold dramatically different and incompatible values. I live in a diverse environment and have the fortune to be consistently treated with equity by those around me. As far as I understand it, I have faced no discrimination or systemic barriers on account of my origin or social-economic status, though I do not discount the possibility that I am simply far too unobservant to know that I have been discriminated against.

Despite embodying it, I have not substantially and critically engaged with the issue of equity and diversity beyond affording respect equally to all those around me. I would like to change this during my legal studies. While I would have loved to leverage my ethnic origins to show that I closely align with the Peter A. Allard School of Law’s strategic plan to “celebrate, support and promote the importance of diversity, equality, equity, Indigeneity and a respectful and inclusive community to a vibrant law school,” it would have been dishonest of me to say more than what I already have.

“Dearest UBC:

Social justice, you say? Sure, I’ll like and subscribe.

Yours truly,

Mr. Stephen Toast”

[cherrytree]

(also trying really hard not to dwell on the realization that 2017 is 5 years ago -- where has the time gone???)

[Patient0L]

1 hour ago, StephenToast said:

3. Tell us about how equity and diversity have mattered in your life. This could include identifying your own experiences as a member of one or more groups that have historically faced systemic barriers to equal educational and other opportunities and/or discussing the ways in which you have engaged with these issues in your education, employment or relationships with others.

This is what I wrote:

Equity is extremely important in my life, which is why, at UBC, my mortgage payment will be deducted from my bank account semi-monthly. The part of this payment that goes to the principal balance will reduce the amount I owe on my home loan and build my equity.

Through the passage of time, and pre-authorized debit, I am confident I can achieve this very important objective.

Additionally, law school will be critical to further advancing my ongoing devotion to equity. In addition to my demonstrated semi-monthly commitment, I aim to surpass my previous efforts by applying a portion of my interest-free student loan directly to my principal balance.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Patient0L
Sorry: Dad joke.

[StephenToast]

1 hour ago, Patient0L said:

This is what I wrote:

Equity is extremely important in my life, which is why, at UBC, my mortgage payment will be deducted from my bank account semi-monthly. The part of this payment that goes to the principal balance will reduce the amount I owe on my home loan and build my equity.

Through the passage of time, and pre-authorized debit, I am confident I can achieve this very important objective.

Additionally, law school will be critical to further advancing my ongoing devotion to equity. In addition to my demonstrated semi-monthly commitment, I aim to surpass my previous efforts by applying a portion of my interest-free student loan directly to my principal balance.

Hey you only addressed equity, you need to diversify your portfolio too!

[SlytherinLLP]

13 hours ago, CBay said:

Judging by the profiles of the incoming class, I am entirely convinced that UBC admissions rejected students if they weren't woke enough in their personal statements, 170+ LSATs be damned. 

It's not THAT hard to "do the work", become an "ally", acknowledge privilege or argue sombreros at Halloween are "problematic". Well anyway that's what the privately schooled BIPOC2+ student director of the D&I association taught me.

Edited August 6, 2022 by SlytherinLLP

[Patient0L]

1 hour ago, StephenToast said:

Hey you only addressed equity, you need to diversify your portfolio too!

Crap! That’s prob why I waitlisted until July!

[CBay]

5 hours ago, cherrytree said:

I dug up my old files and here's what I have saved from the 2017 UBC personal statements guideline:

So as you can see it was a completely different format back then, no distinctly separated sub-questions as are found in the current format. I agree that the distinct, specific question for applicants to discuss equity and diversity suggests a shift in the rubric, so to speak. I can't imagine a candidate having much chance to succeed if they simply submit "I have no thoughts on the matter because I don't consider it important to my legal education" for the third question, regardless of stats, but on the other hand, waxing poetic about equity and diversity to the point of insincerity might not get you far either.

Precisely right. By answering the question in a way that is satisfactory to the admissions committee, you’re de facto implicitly agreeing with their premises. 
 

Also, it’s quite telling to note the responses to my initial comment about the DEI shift. The only ones replying to it here with snarky jokes are those with pronouns in their can law forum bios. Others are simply noting the shift and discussing it. Not that I have an issue if someone had particular pronouns that they want used, but I have an issue with the *culture* of conformity that seeks to mock those who disagree with their necessity. And that’s what makes me worry about the direction UBC is going in. 

