<p>Well TD, I guess that winning streak will have to begin with the Sun Bowl!</p>
<p>OT: From your lips to God's ear. Not that the rest of my scenario is happening either.</p>
<p>Beatings happen and USC has a huge talent advantage though I like the way UCLA head coach Karl Dorrell is building a solid program from the bottom up.</p>
<p>However, I've got a few things to say about USC head coach Pete Carroll. Aside from letting bad characters stay on the team as long as they can play--just check out the arrest records for things like assault, possession of dealer quantity amounts of Ecstasy, rape, etc., charges that get dropped later when "witnesses decline to testify" or the University's own private police decide "insufficient evidence", etc.--you have a coach who goes for it on 4th-and-10 when leading by 40 and 4th-and-1 when leading by 50, does an on-side kick when leading by 30+...what a classless @sshole.</p>
<p>I won't say there have never been taunts at SC at the Rose Bowl when UCLA had its eight-game winning streak against them in the 1990's (duh!) but there was never anything like the organized chants yesterday from the band & student section of U-C-L-A-Sucks!</p>
<p>USC football fans and their program are, with individual dispensation given, one of the biggest collection of arrogant @ssholes involved with NCAA sports...and when you consider the SEC schools, that's saying something. </p>
<p>What goes around comes around. Wiser people in politics learn that no victory is forever. Some folks in college football need to absorb the same lesson.</p>
<p>Fwiw, we (who sat in the 82nd row of the endzone) and the approximately 117 other UCLA fans that stayed until the clock read 0:00, should get free t-shirts that say "We're not as bad as Colorado."</p>
<p>Btw, CD, I do think that Oregon has been screwed out of an at-large BCS bid. The Pac-10 gets in the ear or somewhere else again. For something like four years out of five.</p>
<p>The first thing that strikes me on this thread is that Sakky has no clue what he is talking about. Stanford is significantly more selective than Harvard. Stanford has a 7.7% acceptance rate whereas Harvard has a 11.6% acceptance rate. A basic understanding of statitstics shows that less than 8 out of every 100 applicants to stanford get in...nearly 12 in every 100 get into harvard. The number of applications means very little...the fact that Harvard receives more applications than Stanford actually exposes the fact that it is significantly less selective.</p>
<p>Yale reads every application. The dean lets a couple in, rejects the majority, and sends about a 1000 of the mushy middle candidates to the faculty readers. The faculty (3) rates each application on a scale from 4-12. The 12s get in, most of the 11s get in, 10s get waitlisted/rejected and everyone below gets rejected.</p>
<p>Go to a state school if you wanna go to HYS, get a high GPA, knock the hell out of the LSAT, get a truman or rhodes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
get a truman or rhodes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whence does one purchase this 'Truman' or 'Rhodes'? Is it next to the low-fat milk?</p>
<p>Undergrad or law school?</p>
<p>Harvard Law is bigger. So if it receives more applications, it's not necessarily less selective. The measure of selectivity is not in acceptance rate or number of applications, although those are decent proxies for selectivity; rather, the measure is the quality of the admitted candidates. </p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>You already have two intelligent women - although one of them is freezing in the snow. :p</p>
<p>You could write a novel every two years - just string all those CC posts together! ;)</p>
<p>If you're smart enough to get into HYS, then you should be smart enough to garner a rhodes/Truman/Marshall if you start working on it your freshman year.</p>
<p>In which Stanford clearly has the more accomplished students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're smart enough to get into HYS, then you should be smart enough to garner a rhodes/Truman/Marshall if you start working on it your freshman year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really?! Only twenty students of the entering class won either a Rhodes, Truman, or Marshall fellowship. Surely you do not mean to argue that the entire entering class is capable of it.</p>
<p>of course they are capable of it; most HYS applicants don't apply for one. </p>
<p>The suggestion was that if you want to be a sure in at HYS, those were the things to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
of course they are capable of it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not a sound generalization; sure, most of the entering class may be intelligent enough to earn such fellowships, but not all.</p>
