We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Looking for a proper discussion instead of throwing shade at any individual or scholarship. Just curious.
2. People from financially well-off backgrounds have had better opportunities coming to the point of making the scholarship today.
3. People from minority groups - whether religious, but also ethnic, linguistic, social - have had either 'real' (read personal) or 'perceived' (read as part of group) lived-realities/difficulties.
4. People from financially well-off, minority backgrounds having had (i) better opportunities previously are now able to (ii) utilize their real or perceived lived-realities to 'sell' (read demonstrate) a rounded candidate who has 'done well despite the difficulties.' Hence, they are able to secure funding.
PS: All of this is based on your word that those financially well-off minority students somehow vastly out do financially well-off 'majority' group candidates.