[CBay]

4 hours ago, StephenToast said:

Below is an excerpt of what I wrote for the equity and diversity part of my application to UBC for the 2021 cycle. Not "woke" by any means, I still got in.

 

You literally said that you embody DEI. 
 

I just can’t. 

[Philosophy]

I'm getting my popcorn ready!!

[pastmidnight]

 

37 minutes ago, CBay said:

Precisely right. By answering the question in a way that is satisfactory to the admissions committee, you’re de facto implicitly agreeing with their premises. 
 

Also, it’s quite telling to note the responses to my initial comment about the DEI shift. The only ones replying to it here with snarky jokes are those with pronouns in their can law forum bios. Others are simply noting the shift and discussing it. Not that I have an issue if someone had particular pronouns that they want used, but I have an issue with the *culture* of conformity that seeks to mock those who disagree with their necessity. And that’s what makes me worry about the direction UBC is going in. 

Considering you were only admitted because the discretionary category exists, you do realize that your admission to Allard boils down to others deciding that a category that considers equity and diversity factors is a necessity, right? Like you're entitled to feel the way you do, but I find it odd that someone who has benefited from a category that considers marginalization and other forms of hardship seems to wish admissions was less ~*woke*~ across the board. 

[StephenToast]

24 minutes ago, CBay said:

You literally said that you embody DEI. 
 

I just can’t. 

I did not say I embody DEI, I said I live in a diverse place and people have generally been treating me equitably, hence "I live in [equity and diversity]." I took out the first paragraph of my statement because it was filled to the brim with personally identifying information, but it also gave context to the paragraphs that I did post. My apologies.

Anyway, I think there's a difference between being "woke enough" and passively respecting DEI, aka not being a bigot. I would maintain that saying "I have not substantially and critically engaged with the issue of equity and diversity beyond affording respect equally to all those around me" does not count as performing wokness for the AdComm. If anything, me saying I did fuck all about DEI demonstrates a profound lack of wokeness. In woke terminology, "silence is violence."

To be clear, I have nothing against UBC seeking out applicants who have a passion for the values of DEI, nor did I use woke as a pejorative. (Though I do profoundly dislike performative wokeness and people lobbing social buzzwords at each other, but that's neither here nor there.) I posted the excerpt from my personal statement simply to rebut your allegation that UBC would reject an applicant with a 170+ LSAT if they "weren't woke enough in their personal statements."

[CBay]

2 hours ago, pastmidnight said:

 

Considering you were only admitted because the discretionary category exists, you do realize that your admission to Allard boils down to others deciding that a category that considers equity and diversity factors is a necessity, right? Like you're entitled to feel the way you do, but I find it odd that someone who has benefited from a category that considers marginalization and other forms of hardship seems to wish admissions was less ~*woke*~ across the board. 

This reply demonstrates both a complete ignorance of the discretionary category and its range of purposes, and of what ‘wokeness’ is more generally. 
 

Not that it’s any of your business, but my discretionary application had nothing whatsoever to do with diversity or equity considerations. Moreover, my comments expressed a broader concern about the direction Allard’s culture is heading, and was never intended to be about the individual student(s) being admitted. Your reply does little to assuage those concerns. 

[Rashabon]

3 minutes ago, CBay said:

This reply demonstrates both a complete ignorance of the discretionary category and its range of purposes, and of what ‘wokeness’ is more generally. 
 

Not that it’s any of your business, but my discretionary application had nothing whatsoever to do with diversity or equity considerations. Moreover, my comments expressed a broader concern about the direction Allard’s culture is heading, and was never intended to be about the individual student(s) being admitted. Your reply does little to assuage those concerns. 

You're starting off on a bad foot demonstrating reading comprehension. They didn't suggest that the discretionary category related directly to diversity or equity considerations. It was pointing out that you benefited from an alternate set of criteria that the general pool of admissible students did not.

In any event your complains lack merit, both in terms of assumptions about UBC's student body but also the complaint as a whole. You come across as a dumbass Peterson fan which is a terrible look.