<p>Perhaps I am arguing over a triviality; however, earning such fellowships is no easy task. The fellowships certainly would reserve a spot for you at a top law school, but earning them is Byzantine and arduous, with a dubious likelihood of winning at best.</p>
<p>My post was directed at students who were beginning their freshman year in the hopes of getting into HYS. If one starts working on getting one their freshman year, and they have the prerequisite intelligence, then it isn't really that difficult...especially if they go to a regular school where the in campus competition to get nominated is less difficult. </p>
<p>Ultimately, it really doesn't matter to me, though. I'm just trying to help people who are going through the app season right now as I am.</p>
<p>you mentioned Truman, Rhodes and Marshall scholarships, but would Fulbright fellowships be significant in law school admissions, or really only the ones you mentioned?</p>
<p>Aries, there's more to a novel than just stringing words together in volume, alas.</p>
<p>Taken from a critical pov, the novel I'm working on isn't very good. Looked at from another point of view, it's extremely, umm, novel and will stir passions if it acquires a readership.</p>
<p>("Not very good" in the same way that THE DAVINCI CODE isn't very good. Possibly a little better in some ways, not as good as even that in others, and sui generis in a third.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If one starts working on getting one their freshman year, and they have the prerequisite intelligence, then it isn't really that difficult...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For Rhodes, much more than sheer intelligence is required.</p>
<p>Marshall scholarships require a degree, thus students who are applying as seniors are ineligible.</p>
<p>You can apply for a marshall as a senior.</p>
<p>NSPEDs: Please re-read my post. I don't know if you're just posting pointless information or responding to something I didn't say....</p>
<p>And Fulbrights are impressive, but not as highly regarded as Rhodes/Marshall....If you get one and you have a decent GPA/LSAT then I say you have an awesome shot at HYS though.</p>
<p>For those of you who would like a more in depth discussion of these topics and more <a href="http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org%5B/url%5D">www.lawschooldiscussion.org</a> is a great resource and discussion board for law school applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I've got a few things to say about USC head coach Pete Carroll. Aside from letting bad characters stay on the team as long as they can play--just check out the arrest records for things like assault, possession of dealer quantity amounts of Ecstasy, rape, etc., charges that get dropped later when "witnesses decline to testify" or the University's own private police decide "insufficient evidence",
[/quote]
You are talking about Eric Wright, their former starting cornerback. Charges were dropped(but I don't see what that has to do with Pete Carroll), and that player is no longer with the team. Your point? </p>
<p>
[quote]
etc.--you have a coach who goes for it on 4th-and-10 when leading by 40 and 4th-and-1 when leading by 50
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're a little confused. It's considered good sportsmanship to go for 4th down in a blowout. You give the opponent's defense a chance to stop you instead of just tacking on more points with a field goal(which would be considered classless). Every team is supposed to and does either punt or go for 4th down when they're leading in a blowout, it's just the way the game is played. if you watch more college football games, you'll see what I'm talking about.</p>
<p>sorry, this is a little off topic. but i just wanted to clear some things up with pete carroll.</p>
<p>No, I'm talking about Rey "I Own the Police" (witness statement at scene) Maualuga in beating a kid in the head outside a party last month.</p>
<p>Your idea of sportsmanship is crap. But then I think few associated with your school these days have much of an idea of what the word means.</p>
<p>Oh, and I suspect I've been watching college football games longer than you've been alive.</p>
<p>Nearly all big-time college football programs have some less than desirable characters on the team. I know Oregon has had their fair share, as has UCLA. And then there is infamous Dennis Erickson recruiting in Miami-Dade County Jail.</p>
<p>What I resent is all of the no-in-good-fun name calling and belligerence I see in the stands. I have attended all manner of game, Pac-10, pro, and otherwise, and I shudder at the things I see young kids being exposed to. It is just a shame.</p>
<p>Ehh... Everyone knows who's winning the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>HOOK 'EM HORNS!</p>