[pastmidnight]

Because of special factors in life, an applicant may not satisfy one or more of the requirements for the General applicant categorys, but may have other relevant achievements and experience. The Admissions Committee has the discretion to respond to this type of situation by considering factors such as disability or special needs, financial disadvantage, membership in a historically disadvantaged group, and any other factors that the applicant wishes the Admissions Committee to consider. They may have other relevant personal achievements, work experience, contributions to their community, or personal challenges in their lives that are extraordinary and would not normally be experienced by other applicants to the law school. The process by which the Admissions Committee reviews these Discretionary category applications is designed to provide the opportunity for applicants of this nature to receive individual and exceptional scrutiny of their special circumstances for these candidates to be able to join and contribute to the richness and diverse nature of the academic community and ultimately to the practice of law in the society that is served by the Allard School of Law. 

https://www.calendar.ubc.ca/vancouver/index.cfm?tree=12,207,358,326

You would very likely not have been successfully admitted if this category, which was designed to increase diversity in the student body, did not exist. It doesn't matter why you applied in it. You still benefited from this category existing. If you applied discretionary because you are a mature student, which Allard encourages people to do, then I regret to inform you that age is an equity consideration, and the fact that you were waitlisted in the discretionary category means you probably wouldn't have  been competitive in the general category had you decided to apply there. Sorry. 

Based on the comments you've made, you are going to find every law school in the country too woke for your tastes. I was not going to comment on your lack of reading comprehension, which I'd noticed in other responses you'd made, but now that Rashabon has, I will say that I don't see the point in engaging further with someone who is seemingly incapable of understanding what others are saying. Good luck in law school, cause you're going to need it. 

[CBay]

2 hours ago, StephenToast said:

Anyway, I think there's a difference between being "woke enough" and passively respecting DEI, aka not being a bigot.

I posted the excerpt from my personal statement simply to rebut your allegation that UBC would reject an applicant with a 170+ LSAT if they "weren't woke enough in their personal statements."

So either you’re “woke enough” or a bigot?

See, this is the attitude I have a problem with. Treating everyone with respect =\= wokeness. Engaging in and using woke terminology is not required to be a decent human being. 
 

At any rate, I guess my point is that I could see in your personal statement a number of lines that demonstrate a certainly friendliness to the DEI notions of late, which you’ve confirmed in your reply. That’s totally fine. But if someone didn’t do that, and instead showed some disagreement, I think that would reflect poorly on that candidates admission chances. 170 LSAT or not. 😂 

2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

You're starting off on a bad foot demonstrating reading comprehension. They didn't suggest that the discretionary category related directly to diversity or equity considerations. It was pointing out that you benefited from an alternate set of criteria that the general pool of admissible students did not.

In any event your complains lack merit, both in terms of assumptions about UBC's student body but also the complaint as a whole. You come across as a dumbass Peterson fan which is a terrible look.

The alternate set of criteria you speak of is available to anyone though. Not just a certain subsets of the population. 
 

And I’m not sure what you’re on about in your second paragraph. I don’t see how me pointing out an objective change in the admissions process can “lack merit.” You can look up the essay requirements in 2017 vs now yourself. They’re different. This difference reflects a change in outward-facing institutional values. No need to get rude over someone pointing that out. 

[Hegdis]

3 hours ago, CBay said:

The only ones replying to it here with snarky jokes are those with pronouns in their can law forum bios. Others are simply noting the shift and discussing it. Not that I have an issue if someone had particular pronouns that they want used, but I have an issue with the *culture* of conformity that seeks to mock those who disagree with their necessity. And that’s what makes me worry about the direction UBC is going in. 

So obviously you wouldn't know this but it's a court directive that counsel identify their name and preferred pronouns before every court appearance in BC. And lawyers are hardly known for being "woke".

It's more of a shift to "I don't wish to be an asshole by assuming things about you so I'd like a heads up on your preferred form of address."

Back in the Good Old Days when I was a law applicant, we still had people getting outraged by the shift from "Mrs" and "Miss" to the much broader "Ms", because a woman's married status was super important to know and part of our culture and a matter of fact and not preference and feminists were just rabid about it and threatening our traditions and *gasps, clutches pearls, swoons*. I mean, you get the idea.

Anyway in ten years the idea of not using preferred pronouns in one's email signature or resume will be equally weird. Grow with the times, my friend. Best advice I can give you, and I'm not being "woke", I'm telling you as some one who is now considered to be senior counsel who attends court every single week.

[CBay]

3 minutes ago, pastmidnight said:

You would very likely not have been successfully admitted if this category, which was designed to increase diversity in the student body, did not exist.

You continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of this category. 
 

At any rate, this thread has been derailed, as @Renerik has pointed out. Let’s give it a break.